# ("Wipe off the map" XV) Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit



## abu afak

Yes, I know AhmadInJihad never said "wiped off the map" precisely, but that WAS the gist of his statement.
Now we have Yet Another iteration by another Iranian leader.

*Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel*
Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel

President Hassan Rouhan said the last year’s nuclear deal “was the cheapest way to achieve Iran’s goals and interests.”

Speaking in Tehran on Saturday at an iftar meal breaking the Ramadan fast, Rouhani said the pre-Iran nuclear-deal era is past and Iran now needs to take advantage of the new atmosphere to pursue its “national interests more than before,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

The country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for student associations to establish a “unified anti-US and anti-Zionist front” among the Muslim world’s students, Tasnim News Agency reported.

“By using advanced means of communication and in cyberspace, general campaigns can be formed by Muslim students based on the opposition to the policies of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel so that when needed, millions of young Muslim students create a big movement in the Islamic world,” he said.
Khamenei also warned against plots by enemies seeking to sabotage the country.

Separately, on Saturday, Fars News Agency reported a senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards as having said Israel’s Iran Dome anti-rocket system has vulnerabilities that were revealed in recent wars.
On a similar note, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, said on Friday “more than 100,000 missiles are ready to fly from Lebanon,” according to Tasnim.

“Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever,” he declared, saying there are “tens of thousands of destructive long-range missiles” from Islamic territories aiming at all of “occupied” Israel.

“If the Zionists make a wrong move, all the occupied territories will come under attack from dedicated fighters and, God willing, the territories will be liberated,” Salami warned.

On Friday, Rouhani accused Western powers of trying to exploit differences between the world’s Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims to divert attention from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, state television reported.
[.......]​`


----------



## HenryBHough

And up rode Obama on a sparkling white horse handing Iran the tools and time to make the 100,000 into 200,000.

But don't despise Obama - that would be racist. 
It's OK, though, to hate the friggin' horse. 
Guess why.


----------



## aris2chat

*Missiles Everywhere*
The Weekly Standard (blog)-Jun 9, 2016
_Hezbollah_ has a nasty collection of more than 130,000 rockets, _missiles_, ... terrorist organization based in _Lebanon_ and a puppet of the Iranian regime. ... "But suppose _Hezbollah_ launches an advanced _missile_ like the M-600 ...


----------



## LenKeis

Which is greater threat to world peace? Iran with 100,000 Russian reject conventional missiles vs.  ISISrael with 400 plus nuclear missiles pointed 360 degrees - you do the math.


----------



## The Great Goose

I can't see how Israel will last.

If the west keeps declining, no one will be able to stop the arabs taking their land back.


----------



## aris2chat

The Great Goose said:


> I can't see how Israel will last.
> 
> If the west keeps declining, no one will be able to stop the arabs taking their land back.




arab land?  It was Ottoman land and then British Mandate land.

UN offered the arab/palestinian's a state and the arabs states refused


----------



## The Great Goose

aris2chat said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see how Israel will last.
> 
> If the west keeps declining, no one will be able to stop the arabs taking their land back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arab land?  It was Ottoman land and then British Mandate land.
> 
> UN offered the arab/palestinian's a state and the arabs states refused
Click to expand...

whatever. It'll go once we go. And we a goin'.


----------



## Sunni Man

aris2chat said:


> UN offered the arab/palestinian's a state and the arabs states refused


That was like if criminals (Israel) made a home invasion of your house. And the police (UN) wouldn't kick them out. But offered to let you (arabs) and your family move into the garage.  ......


----------



## Hossfly

LenKeis said:


> Which is greater threat to world peace? Iran with 100,000 Russian reject conventional missiles vs.  ISISrael with 400 plus nuclear missiles pointed 360 degrees - you do the math.


If Iran fires one missile we'll find out won't we?


----------



## aris2chat

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA13/20160322/104719/HHRG-114-FA13-Wstate-BadranT-20160322.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt393/CRPT-114hrpt393.pdf

Hezbollah Claims a ‘Nuclear Option’ in Tense Standoff with Israel


----------



## Wry Catcher

abu afak said:


> Yes, I know AhmadInJihad never said "wiped off the map" precisely, but that WAS the gist of his statement.
> Now we have Yet Another iteration by another Iranian leader.
> 
> *Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel*
> Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel
> 
> President Hassan Rouhan said the last year’s nuclear deal “was the cheapest way to achieve Iran’s goals and interests.”
> 
> Speaking in Tehran on Saturday at an iftar meal breaking the Ramadan fast, Rouhani said the pre-Iran nuclear-deal era is past and Iran now needs to take advantage of the new atmosphere to pursue its “national interests more than before,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
> 
> The country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for student associations to establish a “unified anti-US and anti-Zionist front” among the Muslim world’s students, Tasnim News Agency reported.
> 
> “By using advanced means of communication and in cyberspace, general campaigns can be formed by Muslim students based on the opposition to the policies of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel so that when needed, millions of young Muslim students create a big movement in the Islamic world,” he said.
> Khamenei also warned against plots by enemies seeking to sabotage the country.
> 
> Separately, on Saturday, Fars News Agency reported a senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards as having said Israel’s Iran Dome anti-rocket system has vulnerabilities that were revealed in recent wars.
> On a similar note, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, said on Friday “more than 100,000 missiles are ready to fly from Lebanon,” according to Tasnim.
> 
> “Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever,” he declared, saying there are “tens of thousands of destructive long-range missiles” from Islamic territories aiming at all of “occupied” Israel.
> 
> “If the Zionists make a wrong move, all the occupied territories will come under attack from dedicated fighters and, God willing, the territories will be liberated,” Salami warned.
> 
> On Friday, Rouhani accused Western powers of trying to exploit differences between the world’s Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims to divert attention from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, state television reported.
> [.......]​`



Ohio Class Subs can in minuters light up Iran and make Teheran glow for centuries.  The Iranian people are not fools - even if their religious leaders are.


----------



## aris2chat

Sunni Man said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN offered the arab/palestinian's a state and the arabs states refused
> 
> 
> 
> That was like if criminals (Israel) made a home invasion of your house. And the police (UN) wouldn't kick them out. But offered to let you (arabs) and your family move into the garage.  ......
Click to expand...



Ottoman invited jews to buy land and return to their homeland.  Even arab leaders welcomed jews return and create a homeland.
Not that many Palestinians owned land and many of them were more than willing o sell that land to jews.
Palestinians left, they were not forced out en masse.  A few thousand that were involved in terrorism.  Most left willingly at the request of the arabs and their armies.

Don't blame jews for palestinians "living in the garage".  WB & G won't even dismantle the refugee camps or let palestinians from other countries enter and live.  Arabs won't take them in either.


----------



## Sunni Man

aris2chat said:


> Palestinians left, they were not forced out en masse.


Lol.....tell me another joke.   .....


----------



## aris2chat

Sunni Man said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians left, they were not forced out en masse.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.....tell me another joke.   .....
Click to expand...



We fled not expelled
01/14 Links Pt2: 1948 Palestinian: “We Fled...They Didn’t Expel Us”; Lies about Israel, lies about Jews ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


All Media

Palestinian Authority TV: Arab leaders forced Palestinians to become refugees

Palestinian state is a 'fantasy', says son of Hamas founder

Arab Refugees from Israel


----------



## rdean

HenryBHough said:


> And up rode Obama on a sparkling white horse handing Iran the tools and time to make the 100,000 into 200,000.
> 
> But don't despise Obama - that would be racist.
> It's OK, though, to hate the friggin' horse.
> Guess why.


Why are you such a lying shit?

Lebanon is getting it's weapons from both Assad and Iran.  Both of which are Shiite.

Where did a turd, such as yourself, ever hear the word "Shiite"?  Because fucking ignorant ass Republicans, when they invaded Iraq, drove out the Sunni, creating both a new friend for Iran and giving Isis leadership when they disbanded the Iraqi military.  Republicans put Shiites in charge of Iraq and sent Sunni's to Isis.  They couldn't have caused more destruction if they had planned to fuck everything up that bad.

And now, because of the GOP, Shiites are powerful all over the Middle East.  The GOP's incredible arrogance and ignorance destabilized the entire region of the world when they empowered Shiites.  And the stupid fucks are just too damn stupid to even know what they've done.  The disaster they created.  And they try to blame their massive fuck up on Obama.  The delusional fuckheads even believe they almost had the war won when Obama let it slip away.  You can't teach these tards.  Even when the facts are "right there" in front of them.


----------



## Yarddog

HenryBHough said:


> And up rode Obama on a sparkling white horse handing Iran the tools and time to make the 100,000 into 200,000.
> 
> But don't despise Obama - that would be racist.
> It's OK, though, to hate the friggin' horse.
> Guess why.




that would be a "high horse" , wouldnt it?


----------



## Sunni Man

Fact is: The arabs were forced off their land at gun point by the jewish terrorists.

And then the stolen land was given to the zionists by the UN.  ......


----------



## aris2chat

Sunni Man said:


> Fact is: The arabs were forced off their land at gun point by the jewish terrorists.
> 
> And then the stolen land was given to the zionists by the UN.  ......



UN gave Israeli an offer of statehood before Palestinians left, except to sell their land to jews


----------



## RoccoR

et al,

The basic rule here is:  Some place, somewhere in some dingy little cubical, a military intelligence (MI) analyst for the al-Bekka Valley Region (Hezbollah Territory) and the MI Analyst for the Iran and the Persian Gulf are trading information.



abu afak said:


> Y
> On a similar note, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, said on Friday “more than 100,000 missiles are ready to fly from Lebanon,” according to Tasnim.
> 
> “Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever,” he declared, saying there are “tens of thousands of destructive long-range missiles” from Islamic territories aiming at all of “occupied” Israel.
> 
> [.......]​


*(COMMENT)*

It probably will not be in America, but originating closer.  They will be noting the landmark, the roads necessary to haul 100,000 rockets and what the ground signature na d heat plumes might look like on facilities both above and below ground.  They will be making pre-registered strike coordinates.

Theoretically, the Iranians have already violated the basic protocols for the using the threat of the use of force.

Documenting the Iranian threat to use force, is the first step in the justification of a preemptive strike. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sunni Man

aris2chat said:


> UN gave Israeli an offer of statehood before Palestinians left, except to sell their land to jews


It wasn't the UN's land to give away.    .....


----------



## RoccoR

Sunni Man,  et al,

This comes up at least twice a week.  You guys are not using the right language and so keep coming up with the same wrong answer.



Sunni Man said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN gave Israeli an offer of statehood before Palestinians left, except to sell their land to jews
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the UN's land to give away.    .....
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The territory was was taken under the care via Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty.   Article basically sets the conditions when the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic relinquished the rights and title for the territory, including what was designated as Palestine, into the hands of the Allied Powers.

Clearly, in no way shape or form does Article 16 make any consideration for the Arabs formerly under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration and place in one of the various Mandates.  

And, you are again confusing the assignment of "sovereignty" and the "civil ownership" of the land.  Don't get the two confused.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat

Sunni Man said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN gave Israeli an offer of statehood before Palestinians left, except to sell their land to jews
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the UN's land to give away.    .....
Click to expand...


It became LoN>Mandate>UN land with the break up of the Ottoman empire

Armistice of Mudros
Treaty of Sèvres
Treaty of Lausanne

By your argument no state in the middle east should exist.  The break up of the Ottoman Empire gave each country the right to exist.  No arab country should have land of their own to claim.  No arab land


----------



## Shusha

Sunni Man said:


> It wasn't the UN's land to give away.    .....



Okay.  The problem with the Arab slash Palestinian slash Muslim point of view on this forum, and often in the international community, is that they make statements like this without thinking the idea through to its logical conclusion and have only vague notions of where their thoughts might lead.  As represented here.

So, lets say we agree that it wasn't the UN's land to give away.  (And we do agree. The UN never "owned" the land, was never sovereign over the land and was required, by law, to maintain the principles of law in the transfer of sovereignty from one sovereign to another).

So whose land was it?  Who did it belong to?  Which group of people held sovereignty over that territory?  How is territory transferred from one sovereign to another?  What principles of law apply?

There is this truly odd understanding in the international community that sovereignty of the entire territory belonged vaguely to the "Arabs" who resided on some of the territory.  This despite the fact that the Jewish people also resided on some of the territory.  

So, I challenge those who would make these claims to think these claims through:

To whom did the legal sovereignty of this particular territory transfer after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (the former legal sovereign)?

I would caution you to be very, very specific in your use of language and to justify your choice of language.

Did it pass to the residents?  Define who would be considered and who would not be considered a resident.

Did it pass to the "people of the place"?  What does this mean?  Define it.

Did it pass to the groups of indigenous peoples there?  Define 'indigenous'.

Did it pass to those who owned land in the territory?  

Did it pass to the ethnic group which was the majority at the time?


Also think through your understanding of how a territory passes from one sovereign to another:

If a land is conquered, does the land pass to a new sovereign?

If a land is colonized, do the colonizers become the new sovereigns?

If a land is ethnically cleansed, does the ethnicity cleansed lose rights to sovereignty?


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Excellent questions, thank you.*



Shusha said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the UN's land to give away.    .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  The problem with the Arab slash Palestinian slash Muslim point of view on this forum, and often in the international community, is that they make statements like this without thinking the idea through to its logical conclusion and have only vague notions of where their thoughts might lead.  As represented here.
> 
> So, lets say we agree that it wasn't the UN's land to give away.  (And we do agree. The UN never "owned" the land, was never sovereign over the land and was required, by law, to maintain the principles of law in the transfer of sovereignty from one sovereign to another).
Click to expand...

I agree here also. The UN has never "owned" any land. This also applies to the LoN and by extension their Mandates. Neither the LoN nor Britain annexed or otherwise laid claim to the land under their trust.


> So whose land was it?  Who did it belong to?  Which group of people held sovereignty over that territory?  How is territory transferred from one sovereign to another?  What principles of law apply?


Land can only be transferred by treaty. In this case it was the Treaty of Lausanne.


> There is this truly odd understanding in the international community that sovereignty of the entire territory belonged vaguely to the "Arabs" who resided on some of the territory.  This despite the fact that the Jewish people also resided on some of the territory.


Using terms like "the Jews" or "the Arabs" just confuse the Issue. Some Jews and some Arabs became citizens of Palestine and the rest did not.


> So, I challenge those who would make these claims to think these claims through:
> 
> To whom did the legal sovereignty of this particular territory transfer after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (the former legal sovereign)?
> 
> I would caution you to be very, very specific in your use of language and to justify your choice of language.
> 
> Did it pass to the residents?  Define who would be considered and who would not be considered a resident.
> 
> Did it pass to the "people of the place"?  What does this mean?  Define it.


This was very specific.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
This was reiterated by the by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
There is no question to who is Palestinian. And, of course, it is the people who are sovereign inside a defined territory.



> Did it pass to the groups of indigenous peoples there?  Define 'indigenous'.


Indigenous would be a tough thing to pin down. I mean... do you go back to the cave man? Palestine was invaded and conquered many times It was the center of world trade routes for thousands of years. Many people came and went. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the people who built the cities and farmed the land. There were many hundreds of villages most of which pre-dated Ottoman times, i.e. they had been there a long time. They were Muslims, Christians, and Jews who had lived together for centuries. These are the people who legally became Palestinians by the Treaty of Lausanne.


> Did it pass to those who owned land in the territory?


Private land ownership was irrelevant.


> Did it pass to the ethnic group which was the majority at the time?


Race, religion, and ethnicity were irrelevant. Everyone was equal.



> Also think through your understanding of how a territory passes from one sovereign to another:
> 
> If a land is conquered, does the land pass to a new sovereign?
> 
> If a land is colonized, do the colonizers become the new sovereigns?
> 
> If a land is ethnically cleansed, does the ethnicity cleansed lose rights to sovereignty?


No, no, and no.


----------



## aris2chat

arabs only had to live in the mandate for two year to be able to register as palestinian in the refugee camps

did not need to be citizen


----------



## HenryBHough

Yarddog said:


> that would be a "high horse" , wouldnt it?



That would depend on how generously He shared......


----------



## Hollie

The OP seems to reinforce the absurdity of the Hizbollocks franchise of _Islamic Terrorism Intl., Inc._, being a part of the Lebanese government. 

The unilateral decision by the Iranian lackeys in Lebanon , i.e., Hizbollocks, to initiate a war with Israel back in 2006 was a disaster for Lebanon. Now, with the Hizz apparently importing iranian munitions, it makes the Lebanese parliament something of a laughable joke allowing  an Islamic Death Cult to be armed by a foreign power.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is "interpretation" is so wrong on so many levels.  Neither the Covenant or the Treaty granted any sovereignty or independence to the Arab Palestinian.



> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> This was reiterated by the by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> There is no question to who is Palestinian. And, of course, it is the people who are sovereign inside a defined territory.


*(COMMENT)*

Article 30 only impacts "citizenship;" not sovereignty.

The "territory of Palestine" and the citizenship to "Palestinian;" were the Palestine as defined in 1922 by the Order in Council.

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​Article 30 of the Treaty was meant to compliment Paragraph 2 Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922; with the Covenant, the Mandate, the Order in Council, the Legislative Council, ALL having been written by the same authorities (the Allied Powers).  ALL these various written authorities were crafted to dovetail together with the understanding of there time; AND not to square (necessarily) with the mad interpretation of of a pro-Palestinian.

"Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order."

"All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​
Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty does not trump Article 16 of the Treaty;  The Treaty does not record the transfer of all Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- only to transfer it again to another constituency.   The right to become a "citizen" under the Mandate" does not imply the granting of sovereignty or independence.   The use of the term "Palestine" does not imply the creation of any autonomous state.  The Citizenship Order of 1925 (amended several time before the war) DID NOT change the protocols under which the Mandatory operated; merely clarified them.



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> The UN has never "owned" any land. This also applies to the LoN and by extension their Mandates. Neither the LoN nor Britain annexed or otherwise laid claim to the land under their trust.


(*COMMENT)*

This is so unhelpful and poorly interpreted in terms of what was possible and what was not possible; relative to who had what authority when.  If you example the March 1946 Treaty of Alliance between the His Majesty (UK) and the Emir (Trans-Jordan), you will find  Article 1: (First Clause)

His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.​This is the corollary to the acknowledgement from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan's Official History Site:

"Between 1928 and 1946, a series of Anglo-Transjordanian treaties led to almost full independence for Transjordan. While Britain retained a degree of control over foreign affairs, armed forces, communications and state finances, Emir Abdullah commanded the administrative and military machinery of the regular government. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan."​
Here we see a practical application of how Sovereignty and Independence was granted in 1946 and relative to the Mandate of Palestine.

NONE of what you said was accurate.  If the Mandatory (UK) had not the authority over the Mandate Territory, it could not have granted Sovereignty and Independence over Trans-Jordan.   Your entire claim about the LoN, the UN and the Mandatory is just so distorted that your claim is unrepairable.  Whether or not the Mandatory "owned" any land is totally irrelevant, yet the pro-Palestinian draws that quasi-fact as if it means something.  Relative to the discussion of Sovereignty and Independence it means as much as a Bridge Bid of 3*£* _(in a game where a bid of 2♦ outranks a bid of 2♣, a bid of 3♠ outranks a bid of 3♥, a bid of 3 noTRUMP outranks a bid of 3♠).  _Your interpretation of what was possible, what was right and proper, and what was achieved and survives to this day is not on center.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *Excellent questions, thank you.*
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the UN's land to give away.    .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  The problem with the Arab slash Palestinian slash Muslim point of view on this forum, and often in the international community, is that they make statements like this without thinking the idea through to its logical conclusion and have only vague notions of where their thoughts might lead.  As represented here.
> 
> So, lets say we agree that it wasn't the UN's land to give away.  (And we do agree. The UN never "owned" the land, was never sovereign over the land and was required, by law, to maintain the principles of law in the transfer of sovereignty from one sovereign to another).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree here also. The UN has never "owned" any land. This also applies to the LoN and by extension their Mandates. Neither the LoN nor Britain annexed or otherwise laid claim to the land under their trust.
> 
> 
> 
> So whose land was it?  Who did it belong to?  Which group of people held sovereignty over that territory?  How is territory transferred from one sovereign to another?  What principles of law apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Land can only be transferred by treaty. In this case it was the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> There is this truly odd understanding in the international community that sovereignty of the entire territory belonged vaguely to the "Arabs" who resided on some of the territory.  This despite the fact that the Jewish people also resided on some of the territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using terms like "the Jews" or "the Arabs" just confuse the Issue. Some Jews and some Arabs became citizens of Palestine and the rest did not.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I challenge those who would make these claims to think these claims through:
> 
> To whom did the legal sovereignty of this particular territory transfer after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (the former legal sovereign)?
> 
> I would caution you to be very, very specific in your use of language and to justify your choice of language.
> 
> Did it pass to the residents?  Define who would be considered and who would not be considered a resident.
> 
> Did it pass to the "people of the place"?  What does this mean?  Define it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was very specific.
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> This was reiterated by the by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> There is no question to who is Palestinian. And, of course, it is the people who are sovereign inside a defined territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it pass to the groups of indigenous peoples there?  Define 'indigenous'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indigenous would be a tough thing to pin down. I mean... do you go back to the cave man? Palestine was invaded and conquered many times It was the center of world trade routes for thousands of years. Many people came and went. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the people who built the cities and farmed the land. There were many hundreds of villages most of which pre-dated Ottoman times, i.e. they had been there a long time. They were Muslims, Christians, and Jews who had lived together for centuries. These are the people who legally became Palestinians by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> Did it pass to those who owned land in the territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private land ownership was irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Did it pass to the ethnic group which was the majority at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Race, religion, and ethnicity were irrelevant. Everyone was equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also think through your understanding of how a territory passes from one sovereign to another:
> 
> If a land is conquered, does the land pass to a new sovereign?
> 
> If a land is colonized, do the colonizers become the new sovereigns?
> 
> If a land is ethnically cleansed, does the ethnicity cleansed lose rights to sovereignty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, no, and no.
Click to expand...


Okay, so even though I agree with Rocco that your arguments are incorrect, you seem to end up in the right place -- there is a defined territory with citizens (defined as all those normally resident in the territory as at August 1, 1925) who seek/sought national sovereignty as an expression of self-determinaton which fulfills the essential purpose of the Mandate. 

These citizens consist of two distinct groups of people:  the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people.  These two distinct groups of people each want national self-determination independent of the other.  This rather naturally leads to the suggestion of two States.  

So why do you argue against this so strongly?  What is your end game?  And why?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is "interpretation" is so wrong on so many levels.  Neither the Covenant or the Treaty granted any sovereignty or independence to the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> This was reiterated by the by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> There is no question to who is Palestinian. And, of course, it is the people who are sovereign inside a defined territory.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Article 30 only impacts "citizenship;" not sovereignty.
> 
> The "territory of Palestine" and the citizenship to "Palestinian;" were the Palestine as defined in 1922 by the Order in Council.
> 
> The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​Article 30 of the Treaty was meant to compliment Paragraph 2 Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922; with the Covenant, the Mandate, the Order in Council, the Legislative Council, ALL having been written by the same authorities (the Allied Powers).  ALL these various written authorities were crafted to dovetail together with the understanding of there time; AND not to square (necessarily) with the mad interpretation of of a pro-Palestinian.
> 
> "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order."
> 
> "All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​
> Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty does not trump Article 16 of the Treaty;  The Treaty does not record the transfer of all Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- only to transfer it again to another constituency.   The right to become a "citizen" under the Mandate" does not imply the granting of sovereignty or independence.   The use of the term "Palestine" does not imply the creation of any autonomous state.  The Citizenship Order of 1925 (amended several time before the war) DID NOT change the protocols under which the Mandatory operated; merely clarified them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN has never "owned" any land. This also applies to the LoN and by extension their Mandates. Neither the LoN nor Britain annexed or otherwise laid claim to the land under their trust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (*COMMENT)*
> 
> This is so unhelpful and poorly interpreted in terms of what was possible and what was not possible; relative to who had what authority when.  If you example the March 1946 Treaty of Alliance between the His Majesty (UK) and the Emir (Trans-Jordan), you will find  Article 1: (First Clause)
> 
> His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.​This is the corollary to the acknowledgement from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan's Official History Site:
> 
> "Between 1928 and 1946, a series of Anglo-Transjordanian treaties led to almost full independence for Transjordan. While Britain retained a degree of control over foreign affairs, armed forces, communications and state finances, Emir Abdullah commanded the administrative and military machinery of the regular government. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan."​
> Here we see a practical application of how Sovereignty and Independence was granted in 1946 and relative to the Mandate of Palestine.
> 
> NONE of what you said was accurate.  If the Mandatory (UK) had not the authority over the Mandate Territory, it could not have granted Sovereignty and Independence over Trans-Jordan.   Your entire claim about the LoN, the UN and the Mandatory is just so distorted that your claim is unrepairable.  Whether or not the Mandatory "owned" any land is totally irrelevant, yet the pro-Palestinian draws that quasi-fact as if it means something.  Relative to the discussion of Sovereignty and Independence it means as much as a Bridge Bid of 3*£* _(in a game where a bid of 2♦ outranks a bid of 2♣, a bid of 3♠ outranks a bid of 3♥, a bid of 3 noTRUMP outranks a bid of 3♠).  _Your interpretation of what was possible, what was right and proper, and what was achieved and survives to this day is not on center.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

This is so unhelpful and poorly interpreted in terms of what was possible and what was not possible; relative to who had what authority when. If you example the March 1946 Treaty of Alliance between the His Majesty (UK) and the Emir (Trans-Jordan), you will find Article 1: (First Clause)

His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.
This is the corollary to the acknowledgement from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan's Official History Site:​
Thank you for bringing up Transjordan. We can see that Britain (more or less) followed the LoN Covenant that led to the sovereign state of Jordan. On the flipside, Britain ignored everything except the wishes of the foreign Zionists. This did not lead to an independent state of Palestine but to a war that has been festering for a hundred. Britain ignored the Covenant, international law, and the rights of the Palestinians to pursue its colonial project with the foreign Zionists leading to the disaster we see today.

From 1923 on, therefore, until the end of Britain’s tenure in 1948, the government that functioned in Palestine was unique among League “A” mandates. Far from nurturing the local population to self-government,* it was a Crown Colony in all but name.* The high commissioner was all-powerful, with full rights to appoint, dismiss, or suspend anyone holding government office in Palestine and to sell or lease any public lands. Ultimately, Samuel and his successors were restrained by no constitutional limitations whatever as far as the nation’s inhabitants were concerned.

The British Mandate in Palestine​
I don't see anything in the post war treaties voiding the rights of the Palestinians that were universal to the other territories.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Excellent questions, thank you.*
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the UN's land to give away.    .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  The problem with the Arab slash Palestinian slash Muslim point of view on this forum, and often in the international community, is that they make statements like this without thinking the idea through to its logical conclusion and have only vague notions of where their thoughts might lead.  As represented here.
> 
> So, lets say we agree that it wasn't the UN's land to give away.  (And we do agree. The UN never "owned" the land, was never sovereign over the land and was required, by law, to maintain the principles of law in the transfer of sovereignty from one sovereign to another).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree here also. The UN has never "owned" any land. This also applies to the LoN and by extension their Mandates. Neither the LoN nor Britain annexed or otherwise laid claim to the land under their trust.
> 
> 
> 
> So whose land was it?  Who did it belong to?  Which group of people held sovereignty over that territory?  How is territory transferred from one sovereign to another?  What principles of law apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Land can only be transferred by treaty. In this case it was the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> There is this truly odd understanding in the international community that sovereignty of the entire territory belonged vaguely to the "Arabs" who resided on some of the territory.  This despite the fact that the Jewish people also resided on some of the territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using terms like "the Jews" or "the Arabs" just confuse the Issue. Some Jews and some Arabs became citizens of Palestine and the rest did not.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I challenge those who would make these claims to think these claims through:
> 
> To whom did the legal sovereignty of this particular territory transfer after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (the former legal sovereign)?
> 
> I would caution you to be very, very specific in your use of language and to justify your choice of language.
> 
> Did it pass to the residents?  Define who would be considered and who would not be considered a resident.
> 
> Did it pass to the "people of the place"?  What does this mean?  Define it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was very specific.
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> This was reiterated by the by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> There is no question to who is Palestinian. And, of course, it is the people who are sovereign inside a defined territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it pass to the groups of indigenous peoples there?  Define 'indigenous'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indigenous would be a tough thing to pin down. I mean... do you go back to the cave man? Palestine was invaded and conquered many times It was the center of world trade routes for thousands of years. Many people came and went. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the people who built the cities and farmed the land. There were many hundreds of villages most of which pre-dated Ottoman times, i.e. they had been there a long time. They were Muslims, Christians, and Jews who had lived together for centuries. These are the people who legally became Palestinians by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> Did it pass to those who owned land in the territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private land ownership was irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Did it pass to the ethnic group which was the majority at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Race, religion, and ethnicity were irrelevant. Everyone was equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also think through your understanding of how a territory passes from one sovereign to another:
> 
> If a land is conquered, does the land pass to a new sovereign?
> 
> If a land is colonized, do the colonizers become the new sovereigns?
> 
> If a land is ethnically cleansed, does the ethnicity cleansed lose rights to sovereignty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, no, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so even though I agree with Rocco that your arguments are incorrect, you seem to end up in the right place -- there is a defined territory with citizens (defined as all those normally resident in the territory as at August 1, 1925) who seek/sought national sovereignty as an expression of self-determinaton which fulfills the essential purpose of the Mandate.
> 
> These citizens consist of two distinct groups of people:  the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people.  These two distinct groups of people each want national self-determination independent of the other.  This rather naturally leads to the suggestion of two States.
> 
> So why do you argue against this so strongly?  What is your end game?  And why?
Click to expand...

These citizens consist of two distinct groups of people: the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people.​
Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.

I am on the side of the native Jews.

Whose side are you on?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,   et al,

It is the standard complaint that rights were withheld from the Arab Palestinian; and that somehow, they did not get something to which they were entitled. 

This follows the continuous failure, refusal and reject in every way that the Mandate attempted to encourage participation in gradual administration in a semi-autonomous government.  The Arab Palestinian was never satisfied with the direction and progress of the Article 22 tutelage.  Where, the Jewish people never really adopted the policy of attempting to meet the Steps Preparatory to Independence that the Arab, refused and rejected.  

THEN the Arab Palestinian why, in nearly a century they have no real achievement in their political or nationalistic aspirations.

If Arab Palestinian don't work at it, you will not accomplish much.  If the Arab Palestinian continuously start military and terrorist confrontations, the Arab Palestinian are not going to achieve your political or nationalistic aspirations.  In fact, this is the more generally recognized direction in self-destruction _(which is also a valid right under self-determination)_.



P F Tinmore said:


> Thank you for bringing up Transjordan. We can see that Britain (more or less) followed the LoN Covenant that led to the sovereign state of Jordan. On the flipside, Britain ignored everything except the wishes of the foreign Zionists. This did not lead to an independent state of Palestine but to a war that has been festering for a hundred. Britain ignored the Covenant, international law, and the rights of the Palestinians to pursue its colonial project with the foreign Zionists leading to the disaster we see today.
> 
> From 1923 on, therefore, until the end of Britain’s tenure in 1948, the government that functioned in Palestine was unique among League “A” mandates. Far from nurturing the local population to self-government,* it was a Crown Colony in all but name.* The high commissioner was all-powerful, with full rights to appoint, dismiss, or suspend anyone holding government office in Palestine and to sell or lease any public lands. Ultimately, Samuel and his successors were restrained by no constitutional limitations whatever as far as the nation’s inhabitants were concerned.
> 
> The British Mandate in Palestine​I don't see anything in the post war treaties voiding the rights of the Palestinians that were universal to the other territories.


*(COMMENT)*

You are correct.  There is nothing in any of the Covenants, Charters, Resolutions, Mandates, Customary IHL or Treaties (etc) that voids or denies the rights _(no matter what adjective you conjure with them)_.  ONLY the Arab Palestinian turned-away, rejected, and ignored the opportunities to participate on an equal footing with everyone else.  The Arab Palestinians did it to themselves.  The Arab Palestinians (_as the population formerly under the purview of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration)_ were making such demands and attempting to obstruct the accomplishment of a primary objective of the Mandate _(the establishment of the Jewish National Home)_ and the encouraged immigration for "all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home (JNH)."

There is no universal or inherent _(what ever adjective you wish to assign)_ "rights" afforded the Arab Palestinian that would allow the Jewish People to attempt to establish the JNH and pursue the Steps Preparatory to Independence; OR to be the motivator for the invasion by the Arab League to attack the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.  NOR is there any "right" that allows the Arab Palestinian to conduct a continuous campaign violence, jihadism, and terror lasting more than half-century because like little children, they wanted to stomp their feet and hold a temper tantrum because they did not get what they wanted.


United Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations, New York 18 August 1947
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration

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


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> It is the standard complaint that rights were withheld from the Arab Palestinian; and that somehow, they did not get something to which they were entitled.
> 
> This follows the continuous failure, refusal and reject in every way that the Mandate attempted to encourage participation in gradual administration in a semi-autonomous government.  The Arab Palestinian was never satisfied with the direction and progress of the Article 22 tutelage.  Where, the Jewish people never really adopted the policy of attempting to meet the Steps Preparatory to Independence that the Arab, refused and rejected.
> 
> THEN the Arab Palestinian why, in nearly a century they have no real achievement in their political or nationalistic aspirations.
> 
> If Arab Palestinian don't work at it, you will not accomplish much.  If the Arab Palestinian continuously start military and terrorist confrontations, the Arab Palestinian are not going to achieve your political or nationalistic aspirations.  In fact, this is the more generally recognized direction in self-destruction _(which is also a valid right under self-determination)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for bringing up Transjordan. We can see that Britain (more or less) followed the LoN Covenant that led to the sovereign state of Jordan. On the flipside, Britain ignored everything except the wishes of the foreign Zionists. This did not lead to an independent state of Palestine but to a war that has been festering for a hundred. Britain ignored the Covenant, international law, and the rights of the Palestinians to pursue its colonial project with the foreign Zionists leading to the disaster we see today.
> 
> From 1923 on, therefore, until the end of Britain’s tenure in 1948, the government that functioned in Palestine was unique among League “A” mandates. Far from nurturing the local population to self-government,* it was a Crown Colony in all but name.* The high commissioner was all-powerful, with full rights to appoint, dismiss, or suspend anyone holding government office in Palestine and to sell or lease any public lands. Ultimately, Samuel and his successors were restrained by no constitutional limitations whatever as far as the nation’s inhabitants were concerned.
> 
> The British Mandate in Palestine​I don't see anything in the post war treaties voiding the rights of the Palestinians that were universal to the other territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are correct.  There is nothing in any of the Covenants, Charters, Resolutions, Mandates, Customary IHL or Treaties (etc) that voids or denies the rights _(no matter what adjective you conjure with them)_.  ONLY the Arab Palestinian turned-away, rejected, and ignored the opportunities to participate on an equal footing with everyone else.  The Arab Palestinians did it to themselves.  The Arab Palestinians (_as the population formerly under the purview of the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration)_ were making such demands and attempting to obstruct the accomplishment of a primary objective of the Mandate _(the establishment of the Jewish National Home)_ and the encouraged immigration for "all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home (JNH)."
> 
> There is no universal or inherent _(what ever adjective you wish to assign)_ "rights" afforded the Arab Palestinian that would allow the Jewish People to attempt to establish the JNH and pursue the Steps Preparatory to Independence; OR to be the motivator for the invasion by the Arab League to attack the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.  NOR is there any "right" that allows the Arab Palestinian to conduct a continuous campaign violence, jihadism, and terror lasting more than half-century because like little children, they wanted to stomp their feet and hold a temper tantrum because they did not get what they wanted.
> 
> United Kingdom Delegation to the United Nations, New York 18 August 1947
> The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
> 
> Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Indeed, the Palestinians refused to buy into the British/Zionist colonial project.

What else you got?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes and this is a stock answer.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, the Palestinians refused to buy into the British/Zionist colonial project.
> 
> What else you got?


*(COMMENT)*

Each time the Arab Palestinians failed to cooperate, the more difficult it becomes to keep up with those attempting to build a Jewish Nation Home.

The Arab Palestinian cannot, over sustained period of time refuse to participate, reject opportunities and violate the restrictions on threats and the use of force ... and still claim foul.  That simply doesn't even pass the smell test.

Similarly, the Arab Palestinian cannot incite or initiate jihadist and terrorist activity over and over again and not expect to be on the receiving end of retaliation and suppression.  They simply cannot openly initiate decades of conflict and not expect consequences.

And together, the accumulation of these conditions will be self-destructive which is also a (_inherent and universal)_ right the Arab Palestinians have.​*(SUBSTANCE)*

The comeback of:  What else your got? is _(admittedly)_ a snappy answer.  Buck open to general examination, has no content.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes and this is a stock answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians refused to buy into the British/Zionist colonial project.
> 
> What else you got?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Each time the Arab Palestinians failed to cooperate, the more difficult it becomes to keep up with those attempting to build a Jewish Nation Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian cannot, over sustained period of time refuse to participate, reject opportunities and violate the restrictions on threats and the use of force ... and still claim foul.  That simply doesn't even pass the smell test.
> 
> Similarly, the Arab Palestinian cannot incite or initiate jihadist and terrorist activity over and over again and not expect to be on the receiving end of retaliation and suppression.  They simply cannot openly initiate decades of conflict and not expect consequences.
> 
> And together, the accumulation of these conditions will be self-destructive which is also a (_inherent and universal)_ right the Arab Palestinians have.​*(SUBSTANCE)*
> 
> The comeback of:  What else your got? is _(admittedly)_ a snappy answer.  Buck open to general examination, has no content.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Colonization is the initial aggression. You always ignore that fact.


----------



## irosie91

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Excellent questions, thank you.*
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the UN's land to give away.    .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  The problem with the Arab slash Palestinian slash Muslim point of view on this forum, and often in the international community, is that they make statements like this without thinking the idea through to its logical conclusion and have only vague notions of where their thoughts might lead.  As represented here.
> 
> So, lets say we agree that it wasn't the UN's land to give away.  (And we do agree. The UN never "owned" the land, was never sovereign over the land and was required, by law, to maintain the principles of law in the transfer of sovereignty from one sovereign to another).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree here also. The UN has never "owned" any land. This also applies to the LoN and by extension their Mandates. Neither the LoN nor Britain annexed or otherwise laid claim to the land under their trust.
> 
> 
> 
> So whose land was it?  Who did it belong to?  Which group of people held sovereignty over that territory?  How is territory transferred from one sovereign to another?  What principles of law apply?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Land can only be transferred by treaty. In this case it was the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> There is this truly odd understanding in the international community that sovereignty of the entire territory belonged vaguely to the "Arabs" who resided on some of the territory.  This despite the fact that the Jewish people also resided on some of the territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Using terms like "the Jews" or "the Arabs" just confuse the Issue. Some Jews and some Arabs became citizens of Palestine and the rest did not.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I challenge those who would make these claims to think these claims through:
> 
> To whom did the legal sovereignty of this particular territory transfer after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (the former legal sovereign)?
> 
> I would caution you to be very, very specific in your use of language and to justify your choice of language.
> 
> Did it pass to the residents?  Define who would be considered and who would not be considered a resident.
> 
> Did it pass to the "people of the place"?  What does this mean?  Define it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was very specific.
> 
> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> This was reiterated by the by the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
> There is no question to who is Palestinian. And, of course, it is the people who are sovereign inside a defined territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it pass to the groups of indigenous peoples there?  Define 'indigenous'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indigenous would be a tough thing to pin down. I mean... do you go back to the cave man? Palestine was invaded and conquered many times It was the center of world trade routes for thousands of years. Many people came and went. However, there was a core group of people who stayed and put down roots. These are the people who built the cities and farmed the land. There were many hundreds of villages most of which pre-dated Ottoman times, i.e. they had been there a long time. They were Muslims, Christians, and Jews who had lived together for centuries. These are the people who legally became Palestinians by the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> Did it pass to those who owned land in the territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Private land ownership was irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Did it pass to the ethnic group which was the majority at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Race, religion, and ethnicity were irrelevant. Everyone was equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also think through your understanding of how a territory passes from one sovereign to another:
> 
> If a land is conquered, does the land pass to a new sovereign?
> 
> If a land is colonized, do the colonizers become the new sovereigns?
> 
> If a land is ethnically cleansed, does the ethnicity cleansed lose rights to sovereignty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, no, and no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so even though I agree with Rocco that your arguments are incorrect, you seem to end up in the right place -- there is a defined territory with citizens (defined as all those normally resident in the territory as at August 1, 1925) who seek/sought national sovereignty as an expression of self-determinaton which fulfills the essential purpose of the Mandate.
> 
> These citizens consist of two distinct groups of people:  the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people.  These two distinct groups of people each want national self-determination independent of the other.  This rather naturally leads to the suggestion of two States.
> 
> So why do you argue against this so strongly?  What is your end game?  And why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These citizens consist of two distinct groups of people: the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people.​
> Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.
> 
> I am on the side of the native Jews.
> 
> Whose side are you on?
Click to expand...


how are you defining  'native jews' ?     once you define them----let me know how you "know"   what they wanted?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You miss several of the very important facts about colonization.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes and this is a stock answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians refused to buy into the British/Zionist colonial project.
> 
> 
> Mantra
> •  All peoples _(which includes Israel and the people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip)_ have an inalienable right _(a right which cannot be given or taken)_ to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory  ...​
> What else you got?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Each time the Arab Palestinians failed to cooperate, the more difficult it becomes to keep up with those attempting to build a Jewish Nation Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian cannot, over sustained period of time refuse to participate, reject opportunities and violate the restrictions on threats and the use of force ... and still claim foul.  That simply doesn't even pass the smell test.
> 
> Similarly, the Arab Palestinian cannot incite or initiate jihadist and terrorist activity over and over again and not expect to be on the receiving end of retaliation and suppression.  They simply cannot openly initiate decades of conflict and not expect consequences.
> 
> And together, the accumulation of these conditions will be self-destructive which is also a (_inherent and universal)_ right the Arab Palestinians have.​*(SUBSTANCE)*
> 
> The comeback of:  What else your got? is _(admittedly)_ a snappy answer.  Buck open to general examination, has no content.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Colonization is the initial aggression. You always ignore that fact.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You cannot colonize yourself. (Layman's Terms!!!)

It is not colonization IF Ottoman Empire/Turkey Republic renounced all rights and title whatsoever over the territory to which the Mandate Applied; and acquired the control of the future of these territories.     There is no alien aggression if the Allied Powers which had all rights and title granted immigration privileges to the Jewish People will to establish a Jewish National Home under the provisions of Article 4, Mandate for Palestine.

•  Subjugation, except as may be required under Articles #43 Hague Regulation, to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.
•  Domination, except as may be required in the face of a demonstrated threat, and as agreed to under the Oslo Accords, Israel does not exercise of preponderant, governing, or controlling influence.
•  Exploitation, Israel does not maintain public order and safety for the express purpose of treating Arab Palestinians unfairly in order to benefit from their work product.

The Arab Palestinian has had the right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​
It is without prejudice to questions of recognition of the Arab Palestinian that the Jewish People, under the authority of the Mandate for Palestine and the Treaty of Lausanne, that the the Allied Power selected as the Mandatory, facilitated Jewish immigration under suitable and shall encourage to assist and take part in the development of the country.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate and rejected the opportunity to assist in the development of the territory as a recognized as a public body.


A/RES/29/3314  Approves the Definition of Aggression
*Article 1*
Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.​
It was the Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.  The policy of non-cooperation in Article 22 activities was established when_ (even before the State of Israel existed)_ that 
the Arabs of Palestine would not recognize the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate of Palestine --- or any effort derived therefrom.  

Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam (AKA:  Azzam Pasha) (1 DEC 1947) made the following statement, that was mimiced by the Arab Leaders of the Arab League, the Arab Higher Committee, and the Arab Palestinians:





There is no question that the principle members of the Arab League had collectively incited violence.  It was ignored then as it is ignored now, as a threat to regional peace. On 15 May 1948, for the reasons stated above, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Arab Palestinian. 

*(ARAB STRATEGY)*

The complaint the Arab Palestinians express today, are the exact same complaints that expressed seven decades ago.  The difference is, the Arab Palestinians are trying to retroactively apply 21st Century, Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

Relative to the Right of Return (RoR), the concept is to inject as many jihadist, terrorists and insurgents -- as possible into Israel, such that the Arab will change the demographics.  Again subvert and destroy the Jewish National Home from the inside.

Incitement to violence --- with two central intentions.

•  By promote, by all means of violence, publicity and terrorist coercion available to them, generate an atmosphere to generate a new conflict against 

•  Create an environment designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression; by pressuring the UN and EU into sanctions such that Israel will have to engage and totally destroy the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Arab aspects of Jerusalem.

•  Acts, methods and practices of actions that induce hostile elements that have demonstrated a threat to international peace and security, in the past.  

•  To promote and validate international cooperation aimed at the destruction of Israel and deny fundamental freedoms to the Jewish People and removed them from the most highly developed society of the Middle East; greater than any state in the Arab League.​
If, for some reason, the Israeli people see the eminent destruction of their way of life by the Arab League, what to you think the reaction would be?  What do you think the consequences would be?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## irosie91

In order to understand  Mr. Tin----you need to understand that the entire  Middle east is   "ARAB MUSLIM LAND"-----It is not a new Idea-----it has been ongoing for some 1200 years.   Once a muslim pisses on a land----it become, at least,  muslim land---if an ARAB MUSLIM --spits, shits and eructates-----it is arab muslim land forever


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.
> 
> I am on the side of the native Jews.
> 
> Whose side are you on?



I am on the side of both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination and sovereignty over some portion of the territory in question.  

So let's say you are correct, that the Jewish people and the Arab people residing in the territory on August 1, 1925 wanted a single democratic state to be jointly governed by the Jewish people and the Arab people.  (I don't think you are correct, let me be clear.  And I don't know what you would produce to prove it to me, but let's say...)

How do you propose to employ this "truth" to provide a solution to the problem going forward?  What do you propose as a solution, given the realities of the situation now, a hundred years on where there is most clearly two distinct peoples, each wishing self-government?  What do you think should happen?  What would be a just solution?  

Do you want everyone (both Jews and Arabs) expelled who were not residents in 1925, or descendants of such residents?  How would each resident prove such a status?  If a current citizen has one of four grandparents who was such a resident, would that be enough, or need it be all four?  

See the problem I have with your position, is it is based on your personal sense of history and justice that is a 100 years gone.  It has no practical value, other than constantly undermining the rights of the Jewish people.


----------



## irosie91

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.
> 
> I am on the side of the native Jews.
> 
> Whose side are you on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am on the side of both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination and sovereignty over some portion of the territory in question.
> 
> So let's say you are correct, that the Jewish people and the Arab people residing in the territory on August 1, 1925 wanted a single democratic state to be jointly governed by the Jewish people and the Arab people.  (I don't think you are correct, let me be clear.  And I don't know what you would produce to prove it to me, but let's say...)
> 
> you are right----Mr. Tin  is lying------In 1925 the jews of Palestine were very interested in a jewish state in Palestine---
> at least MOST OF THEM  including those who had resided in
> Palestine by that time for more than 100 years.   The concept of   Christians, muslims, and jews all residing together in happiness and joy before  "THE ZIONISTS"   "invaded"----is
> islamo-nazi historic revisionism.    In fact it is taught in muslim kindergartens along with the fantasy that ----ALL PEOPLE------muslims and---especially jews and Christians who live in a
> CALIPHATE under Islamic law are DELERIOUSLY HAPPY----in fact so are ZOROASTRIANS AND HINDUS-----so five year old muslim children are taught-------
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.
> 
> I am on the side of the native Jews.
> 
> Whose side are you on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am on the side of both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination and sovereignty over some portion of the territory in question.
> 
> So let's say you are correct, that the Jewish people and the Arab people residing in the territory on August 1, 1925 wanted a single democratic state to be jointly governed by the Jewish people and the Arab people.  (I don't think you are correct, let me be clear.  And I don't know what you would produce to prove it to me, but let's say...)
> 
> How do you propose to employ this "truth" to provide a solution to the problem going forward?  What do you propose as a solution, given the realities of the situation now, a hundred years on where there is most clearly two distinct peoples, each wishing self-government?  What do you think should happen?  What would be a just solution?
> 
> Do you want everyone (both Jews and Arabs) expelled who were not residents in 1925, or descendants of such residents?  How would each resident prove such a status?  If a current citizen has one of four grandparents who was such a resident, would that be enough, or need it be all four?
> 
> See the problem I have with your position, is it is based on your personal sense of history and justice that is a 100 years gone.  It has no practical value, other than constantly undermining the rights of the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

Here again you are blurring the distinction between peoples. This skews the issues.

The position if the Palestinian, or Arab, Jews was well known and oft reported. This fact, however, is not mentioned in Israel's version of history.

Zionism had no attraction for the Arab Jewish population. Before the establishment of the state, no single Arab Jew went to Palestine as a Zionist settler. Certainly a Jew from the Yemen or Morocco had no cultural links with a Jew from Poland or France.

Thus, the Israeli population was led to believe that one is either a Zionist (and, therefore, a defender of the Israeli State) or else one is anti-Semitic (and, therefore, wants to throw all the Jews into the sea). Those Jews who stood against Zionism were considered traitors to the Jewish state.

http://pdfproc.lib.msu.edu/?file=/DMC/African Journals/pdfs/Utafiti/vol1no1/aejp001001004.pdf​
Of course there are still anti Zionist Jews who do not believe in the legitimacy of the Jewish state.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.
> 
> I am on the side of the native Jews.
> 
> Whose side are you on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am on the side of both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination and sovereignty over some portion of the territory in question.
> 
> So let's say you are correct, that the Jewish people and the Arab people residing in the territory on August 1, 1925 wanted a single democratic state to be jointly governed by the Jewish people and the Arab people.  (I don't think you are correct, let me be clear.  And I don't know what you would produce to prove it to me, but let's say...)
> 
> How do you propose to employ this "truth" to provide a solution to the problem going forward?  What do you propose as a solution, given the realities of the situation now, a hundred years on where there is most clearly two distinct peoples, each wishing self-government?  What do you think should happen?  What would be a just solution?
> 
> Do you want everyone (both Jews and Arabs) expelled who were not residents in 1925, or descendants of such residents?  How would each resident prove such a status?  If a current citizen has one of four grandparents who was such a resident, would that be enough, or need it be all four?
> 
> See the problem I have with your position, is it is based on your personal sense of history and justice that is a 100 years gone.  It has no practical value, other than constantly undermining the rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here again you are blurring the distinction between peoples. This skews the issues.
> 
> The position if the Palestinian, or Arab, Jews was well known and oft reported. This fact, however, is not mentioned in Israel's version of history.
> 
> Zionism had no attraction for the Arab Jewish population. Before the establishment of the state, no single Arab Jew went to Palestine as a Zionist settler. Certainly a Jew from the Yemen or Morocco had no cultural links with a Jew from Poland or France.
> 
> Thus, the Israeli population was led to believe that one is either a Zionist (and, therefore, a defender of the Israeli State) or else one is anti-Semitic (and, therefore, wants to throw all the Jews into the sea). Those Jews who stood against Zionism were considered traitors to the Jewish state.
> 
> http://pdfproc.lib.msu.edu/?file=/DMC/African Journals/pdfs/Utafiti/vol1no1/aejp001001004.pdf​
> Of course there are still anti Zionist Jews who do not believe in the legitimacy of the Jewish state.
Click to expand...


Was that article intended to prove that the Jews resident in 1925 resisted a Jewish State?  Fail.  

Did you want to address the rest of my post, then?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.
> 
> I am on the side of the native Jews.
> 
> Whose side are you on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am on the side of both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination and sovereignty over some portion of the territory in question.
> 
> So let's say you are correct, that the Jewish people and the Arab people residing in the territory on August 1, 1925 wanted a single democratic state to be jointly governed by the Jewish people and the Arab people.  (I don't think you are correct, let me be clear.  And I don't know what you would produce to prove it to me, but let's say...)
> 
> How do you propose to employ this "truth" to provide a solution to the problem going forward?  What do you propose as a solution, given the realities of the situation now, a hundred years on where there is most clearly two distinct peoples, each wishing self-government?  What do you think should happen?  What would be a just solution?
> 
> Do you want everyone (both Jews and Arabs) expelled who were not residents in 1925, or descendants of such residents?  How would each resident prove such a status?  If a current citizen has one of four grandparents who was such a resident, would that be enough, or need it be all four?
> 
> See the problem I have with your position, is it is based on your personal sense of history and justice that is a 100 years gone.  It has no practical value, other than constantly undermining the rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here again you are blurring the distinction between peoples. This skews the issues.
> 
> The position if the Palestinian, or Arab, Jews was well known and oft reported. This fact, however, is not mentioned in Israel's version of history.
> 
> Zionism had no attraction for the Arab Jewish population. Before the establishment of the state, no single Arab Jew went to Palestine as a Zionist settler. Certainly a Jew from the Yemen or Morocco had no cultural links with a Jew from Poland or France.
> 
> Thus, the Israeli population was led to believe that one is either a Zionist (and, therefore, a defender of the Israeli State) or else one is anti-Semitic (and, therefore, wants to throw all the Jews into the sea). Those Jews who stood against Zionism were considered traitors to the Jewish state.
> 
> http://pdfproc.lib.msu.edu/?file=/DMC/African Journals/pdfs/Utafiti/vol1no1/aejp001001004.pdf​
> Of course there are still anti Zionist Jews who do not believe in the legitimacy of the Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that article intended to prove that the Jews resident in 1925 resisted a Jewish State?  Fail.
> 
> Did you want to address the rest of my post, then?
Click to expand...

Within Palestine itself, the Old Yishuv was alarmed by the influx of non-religious Jews who wished to establish a secular state in the Holy Land.[21] The chief rabbi of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem, Rabbi Joseph Hayyim Sonnenfeld, often referred to the Zionists as "evil men and ruffians" and claimed that "Hell had entered the Land of Israel with Herzl."[22] Sonnenfeld did not want the Orthodox Jewish community to become subject to secular Zionist authority.

Haredim and Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
You can't use the term "the Jews." There is no such thing as "the Jews." It is said that those who oppose Israel are anti Jew or anti Semitic. That is just Israeli propaganda.


----------



## irosie91

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.
> 
> I am on the side of the native Jews.
> 
> Whose side are you on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am on the side of both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination and sovereignty over some portion of the territory in question.
> 
> So let's say you are correct, that the Jewish people and the Arab people residing in the territory on August 1, 1925 wanted a single democratic state to be jointly governed by the Jewish people and the Arab people.  (I don't think you are correct, let me be clear.  And I don't know what you would produce to prove it to me, but let's say...)
> 
> How do you propose to employ this "truth" to provide a solution to the problem going forward?  What do you propose as a solution, given the realities of the situation now, a hundred years on where there is most clearly two distinct peoples, each wishing self-government?  What do you think should happen?  What would be a just solution?
> 
> Do you want everyone (both Jews and Arabs) expelled who were not residents in 1925, or descendants of such residents?  How would each resident prove such a status?  If a current citizen has one of four grandparents who was such a resident, would that be enough, or need it be all four?
> 
> See the problem I have with your position, is it is based on your personal sense of history and justice that is a 100 years gone.  It has no practical value, other than constantly undermining the rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here again you are blurring the distinction between peoples. This skews the issues.
> 
> The position if the Palestinian, or Arab, Jews was well known and oft reported. This fact, however, is not mentioned in Israel's version of history.
> 
> Zionism had no attraction for the Arab Jewish population. Before the establishment of the state, no single Arab Jew went to Palestine as a Zionist settler. Certainly a Jew from the Yemen or Morocco had no cultural links with a Jew from Poland or France.
> 
> Thus, the Israeli population was led to believe that one is either a Zionist (and, therefore, a defender of the Israeli State) or else one is anti-Semitic (and, therefore, wants to throw all the Jews into the sea). Those Jews who stood against Zionism were considered traitors to the Jewish state.
> 
> http://pdfproc.lib.msu.edu/?file=/DMC/African Journals/pdfs/Utafiti/vol1no1/aejp001001004.pdf​
> Of course there are still anti Zionist Jews who do not believe in the legitimacy of the Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that article intended to prove that the Jews resident in 1925 resisted a Jewish State?  Fail.
> 
> Did you want to address the rest of my post, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Within Palestine itself, the Old Yishuv was alarmed by the influx of non-religious Jews who wished to establish a secular state in the Holy Land.[21] The chief rabbi of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem, Rabbi Joseph Hayyim Sonnenfeld, often referred to the Zionists as "evil men and ruffians" and claimed that "Hell had entered the Land of Israel with Herzl."[22] Sonnenfeld did not want the Orthodox Jewish community to become subject to secular Zionist authority.
> 
> Haredim and Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> You can't use the term "the Jews." There is no such thing as "the Jews." It is said that those who oppose Israel are anti Jew or anti Semitic. That is just Israeli propaganda.
Click to expand...


watta joke is the islamo Nazis------the issue of jews IN DEBATE  seems to them some kind of "proof"   dat JOOOOS
don't know what they are doing --------kinda like Shiites and sunnis who put bombs on the asses of their daughters to MURDER EACH OTHER and Baathist scum pour nitrogen mustard gas on the heads of arab children.     For those who do not know----there is no  "DEBATE"  amongst the islamo Nazi scum---it all boils down to slitting the throats of the other guy.    The most prominent Baathist dogs of the past 60 years have EACH murdered in the hundreds of thousands-----Gamel Abdel Nasser,   Saddam Hussein and  Papa and Baby Assad.  
It is CERTAINLY true that the ultra religious  among the jews prefer Israel to be in THEIR EXCLUSIVE CONTROL---because such is their definition of ZIONISM.     try again Mr. Tin


----------



## irosie91

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. There were Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Palestinians with equal rights. They were all one people. They agreed in the important issues of the tines. They all, including the Jews, wanted a single democratic state with equal rights for all. They all, including the Jews, were opposed to the creation of a Jewish.
> 
> I am on the side of the native Jews.
> 
> Whose side are you on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am on the side of both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people in their quest for self-determination and sovereignty over some portion of the territory in question.
> 
> So let's say you are correct, that the Jewish people and the Arab people residing in the territory on August 1, 1925 wanted a single democratic state to be jointly governed by the Jewish people and the Arab people.  (I don't think you are correct, let me be clear.  And I don't know what you would produce to prove it to me, but let's say...)
> 
> How do you propose to employ this "truth" to provide a solution to the problem going forward?  What do you propose as a solution, given the realities of the situation now, a hundred years on where there is most clearly two distinct peoples, each wishing self-government?  What do you think should happen?  What would be a just solution?
> 
> Do you want everyone (both Jews and Arabs) expelled who were not residents in 1925, or descendants of such residents?  How would each resident prove such a status?  If a current citizen has one of four grandparents who was such a resident, would that be enough, or need it be all four?
> 
> See the problem I have with your position, is it is based on your personal sense of history and justice that is a 100 years gone.  It has no practical value, other than constantly undermining the rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here again you are blurring the distinction between peoples. This skews the issues.
> 
> The position if the Palestinian, or Arab, Jews was well known and oft reported. This fact, however, is not mentioned in Israel's version of history.
> 
> Zionism had no attraction for the Arab Jewish population. Before the establishment of the state, no single Arab Jew went to Palestine as a Zionist settler. Certainly a Jew from the Yemen or Morocco had no cultural links with a Jew from Poland or France.
> 
> Thus, the Israeli population was led to believe that one is either a Zionist (and, therefore, a defender of the Israeli State) or else one is anti-Semitic (and, therefore, wants to throw all the Jews into the sea). Those Jews who stood against Zionism were considered traitors to the Jewish state.
> 
> http://pdfproc.lib.msu.edu/?file=/DMC/African Journals/pdfs/Utafiti/vol1no1/aejp001001004.pdf​
> Of course there are still anti Zionist Jews who do not believe in the legitimacy of the Jewish state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was that article intended to prove that the Jews resident in 1925 resisted a Jewish State?  Fail.
> 
> Did you want to address the rest of my post, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Within Palestine itself, the Old Yishuv was alarmed by the influx of non-religious Jews who wished to establish a secular state in the Holy Land.[21] The chief rabbi of the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem, Rabbi Joseph Hayyim Sonnenfeld, often referred to the Zionists as "evil men and ruffians" and claimed that "Hell had entered the Land of Israel with Herzl."[22] Sonnenfeld did not want the Orthodox Jewish community to become subject to secular Zionist authority.
> 
> Haredim and Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
> You can't use the term "the Jews." There is no such thing as "the Jews." It is said that those who oppose Israel are anti Jew or anti Semitic. That is just Israeli propaganda.
Click to expand...


notice that  SONNENFELD  said   "LAND OF ISRAEL"-----not "LAND OF BAATHIST PIGS IN PALESTINE"


----------



## José

"Land of Israel" not the State of Israel.

The idea of any kind of jewish state in Palestine, be it secular or religious, was considered a blasphemy by the tiny pre-zionist european jewish community in Palestine.


----------



## irosie91

José said:


> "Land of Israel" not the State of Israel.
> 
> The idea of any kind of jewish state in Palestine, be it secular or religious, was considered a blasphemy by the tiny pre-zionist european jewish community in Palestine.



Nope----the idea of a jewish state in the land or Palestine----developed by the "wrong kind of jews"   was considered a blasphemy by a small minority of jews who had already been residing in Palestine pre 1880.     I have no idea why you refer to them as  "pre-Zionist European jewish community" or when you imagine was the  "pre-Zionist"  era.    The Zionist project which resulted in the state of Israel in 1948 started in the early 1800s and only some of the jews in Palestine at that time
originated from Europe.   Your statement indicates that you do
not know much about the situation.    There is no question that there is something like  "sectarian"  disagreement amongst jews------there is a kind of "sectarian disagreement" even amongst catholics.    You seem to be markedly influenced by islamo Nazi propaganda which MAGNIFIES the dispute


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> I have no idea why you refer to them as "pre-Zionist European jewish community" or when you imagine was the "pre-Zionist" era.



For someone who claims to deny the fact that political zionism started in the late 19th century, you seem to have a pretty good idea of exactly when the movement really started:



> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> jews who had already been residing in Palestine pre 1880.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> The Zionist project which resulted in the state of Israel in 1948 started in the *early 1800s*





> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> jews who had already been residing in Palestine pre *1880*



Make up your mind, rosie... 

Either political zionism started "*in the early 1800's*" or around "*1880*".

At least one of the two dates has to be wrong.


----------



## irosie91

José said:


> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> I have no idea why you refer to them as "pre-Zionist European jewish community" or when you imagine was the "pre-Zionist" era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For someone who claims to deny the fact that political zionism started in the late 19th century, you seem to have a pretty good idea of exactly when the movement really started:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> jews who had already been residing in Palestine pre 1880.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


"claims to deny the fact..."    what fact?    Herzl pushed the idea of POLITICAL ZIONISM----(ie unrelated to religion)  in the late 19th century----which opened the movement to secularists----HOWEVER ...at that point the Zionist project which resulted in
the state of Israel in 1948 was already in FULL SWING----Tel aviv already existed as did  RISHON L'tZION-----REAL CITIES IN the land of Israel  (ERETZ YISRAEL)    There were hospitals and schools and a kind of government.----ie the nation------kinda pre-existed Herzl.    Feel free to ask questions.   THE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE were more or less----that is MORE OR LESS----opposed to the policies of the SECULARISTS-----and that is about it----some of the religious were VERY OPPOSED AND BITTERLY OPPOSED----that is the group that islamo Nazi dogs love the most


----------



## irosie91

José said:


> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> The Zionist project which resulted in the state of Israel in 1948 started in the *early 1800s*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> jews who had already been residing in Palestine pre *1880*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make up your mind, rosie...
> 
> Either political zionism started "*in the early 1800's*" or around "*1880*".
> 
> At least one of the two dates has to be wrong.
Click to expand...


try again-----the significance of  1880 is----that is about the time that the ISRAELI CITIES----tel  aviv   and   rishon l'tzion were founded------I used it as a MARKER in the development of
THE STATE------the modern Zionist movement began in the early  1800s ----that was when the Turks decided to make it legal for jews to buy land in Palestine.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> Herzl pushed the idea of POLITICAL ZIONISM----(ie unrelated to religion) in the late 19th century----which opened the movement to secularists----HOWEVER ...at that point the Zionist project which resulted in the state of Israel in 1948 was already in FULL SWING----*Tel aviv already existed as did RISHON L'tZION*-----REAL CITIES IN the land of Israel (ERETZ YISRAEL)



   

*Rishon LeZion* - founded in *1882* by Russian Jews fleeing anti-jewish pogroms in Eastern Europe (political not religious reasons) and financed by Edmond de Rothschild, the founder of *PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association)*.

Rothschild is almost a synonym with political zionism.

*Tel Aviv* - founded in *1909*, a city whose name was the subject of a heated debate among zionists, with many Jews wanting to name it "Herzliya" and then finally settling for a compromise solution: *Tel Aviv, the title in Hebrew of one of Theodor Herzl's books*.

You really should choose your examples more carefully, rosie, because Rishon and Tel Aviv are two historical testaments to the fact that political zionism (the colonization of Palestine) did start around 1880 and not in the early 1800's.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> only some of the jews in Palestine at that time originated from Europe.



Of course the anti-zionist european Jews were only a portion of the total jewish population in Palestine.

The arab Jews comprised the majority of the population and they were as opposed to the idea of a jewish state in Palestine as their ashkhenazi counterparts.

Either due to religious or "practical" reasons... meaning that european mass immigration would upset the muslims and christians and destroy their status as a protected minority.

So PF Tinmore is absolutely right:

In Palestine, in the late decades of the 19th century, you had an overwhelming majority of Jews from Europe and from Palestine itself forming a united front that opposed the political goal of creating a jewish state in Palestine.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> Nope----the idea of a jewish state in the land or Palestine----developed by the "wrong kind of jews" was considered a blasphemy by a *SMALL MINORITY* of jews who had already been residing in Palestine pre 1880.



Israeli historian Tom Segev (and every other authority on the history of the Yeshuv who does not get his salary from the israeli government) says:

"Rosie, you're full of ****!!"

"Many of the Jews living in Palestine did not support Zionism; indeed, much of the pre-Zionist Jewish population - that is, those who lived in Palestine before the 1880's - were ultra-Orthodox.* They were deeply hostile to the notion of secular autonomy in the Holy Land,* which, according to religious doctrine, would be redeemed only through divine intervention in the messianic age."

*Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, pag. 16*

"To the traditional Jewish population of Palestine, the Zionist ideal of secular redemption was sacrilegious."

*Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete, pag. 17*


----------



## irosie91

José said:


> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> Herzl pushed the idea of POLITICAL ZIONISM----(ie unrelated to religion) in the late 19th century----which opened the movement to secularists----HOWEVER ...at that point the Zionist project which resulted in the state of Israel in 1948 was already in FULL SWING----*Tel aviv already existed as did RISHON L'tZION*-----REAL CITIES IN the land of Israel (ERETZ YISRAEL)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rishon LeZion* - founded in *1882* by Russian Jews fleeing anti-jewish pogroms in Eastern Europe (political not religious reasons) and financed by Edmond de Rothschild, the founder of *PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association)*.
> 
> Rothschild is almost a synonym with political zionism.
> 
> *Tel Aviv* - founded in *1909*, a city whose name was the subject of a heated debate among zionists, with many Jews wanting to name it "Herzliya" and then finally settling for a compromise solution: *Tel Aviv, the title in Hebrew of one of Theodor Herzl's books*.
> 
> You really should choose your examples more carefully, rosie, because Rishon and Tel Aviv are two historical testaments to the fact that political zionism (the colonization of Palestine) did start around 1880 and not in the early 1800's.
Click to expand...


wrong again    ---the FACTS are that Rishon L'Tzion had a population of Russian jews in 1880 when it was founded----but it ALSO had a population of jews from lands which are called
"arab lands"      At to TEL AVIV-----it was settled OWNED land---by jews ----long before it got its NAME.     There were at THAT TIME many OTHER  jewish owned cities----with names----eg  PETAH TIKVAH -----made in 1878----this one---virtually all  very orthodox jews------PURCHASED LAND.    Hebron----a complex history of PURCHASE from the OTTOMAN empire and------confiscation ----all thru the 17  and  18 hundreds---
In  any case the UPTICK in land purchase in Palestine by jews
happened from the beginning of the 1800s and continued thruout that century---rendering MOST privately owned property in the area that became Israel----owned by jews and virtually none owned by non jews------under the AEGIS of the
Zionist project of the early 1800s----during the 1800s---before Herzl was born----there were also specifically jewish hospitals and schools------popping up       Herzl was born in  1860----the vigorous land buying happened when he was a baby.   HIS concept of political Zionism was INVENTED in 1897 when he was  37------  16 years AFTER  Rishon L'tzion  was founded---when he was 21.   By the time he was 21----the city of Rishon Ltzion   (early to Zion)  was already a city made up of ZIONISTS for a few decades----ie since he was a baby


----------



## irosie91

José said:


> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> only some of the jews in Palestine at that time originated from Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the anti-zionist european Jews were only a portion of the total jewish population in Palestine.
> 
> The arab Jews comprised the majority of the population and they were as opposed to the idea of a jewish state in Palestine as their ashkhenazi counterparts.
> 
> Either due to religious or "practical" reasons... meaning that european mass immigration would upset the muslims and christians and destroy their status as a protected minority.
> 
> So PF Tinmore is absolutely right:
> 
> In Palestine, in the late decades of the 19th century, you had an overwhelming majority of Jews from Europe and from Palestine itself forming a united front that opposed the political goal of creating a jewish state in Palestine.
Click to expand...



LOL   you got a source for that idiotic essay?    Of all the people in Israel-----those most OVERWHELMINGLY ZIONIST----are those people YOU CALL   "arab jews"         I will not tell hubby that you called him an  "ARAB JEW" -----he might vomit-----rishon is his home town       FULL OF  what you call  "arab jews"-------with histories in that city going back before its  1882
founding.    While his immediate family did not get there until
1940     his COMMUNITY is chock full of other  ""arab jews""


----------



## irosie91

When I go back to   Rishon L'tzion I will inform the people there about  Tom Segev.     Jose---you are talking about the NATUREI KARTA---------a very small minority that likes to magnify its numbers --------especially since Al Gore invented the Internet


----------



## irosie91

According to  Jose-----all of the jews of the Palestine Mandate---DEFECTED to the arab side and converted to islam in 1947


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You can't use the term "the Jews." There is no such thing as "the Jews."



I didn't use the term "the Jews".  I used the phrase "the Jews who were resident in 1925".  That was YOUR criteria for citizenship and therefore, self-determination and sovereignty.  

So, still waiting for you to answer my post about what your proposed solution to the conflict is.


----------



## irosie91

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use the term "the Jews." There is no such thing as "the Jews."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't use the term "the Jews".  I used the phrase "the Jews who were resident in 1925".  That was YOUR criteria for citizenship and therefore, self-determination and sovereignty.
> 
> So, still waiting for you to answer my post about what your proposed solution to the conflict is.
Click to expand...


it is not clear to me why there is no such thing as "the jews"---
is there ----"the French"?


----------



## irosie91

irosie91 said:


> According to  Jose-----all of the jews of the Palestine Mandate---DEFECTED to the arab side and converted to islam in 1947



Jose and Mr tin who INSIST that MOST OF THE JEWS IN the Palestine mandate REJECTED the idea of a jewish state as part of the land of the Palestine mandate---and SO---OBVIOUSLY,  did not fight the invading arab armies  ------LAUGH because I repeated their lie


----------



## irosie91

irosie91 said:


> According to  Jose-----all of the jews of the Palestine Mandate---DEFECTED to the arab side and converted to islam in 1947



Jose and Mr Tin  continue to support each other's lies-----and the idiot crap of a TOM SEGEV  ---a writer for  HA ARETZ----the
Israeli   SUPERMARKET TABLOID-------My husband who IS
an "arab jew"  (in the lingo of jose)   AND----an ARAB PALESTINIAN JEW  (sic--no less)        laughed.    Thanks tin and jose for giving hubby a laugh.      I was gone from this board--for several weeks-----a few months ago-----mostly in RISHON L'TZION    where all those "arab-palestinian" jews still live  ---the ones that  Jose claims were and are  "anti-Zionist" 
       ha-aretz<<<<roflmao---it is a tabloid in which anyone
       can publish if willing to write nutty stuff----and not get paid


----------



## irosie91

irosie91 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't use the term "the Jews." There is no such thing as "the Jews."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't use the term "the Jews".  I used the phrase "the Jews who were resident in 1925".  That was YOUR criteria for citizenship and therefore, self-determination and sovereignty.
> 
> So, still waiting for you to answer my post about what your proposed solution to the conflict is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is not clear to me why there is no such thing as "the jews"---
> is there ----"the French"?
Click to expand...



do you think that  Mr tin and Jose are going to explain their assertion      which seems to be   <there is no such thing as
the jews>      ?????


----------



## IsaacNewton

abu afak said:


> Yes, I know AhmadInJihad never said "wiped off the map" precisely, but that WAS the gist of his statement.
> Now we have Yet Another iteration by another Iranian leader.
> 
> *Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel*
> Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel
> 
> President Hassan Rouhan said the last year’s nuclear deal “was the cheapest way to achieve Iran’s goals and interests.”
> 
> Speaking in Tehran on Saturday at an iftar meal breaking the Ramadan fast, Rouhani said the pre-Iran nuclear-deal era is past and Iran now needs to take advantage of the new atmosphere to pursue its “national interests more than before,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
> 
> The country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for student associations to establish a “unified anti-US and anti-Zionist front” among the Muslim world’s students, Tasnim News Agency reported.
> 
> “By using advanced means of communication and in cyberspace, general campaigns can be formed by Muslim students based on the opposition to the policies of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel so that when needed, millions of young Muslim students create a big movement in the Islamic world,” he said.
> Khamenei also warned against plots by enemies seeking to sabotage the country.
> 
> Separately, on Saturday, Fars News Agency reported a senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards as having said Israel’s Iran Dome anti-rocket system has vulnerabilities that were revealed in recent wars.
> On a similar note, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, said on Friday “more than 100,000 missiles are ready to fly from Lebanon,” according to Tasnim.
> 
> “Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever,” he declared, saying there are “tens of thousands of destructive long-range missiles” from Islamic territories aiming at all of “occupied” Israel.
> 
> “If the Zionists make a wrong move, all the occupied territories will come under attack from dedicated fighters and, God willing, the territories will be liberated,” Salami warned.
> 
> On Friday, Rouhani accused Western powers of trying to exploit differences between the world’s Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims to divert attention from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, state television reported.
> [.......]​`





Sooooo then, why haven't they? 

Because Israel has thermonuclear weapons, 3 or 4 of which would irradiate Iran's entire country for thousands of years. You can't threaten a bear with a slingshot. At some point it will turn it's attention to you and you can't run fast enough.


----------



## irosie91

IsaacNewton said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know AhmadInJihad never said "wiped off the map" precisely, but that WAS the gist of his statement.
> Now we have Yet Another iteration by another Iranian leader.
> 
> *Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel*
> Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel
> 
> President Hassan Rouhan said the last year’s nuclear deal “was the cheapest way to achieve Iran’s goals and interests.”
> 
> Speaking in Tehran on Saturday at an iftar meal breaking the Ramadan fast, Rouhani said the pre-Iran nuclear-deal era is past and Iran now needs to take advantage of the new atmosphere to pursue its “national interests more than before,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
> 
> The country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for student associations to establish a “unified anti-US and anti-Zionist front” among the Muslim world’s students, Tasnim News Agency reported.
> 
> “By using advanced means of communication and in cyberspace, general campaigns can be formed by Muslim students based on the opposition to the policies of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel so that when needed, millions of young Muslim students create a big movement in the Islamic world,” he said.
> Khamenei also warned against plots by enemies seeking to sabotage the country.
> 
> Separately, on Saturday, Fars News Agency reported a senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards as having said Israel’s Iran Dome anti-rocket system has vulnerabilities that were revealed in recent wars.
> On a similar note, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, said on Friday “more than 100,000 missiles are ready to fly from Lebanon,” according to Tasnim.
> 
> “Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever,” he declared, saying there are “tens of thousands of destructive long-range missiles” from Islamic territories aiming at all of “occupied” Israel.
> 
> “If the Zionists make a wrong move, all the occupied territories will come under attack from dedicated fighters and, God willing, the territories will be liberated,” Salami warned.
> 
> On Friday, Rouhani accused Western powers of trying to exploit differences between the world’s Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims to divert attention from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, state television reported.
> [.......]​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo then, why haven't they?
> 
> Because Israel has thermonuclear weapons, 3 or 4 of which would irradiate Iran's entire country for thousands of years. You can't threaten a bear with a slingshot. At some point it will turn it's attention to you and you can't run fast enough.
Click to expand...


think about your response a bit-----newton-----it is idiotic


----------



## IsaacNewton

irosie91 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know AhmadInJihad never said "wiped off the map" precisely, but that WAS the gist of his statement.
> Now we have Yet Another iteration by another Iranian leader.
> 
> *Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel*
> Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel
> 
> President Hassan Rouhan said the last year’s nuclear deal “was the cheapest way to achieve Iran’s goals and interests.”
> 
> Speaking in Tehran on Saturday at an iftar meal breaking the Ramadan fast, Rouhani said the pre-Iran nuclear-deal era is past and Iran now needs to take advantage of the new atmosphere to pursue its “national interests more than before,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
> 
> The country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for student associations to establish a “unified anti-US and anti-Zionist front” among the Muslim world’s students, Tasnim News Agency reported.
> 
> “By using advanced means of communication and in cyberspace, general campaigns can be formed by Muslim students based on the opposition to the policies of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel so that when needed, millions of young Muslim students create a big movement in the Islamic world,” he said.
> Khamenei also warned against plots by enemies seeking to sabotage the country.
> 
> Separately, on Saturday, Fars News Agency reported a senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards as having said Israel’s Iran Dome anti-rocket system has vulnerabilities that were revealed in recent wars.
> On a similar note, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, said on Friday “more than 100,000 missiles are ready to fly from Lebanon,” according to Tasnim.
> 
> “Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever,” he declared, saying there are “tens of thousands of destructive long-range missiles” from Islamic territories aiming at all of “occupied” Israel.
> 
> “If the Zionists make a wrong move, all the occupied territories will come under attack from dedicated fighters and, God willing, the territories will be liberated,” Salami warned.
> 
> On Friday, Rouhani accused Western powers of trying to exploit differences between the world’s Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims to divert attention from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, state television reported.
> [.......]​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo then, why haven't they?
> 
> Because Israel has thermonuclear weapons, 3 or 4 of which would irradiate Iran's entire country for thousands of years. You can't threaten a bear with a slingshot. At some point it will turn it's attention to you and you can't run fast enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> think about your response a bit-----newton-----it is idiotic
Click to expand...


What is wrong with you?


----------



## irosie91

IsaacNewton said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know AhmadInJihad never said "wiped off the map" precisely, but that WAS the gist of his statement.
> Now we have Yet Another iteration by another Iranian leader.
> 
> *Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel*
> Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel
> 
> President Hassan Rouhan said the last year’s nuclear deal “was the cheapest way to achieve Iran’s goals and interests.”
> 
> Speaking in Tehran on Saturday at an iftar meal breaking the Ramadan fast, Rouhani said the pre-Iran nuclear-deal era is past and Iran now needs to take advantage of the new atmosphere to pursue its “national interests more than before,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
> 
> The country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for student associations to establish a “unified anti-US and anti-Zionist front” among the Muslim world’s students, Tasnim News Agency reported.
> 
> “By using advanced means of communication and in cyberspace, general campaigns can be formed by Muslim students based on the opposition to the policies of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel so that when needed, millions of young Muslim students create a big movement in the Islamic world,” he said.
> Khamenei also warned against plots by enemies seeking to sabotage the country.
> 
> Separately, on Saturday, Fars News Agency reported a senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards as having said Israel’s Iran Dome anti-rocket system has vulnerabilities that were revealed in recent wars.
> On a similar note, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, said on Friday “more than 100,000 missiles are ready to fly from Lebanon,” according to Tasnim.
> 
> “Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever,” he declared, saying there are “tens of thousands of destructive long-range missiles” from Islamic territories aiming at all of “occupied” Israel.
> 
> “If the Zionists make a wrong move, all the occupied territories will come under attack from dedicated fighters and, God willing, the territories will be liberated,” Salami warned.
> 
> On Friday, Rouhani accused Western powers of trying to exploit differences between the world’s Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims to divert attention from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, state television reported.
> [.......]​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo then, why haven't they?
> 
> Because Israel has thermonuclear weapons, 3 or 4 of which would irradiate Iran's entire country for thousands of years. You can't threaten a bear with a slingshot. At some point it will turn it's attention to you and you can't run fast enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> think about your response a bit-----newton-----it is idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?
Click to expand...


nothing---just a bit impatient with those who see
DA BOMB as the only 'real'  danger in the world.


----------



## IsaacNewton

irosie91 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know AhmadInJihad never said "wiped off the map" precisely, but that WAS the gist of his statement.
> Now we have Yet Another iteration by another Iranian leader.
> 
> *Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel*
> Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel
> 
> President Hassan Rouhan said the last year’s nuclear deal “was the cheapest way to achieve Iran’s goals and interests.”
> 
> Speaking in Tehran on Saturday at an iftar meal breaking the Ramadan fast, Rouhani said the pre-Iran nuclear-deal era is past and Iran now needs to take advantage of the new atmosphere to pursue its “national interests more than before,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
> 
> The country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for student associations to establish a “unified anti-US and anti-Zionist front” among the Muslim world’s students, Tasnim News Agency reported.
> 
> “By using advanced means of communication and in cyberspace, general campaigns can be formed by Muslim students based on the opposition to the policies of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel so that when needed, millions of young Muslim students create a big movement in the Islamic world,” he said.
> Khamenei also warned against plots by enemies seeking to sabotage the country.
> 
> Separately, on Saturday, Fars News Agency reported a senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards as having said Israel’s Iran Dome anti-rocket system has vulnerabilities that were revealed in recent wars.
> On a similar note, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, said on Friday “more than 100,000 missiles are ready to fly from Lebanon,” according to Tasnim.
> 
> “Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever,” he declared, saying there are “tens of thousands of destructive long-range missiles” from Islamic territories aiming at all of “occupied” Israel.
> 
> “If the Zionists make a wrong move, all the occupied territories will come under attack from dedicated fighters and, God willing, the territories will be liberated,” Salami warned.
> 
> On Friday, Rouhani accused Western powers of trying to exploit differences between the world’s Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims to divert attention from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, state television reported.
> [.......]​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo then, why haven't they?
> 
> Because Israel has thermonuclear weapons, 3 or 4 of which would irradiate Iran's entire country for thousands of years. You can't threaten a bear with a slingshot. At some point it will turn it's attention to you and you can't run fast enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> think about your response a bit-----newton-----it is idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nothing---just a bit impatient with those who see
> DA BOMB as the only 'real'  danger in the world.
Click to expand...



You have to connect the dots. The reason NO ONE will attack Israel like that is because they can never win. Ever. It would be self-destruction. It is known as MADD. Mutually Assured Self Destruction. The US and Soviet Union played this game for 45 years.


----------



## irosie91

IsaacNewton said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know AhmadInJihad never said "wiped off the map" precisely, but that WAS the gist of his statement.
> Now we have Yet Another iteration by another Iranian leader.
> 
> *Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel*
> Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel
> 
> President Hassan Rouhan said the last year’s nuclear deal “was the cheapest way to achieve Iran’s goals and interests.”
> 
> Speaking in Tehran on Saturday at an iftar meal breaking the Ramadan fast, Rouhani said the pre-Iran nuclear-deal era is past and Iran now needs to take advantage of the new atmosphere to pursue its “national interests more than before,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
> 
> The country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for student associations to establish a “unified anti-US and anti-Zionist front” among the Muslim world’s students, Tasnim News Agency reported.
> 
> “By using advanced means of communication and in cyberspace, general campaigns can be formed by Muslim students based on the opposition to the policies of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel so that when needed, millions of young Muslim students create a big movement in the Islamic world,” he said.
> Khamenei also warned against plots by enemies seeking to sabotage the country.
> 
> Separately, on Saturday, Fars News Agency reported a senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards as having said Israel’s Iran Dome anti-rocket system has vulnerabilities that were revealed in recent wars.
> On a similar note, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, said on Friday “more than 100,000 missiles are ready to fly from Lebanon,” according to Tasnim.
> 
> “Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever,” he declared, saying there are “tens of thousands of destructive long-range missiles” from Islamic territories aiming at all of “occupied” Israel.
> 
> “If the Zionists make a wrong move, all the occupied territories will come under attack from dedicated fighters and, God willing, the territories will be liberated,” Salami warned.
> 
> On Friday, Rouhani accused Western powers of trying to exploit differences between the world’s Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims to divert attention from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, state television reported.
> [.......]​`
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo then, why haven't they?
> 
> Because Israel has thermonuclear weapons, 3 or 4 of which would irradiate Iran's entire country for thousands of years. You can't threaten a bear with a slingshot. At some point it will turn it's attention to you and you can't run fast enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> think about your response a bit-----newton-----it is idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nothing---just a bit impatient with those who see
> DA BOMB as the only 'real'  danger in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to connect the dots. The reason NO ONE will attack Israel like that is because they can never win. Ever. It would be self-destruction. It is known as MADD. Mutually Assured Self Destruction. The US and Soviet Union played this game for 45 years.
Click to expand...


right ---it is an issue----but not  BY FAR-----the only issue or ever the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE.    Despite  DA BOMB---the deadly hostilities will continue and Hezbollah will be drawing LOTS OF BLOOD


----------



## IsaacNewton

irosie91 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo then, why haven't they?
> 
> Because Israel has thermonuclear weapons, 3 or 4 of which would irradiate Iran's entire country for thousands of years. You can't threaten a bear with a slingshot. At some point it will turn it's attention to you and you can't run fast enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> think about your response a bit-----newton-----it is idiotic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nothing---just a bit impatient with those who see
> DA BOMB as the only 'real'  danger in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to connect the dots. The reason NO ONE will attack Israel like that is because they can never win. Ever. It would be self-destruction. It is known as MADD. Mutually Assured Self Destruction. The US and Soviet Union played this game for 45 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right ---it is an issue----but not  BY FAR-----the only issue or ever the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE.    Despite  DA BOMB---the deadly hostilities will continue and Hezbollah will be drawing LOTS OF BLOOD
Click to expand...


The OP states 'wipe off the map'. That isn't going to happen.


----------



## abu afak

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes and this is a stock answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians refused to buy into the British/Zionist colonial project.
> 
> What else you got?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Each time the Arab Palestinians failed to cooperate, the more difficult it becomes to keep up with those attempting to build a Jewish Nation Home.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian cannot, over sustained period of time refuse to participate, reject opportunities and violate the restrictions on threats and the use of force ... and still claim foul.  That simply doesn't even pass the smell test.
> 
> Similarly, the Arab Palestinian cannot incite or initiate jihadist and terrorist activity over and over again and not expect to be on the receiving end of retaliation and suppression.  They simply cannot openly initiate decades of conflict and not expect consequences.
> 
> And together, the accumulation of these conditions will be self-destructive which is also a (_inherent and universal)_ right the Arab Palestinians have.​*(SUBSTANCE)*
> The comeback of:  What else your got? is _(admittedly)_ a snappy answer.  Buck open to general examination, has no content.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Actually there was a point when the Arabs DID go along with the Zionist and Western Power's plan.
Faisal WAS in charge of negotiating for the Arabs, and by-and-large got them a larger Range that they actually inhabited. (Screwing Kurds among others)

Arabs did NOT decide by Plebiscite!
They were tribal societies/Emirates/etc.
It's really rather Comical to suggest that standard for 'Palestine' alone.
(ei, the land could have become part of Syria too)
The other 99% of the Ottoman lands the Arabs got also had NO Votes.
Cry-Baby Clowns.

The main purpose of the Mandate was to create a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine.
In fact, the promise to the Jews was for All of what is now Israel and Palestine.
Faisal, who got the Arabs all the rest, including 'Iraq' and 'Jordan', the latter 77% of the Mandate, had himself agreed to that fact in 1919:

That's right, the 1919 agreement BETWEEN the Arab state and Palestine/The JEWISH one.
This agreement was never carried out.
But posted to show State of Mind of the Time.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...aisaltext.html

*Faisal-Weizman Agreement - 1919*

His Royal Highness the Emir FAISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of HEJAZ, AND Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations, is *through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine,* and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following articles:

Article I
*The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations* and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories.

Article II
Immediately following the completion of deliberations of the Peace Conference, *the definite boundaries BETWEEN the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto. *

Article III
In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government’s Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917 (Balfour Declaration-SEH).

Article IV
*All necessary measures will be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible* to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasants and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.
[.......]​
But it was the Arabs who benefited from British gratefulness/Spoils between the Wars, not the Jews. Brits restricted immigration of Jew into Palestine among other measures.

Palestine, the 23% left after the local Arabs got 'Jordan'/Bulk of the Mandate, was instead divided near in HALF yet again, with both peoples being offered a state: arguably Another state for the Arabs.
Jews accepted, Palestinians didn't despite knowing well for at least 30 Years (Balfour 1917) the Jews were getting one.
`


----------



## abu afak

José said:


> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> Herzl pushed the idea of POLITICAL ZIONISM----(ie unrelated to religion) in the late 19th century----which opened the movement to secularists----HOWEVER ...at that point the Zionist project which resulted in the state of Israel in 1948 was already in FULL SWING----*Tel aviv already existed as did RISHON L'tZION*-----REAL CITIES IN the land of Israel (ERETZ YISRAEL)
> 
> 
> 
> *Rishon LeZion* - founded in *1882* by Russian Jews fleeing anti-jewish pogroms in Eastern Europe (political not religious reasons) and financed by Edmond de Rothschild, the founder of *PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association)*.
> 
> Rothschild is almost a synonym with political zionism.
> 
> *Tel Aviv* - founded in *1909*, a city whose name was the subject of a heated debate among zionists, with many Jews wanting to name it "Herzliya" and then finally settling for a compromise solution: *Tel Aviv, the title in Hebrew of one of Theodor Herzl's books*.
> 
> You really should choose your examples more carefully, rosie, because Rishon and Tel Aviv are two historical testaments to the fact that political zionism (the colonization of Palestine) did start around 1880 and not in the early 1800's.
Click to expand...

1909?


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jerusalem (After 1291)

"...5. Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called _majlis ida ra_; the city has a municipal government (_majlis baladiye_) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures: 
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

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

*Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present*

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
*1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ...The First Official Ottoman Census* (mbig/abu afak)
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm

Link expired but the Ottoman Census figures, which form it's backbone, and I noted were from the Ottoman counts, are not in dispute.
The later numbers widely available.
The first line/1838 probably approximated using regression analysis.
`


----------



## The Great Goose

Tilly 

Why did you laugh at my comment? You can always explain how the hordes of the middle east will be held back by Israel's superior technology if they(Israel) have no global backing?

I'm speculating and I think I get your drift, but instead of being silly you could venture into the discussion.


----------



## José

> Originally posted *by irosie91*
> At to TEL AVIV-----it was settled OWNED land---by jews ----long before it got its NAME.



irosie, can't you post a single message without distorting the history of the region?

In 1880 Zionist organizations started buying land around Jaffa... tiny new neighborhoods were erected...

The terrain upon which Tel Aviv was founded in 1909 was bought a couple of years earlier in 1906... There was nothing built on this terrain just north of Jaffa... it was not part of any other jewish settlement built before by the Zionists as you can see by this photograph of the founding of the city:






As Tel Aviv grew larger and larger it began to absorb the neighboring tiny jewish settlements and neighborhoods *that had also been built around Jaffa from 1880 on*.

Eventually the greater Tel Aviv "swallowed" the whole arab city of Jaffa itself that ironically became a part of its former neighborhood\satellite village.

This is the real history of the city of Tel Aviv... but just for the sake of debate let's assume the fable you created is true:

Tel Aviv's starting point was the other plots of land surrounding Jaffa bought by zionist organizations from 1880 on.

The only thing you managed to accomplish with your brutal rape of the history of Tel Aviv is to move the city's founding date from 1909 to 1880, a date that happens to coincide with the beginning of the zionist movement!!!!

No matter how much you try to distort the history of the zionist movement, irosie, you cannot escape the fact that the creation of the modern state of Israel started in the late 19th century.


----------



## José

In this debate irosie should be defending the idea that the zionist movement started in the early 1800's and I should be arguing that it started in the 1880's.

But ironically the person who presented the most compelling argument that it really started in the 1880's full of examples of new zionist villages, towns and cities was irosie herself who in theory should be arguing against it:



> Originally posted by *irosie91
> PETAH TIKVAH* -----made in *1878*





> Originally posted by *irosie91
> TEL AVIV*-----it was settled OWNED land---by jews -


The plots of land around Jaffa bought by zionist organizations in *1880* that irosie erroneously identify as the beggining of Tel Aviv.



> Originally posted by *irosie91
> Rishon L'Tzion* had a population of Russian jews in *1880* when it was founded



and finally

*THE REAL TEL AVIV* - founded in *1909*



> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> In any case the *UPTICK* in land purchase in Palestine by jews *happened from the beginning of the 1800s* and continued thruout that century



Irosie's own examples made it clear that the uptick happened in the 1880's and not at the beginning of the century.

When someone else destroys the idea you're defending in a debate you have no reason to be ashamed.

What is really embarrassing is when your own arguments and examples crush completely the case you're making.


----------



## irosie91

José said:


> Originally posted *by irosie91*
> At to TEL AVIV-----it was settled OWNED land---by jews ----long before it got its NAME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie, can't you post a single message without distorting the history of the region?
> 
> In 1880 Zionist organizations started buying land around Jaffa... tiny new neighborhoods were erected...
> 
> The terrain upon which Tel Aviv was founded in 1909 was bought a couple of years earlier in 1906... There was nothing built on this terrain just north of Jaffa... it was not part of any other jewish settlement built before by the Zionists as you can see by this photograph of the founding of the city:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Tel Aviv grew larger and larger it began to absorb the neighboring tiny jewish settlements and neighborhoods *that had also been built around Jaffa from 1880 on*.
> 
> Eventually the greater Tel Aviv "swallowed" the whole arab city of Jaffa itself that ironically became a part of its former neighborhood\satellite village.
> 
> This is the real history of the city of Tel Aviv... but just for the sake of debate let's assume the fable you created is true:
> 
> Tel Aviv's starting point was the other plots of land surrounding Jaffa bought by zionist organizations from 1880 on.
> 
> The only thing you managed to accomplish with your brutal rape of the history of Tel Aviv is to move the city's founding date from 1909 to 1880, a date that happens to coincide with the beginning of the zionist movement!!!!
> 
> No matter how much you try to distort the history of the zionist movement, irosie, you cannot escape the fact that the creation of the modern state of Israel started in the late 19th century.
Click to expand...


you are way off----jose----my statement that the city of Tel Aviv began its development in the 1800s was absolutely correct as
you have just recounted it.   The history of Jaffa ---which as you correctly state-----sorta got taken  up by Tel Aviv---lately---is very long and complex-----It is a port city and was part of the Kingdom of Israel way back ----to the bible  ---that's thousands of years ago-----it was -----fairly lately in history ---invaded by arabs----it was used as a cusaders fortress----something like 1000 years ago    etc etc------I do not know why you want to
call it an 'arab' city------probably because for a short time in history it had a "arab"  majority---ie the majority of people living there spoke Arabic -----the language born in the land of arabia. 
It is a city of lots of different people in the course of history.  
Do you want your own choice of  TIME WINDOW?  ----good---
at one time Baghdad was a Zoroastrian/jewish city.   I grew up in the USA     -----in a section of land that at one time was  
LENI LENAPE


----------



## irosie91

José said:


> In this debate irosie should be defending the idea that the zionist movement started in the early 1800's and I should be arguing that it started in the 1880's.
> 
> But ironically the person who presented the most compelling argument that it really started in the 1880's full of examples of new zionist villages, towns and cities was irosie herself who in theory should be arguing against it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *irosie91
> PETAH TIKVAH* -----made in *1878*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *irosie91
> TEL AVIV*-----it was settled OWNED land---by jews -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The plots of land around Jaffa bought by zionist organizations in *1880* that irosie erroneously identify as the beggining of Tel Aviv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *irosie91
> Rishon L'Tzion* had a population of Russian jews in *1880* when it was founded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and finally
> 
> *THE REAL TEL AVIV* - founded in *1909*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> In any case the *UPTICK* in land purchase in Palestine by jews *happened from the beginning of the 1800s* and continued thruout that century
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irosie's own examples made it clear that the uptick happened in the 1880's and not at the beginning of the century.
> 
> When someone else destroys the idea you're defending in a debate you have no reason to be ashamed.
> 
> What is really embarrassing is when your own arguments and examples crush completely the case you're making.
Click to expand...


yes---UP TICK  means that the purchase of land from the OTTOMAN EMPIRE by jews accelerated in the 1880s----it started in the 1800s.       It is not clear to me what  "idea"  you
imagine I am defending in your depraved mind----so far my
statements of fact have been entirely factual      I am not even sure to what  "case"  you refer.   Do you want to discuss the reasons why the ottomans decided to breach the oppressive and disgusting shariah rules that rendered jews homeless   for so many centuries----not only in Palestine but in lots of the lands of North Africa.  It is an interesting story of DEPRAVED IMPERIALISM.    ----the crap you so love


----------



## rhodescholar

aris2chat said:


> *Missiles Everywhere*
> The Weekly Standard (blog)-Jun 9, 2016
> _Hezbollah_ has a nasty collection of more than 130,000 rockets, _missiles_, ... terrorist organization based in _Lebanon_ and a puppet of the Iranian regime. ... "But suppose _Hezbollah_ launches an advanced _missile_ like the M-600 ...



During the next war to destroy the hez filth, large-scale, major strikes against iran are an absolute must, no two ways about it.

What is surprising is that the animal filth hez/iran haven't attacked Israel during obama the awful's presidency, as there is no question he would expend no small effort trying to restrain Israel from fully crushing both pieces of shit, but a new president could be far more sympathetic to Israel and give them a much freer hand to pulverize iran/hez.

I PRAY every day for the death of the iranian regime and all of its supporters and apologists, whether they be in lebanon, gaza, on the internet - or anywhere else.


----------



## irosie91

rhodescholar said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Missiles Everywhere*
> The Weekly Standard (blog)-Jun 9, 2016
> _Hezbollah_ has a nasty collection of more than 130,000 rockets, _missiles_, ... terrorist organization based in _Lebanon_ and a puppet of the Iranian regime. ... "But suppose _Hezbollah_ launches an advanced _missile_ like the M-600 ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the next war to destroy the hez filth, large-scale, major strikes against iran are an absolute must, no two ways about it.
> 
> What is surprising is that the animal filth hez/iran haven't attacked Israel during obama the awful's presidency, as there is no question he would expend no small effort trying to restrain Israel from fully crushing both pieces of shit, but a new president could be far more sympathetic to Israel and give them a much freer hand to pulverize iran/hez.
> 
> I PRAY every day for the death of the iranian regime and all of its supporters and apologists, whether they be in lebanon, gaza, on the internet - or anywhere else.
Click to expand...


A big problem of HUMAN UNDERSTANDING is the fact
that lots of people do not know Hezbollah for what it is----
so I will reiterate for the benefit of my fellow humanoids.
>>>>HEZBOLLAH IS IRAN---HEZBOLLAH IS FUNCTIONS 
AS THE WILL OF THE AYATOILETS   ----everything and any-
thing done or even said by an HEZBOLLIAN ---anywhere in
the world comes out of the filth of the  AYATOILETS. ----
thousands of missiles specifically designed to blow the
brains out of children-----are ready to be defecated from
the stinking asses of the AYATOILETS


----------



## fanger

IsaacNewton said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> think about your response a bit-----newton-----it is idiotic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nothing---just a bit impatient with those who see
> DA BOMB as the only 'real'  danger in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to connect the dots. The reason NO ONE will attack Israel like that is because they can never win. Ever. It would be self-destruction. It is known as MADD. Mutually Assured Self Destruction. The US and Soviet Union played this game for 45 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right ---it is an issue----but not  BY FAR-----the only issue or ever the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE.    Despite  DA BOMB---the deadly hostilities will continue and Hezbollah will be drawing LOTS OF BLOOD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP states 'wipe off the map'. That isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

*the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time*


----------



## irosie91

fanger said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nothing---just a bit impatient with those who see
> DA BOMB as the only 'real'  danger in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to connect the dots. The reason NO ONE will attack Israel like that is because they can never win. Ever. It would be self-destruction. It is known as MADD. Mutually Assured Self Destruction. The US and Soviet Union played this game for 45 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> right ---it is an issue----but not  BY FAR-----the only issue or ever the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE.    Despite  DA BOMB---the deadly hostilities will continue and Hezbollah will be drawing LOTS OF BLOOD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP states 'wipe off the map'. That isn't going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time*
Click to expand...


what page is that?     can you describe it in reference to the  WORM HOLE in your head?


----------



## rhodescholar

fanger said:


> *the regime occupying Jerusalem...*



Good luck with that, c.unt.  I'll give you about 2 seconds before I'd liquify you and any other scumbag motherfucker that even tries.

To the sane, and most of the planet, it is the iranian and assad regimes that WILL vanish from the map - and will be quickly forgotten by their long-suffering peoples.


----------



## José

> *RHODESCHOLAR*
> To the sane, and most of the planet, it is the iranian and assad regimes that WILL vanish from the map - and will be quickly forgotten by their long-suffering peoples.




Why does it have to be one or the other?

Why can't a secular and a religious dictatorship join a supremacist state in the garbage can of human history?

What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews somehow supports another moral excrescence that severely curtails religious freedom, interferes with its citizens' private life and is run by clerics (a medieval form of government already discarded by 95% of the civilized world)?

*an arab secular dictatorship

a persian theocratic dictatorship

and a jewish racial dictatorship*

I say good riddance to them all!!


----------



## irosie91

José said:


> *RHODESCHOLAR*
> To the sane, and most of the planet, it is the iranian and assad regimes that WILL vanish from the map - and will be quickly forgotten by their long-suffering peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be one or the other?
> 
> Why can't a secular and a religious dictatorship join a supremacist state in the garbage can of human history?
> 
> What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews somehow supports another moral excrescence that severely curtails religious freedom, interferes with its citizens' private life and is run by clerics (a medieval form of government already discarded by 95% of the civilized world)?
> 
> *an arab secular dictatorship
> 
> a persian theocratic dictatorship
> 
> and a jewish racial dictatorship*
> 
> I say good riddance to them all!!
Click to expand...


by your criteria of what should vanish----you would have to wipe out more than a billion people--- every land with a muslim
majority is a stinking shariah shit hole---that is more than a billion people


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> by your criteria of what should vanish----you would have to wipe out more than a billion people--- every land with a muslim majority is a stinking shariah shit hole---that is more than a billion people



So in your mind there's no difference between KSA and Iran on the one hand and Turkey and Indonesia on the other?


----------



## irosie91

José said:


> Originally posted by *irosie91*
> by your criteria of what should vanish----you would have to wipe out more than a billion people--- every land with a muslim majority is a stinking shariah shit hole---that is more than a billion people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in your mind there's no difference between KSA and Iran on the one hand and Turkey and Indonesia on the other?
Click to expand...


you imagine that you are reading my mind?     I did not mention KSA or IRAN or TURKEY or INDONESIA-------"no difference"??    that is a silly remark.  They all differ from each other in this or that respect.  They do have one feature in common-------the filth of muslim majority----a phenomenon ALWAYS associated with oppression of
'kaffirin'  and tainted with more or less shariah shit


----------



## rhodescholar

José said:


> Why does it have to be one or the other?
> 
> Why can't a secular and a religious dictatorship join a supremacist state in the garbage can of human history?
> 
> What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews somehow supports another moral excrescence that severely curtails religious freedom, interferes with its citizens' private life and is run by clerics (a medieval form of government already discarded by 95% of the civilized world)?
> 
> *an arab secular dictatorship
> 
> a persian theocratic dictatorship
> 
> and a jewish racial dictatorship*
> 
> I say good riddance to them all!!



If everyone else had not spend the last 15 centuries slaughtering jews you might have a point, but given the horrendous mistreatment/genocide by others of jews, they have every right to a safe haven.  Look at what the muslim filth is doing to the yazidis as we speak...


----------



## irosie91

rhodescholar said:


> José said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it have to be one or the other?
> 
> Why can't a secular and a religious dictatorship join a supremacist state in the garbage can of human history?
> 
> What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews somehow supports another moral excrescence that severely curtails religious freedom, interferes with its citizens' private life and is run by clerics (a medieval form of government already discarded by 95% of the civilized world)?
> 
> *an arab secular dictatorship
> 
> a persian theocratic dictatorship
> 
> and a jewish racial dictatorship*
> 
> I say good riddance to them all!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If everyone else had not spend the last 15 centuries slaughtering jews you might have a point, but given the horrendous mistreatment/genocide by others of jews, they have every right to a safe haven.  Look at what the muslim filth is doing to the yazidis as we speak...
Click to expand...


so true----Zoroastrians have rights too------I vote a big slice out of  IRAN


----------



## Shusha

José said:


> What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews ...



Newsflash.  Israel DOES treat all people as citizens in the territories it controls.  Israel "murders" no one.  And Israel harms no one for the crime of "not being Jew"


----------



## irosie91

Shusha said:


> José said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash.  Israel DOES treat all people as citizens in the territories it controls.  Israel "murders" no one.  And Israel harms no one for the crime of "not being Jew"
Click to expand...


Long ago----in the course of my work----I came to understand
that any attempt to address a delusion with "LOGIC"  is futile.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> José said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash.  Israel DOES treat all people as citizens in the territories it controls.  Israel "murders" no one.  And Israel harms no one for the crime of "not being Jew"
Click to expand...

According to the international law of state succession and reiterated in UN Resolution 181, (and was the basis for article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne) all Palestinians who normally reside in the territory that becomes Israel will become citizens of that state. These citizens are not allowed home because they are not Jews.


----------



## irosie91

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash.  Israel DOES treat all people as citizens in the territories it controls.  Israel "murders" no one.  And Israel harms no one for the crime of "not being Jew"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the international law of state succession and reiterated in UN Resolution 181, (and was the basis for article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne) all Palestinians who normally reside in the territory that becomes Israel will become citizens of that state. These citizens are not allowed home because they are not Jews.
Click to expand...


Lots of the people who later decided to call themselves
"Palestinians"  left and openly joined forces with the people who had and have the agenda of destroying Israel---those people are not entitled to citizenship.


----------



## P F Tinmore

irosie91 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash.  Israel DOES treat all people as citizens in the territories it controls.  Israel "murders" no one.  And Israel harms no one for the crime of "not being Jew"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the international law of state succession and reiterated in UN Resolution 181, (and was the basis for article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne) all Palestinians who normally reside in the territory that becomes Israel will become citizens of that state. These citizens are not allowed home because they are not Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of the people who later decided to call themselves
> "Palestinians"  left and openly joined forces with the people who had and have the agenda of destroying Israel---those people are not entitled to citizenship.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## irosie91

P F Tinmore said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash.  Israel DOES treat all people as citizens in the territories it controls.  Israel "murders" no one.  And Israel harms no one for the crime of "not being Jew"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the international law of state succession and reiterated in UN Resolution 181, (and was the basis for article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne) all Palestinians who normally reside in the territory that becomes Israel will become citizens of that state. These citizens are not allowed home because they are not Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of the people who later decided to call themselves
> "Palestinians"  left and openly joined forces with the people who had and have the agenda of destroying Israel---those people are not entitled to citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Link to what?    ---the career of  AL HUSSEINI---or that of the inventor of the  "PALESTINIANS"   Yassir Arafart?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash.  Israel DOES treat all people as citizens in the territories it controls.  Israel "murders" no one.  And Israel harms no one for the crime of "not being Jew"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the international law of state succession and reiterated in UN Resolution 181, (and was the basis for article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne) all Palestinians who normally reside in the territory that becomes Israel will become citizens of that state. These citizens are not allowed home because they are not Jews.
Click to expand...


I think rather they are not (yet) permitted "home" because they are hostile to the State of Israel.


----------



## irosie91

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash.  Israel DOES treat all people as citizens in the territories it controls.  Israel "murders" no one.  And Israel harms no one for the crime of "not being Jew"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the international law of state succession and reiterated in UN Resolution 181, (and was the basis for article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne) all Palestinians who normally reside in the territory that becomes Israel will become citizens of that state. These citizens are not allowed home because they are not Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think rather they are not (yet) permitted "home" because they are hostile to the State of Israel.
Click to expand...


the islamo Nazi scum are actually comical------in the filth of shariah ----an offhand comment on the  Muhummad dog-----is a capital crime-----but THEY insist that DA JOOOS must accommodate HAPPILY   their   "KILL DA JOOOOOS"  filth. 
Good idea -----let them all "come back"   examine their kids and at the first sign of the Islamic  "kill da jooos"  religion----arrest and execute DA WHOLE DAMN FAMILY   (we have much to learn from islam----make that the WHOLE DAMN VILLAGE and trash the fucking mosque)


----------



## irosie91

P F Tinmore said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> José said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think someone who condemns a moral excrescence that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the crime of not being Jews ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newsflash.  Israel DOES treat all people as citizens in the territories it controls.  Israel "murders" no one.  And Israel harms no one for the crime of "not being Jew"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the international law of state succession and reiterated in UN Resolution 181, (and was the basis for article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne) all Palestinians who normally reside in the territory that becomes Israel will become citizens of that state. These citizens are not allowed home because they are not Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lots of the people who later decided to call themselves
> "Palestinians"  left and openly joined forces with the people who had and have the agenda of destroying Israel---those people are not entitled to citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Link to what?   your shitty mouth?     I am a lucky girl------as a kid----I was quiet and polite.     The Muzzies with whom I worked mistook polite interest with a DESIRE TO JOIN----I got invited to visit mosques-----WAY BACK in the 1960s    I know the shit that they spit in mosques-----from before the time when you guys got concerned over FBI surveillance.    I even ran into the pig-----saddam sent to the USA to promulgate your stink-------uhm   an Iraqi slob  MAHMOUD MEHDI  (spelling?)  ---he was the founder of the original gang of criminals that are now called  CAIR---------paragon Baathist pig-------the greasy piece of shit died about 15 years ago


----------



## sharif

if any country have doubt or feel IRAN giving blank threat than allow Iran to fire Missile to Israel to know whether Iran can hit Israel or giving a totally mis leading information?


----------



## The Great Goose

sharif said:


> if any country have doubt or feel IRAN giving blank threat than allow Iran to fire Missile to Israel to know whether Iran can hit Israel or giving a totally mis leading information?


Militants!


----------



## irosie91

sharif said:


> if any country have doubt or feel IRAN giving blank threat than allow Iran to fire Missile to Israel to know whether Iran can hit Israel or giving a totally mis leading information?



the ayatoilets told you to ASK my permission for Hezbollah to fire missiles at Israel?.......Ok----tell the Ayatoilets to ANNOUNCE---
"WE---THE OWNERS AND CONTROLLERS OF THE HEZBOLLAH DOGS----INSTRUCT OUR DOGS TO FIRE
MISSILES AT ISRAEL"---THEN THE DOGS SHOULD START
DOING IT....


----------



## anotherlife

The entire history of modern Israel is about who wipes who off the map.  So why is this a surprise?  In fact, even before the creation of modern Israel in 1947, the European Jewish leaders have already wiped off countries off the map. So, why is this a big deal?


----------



## The Great Goose

wiped off countries off the map??? wth?


----------



## irosie91

anotherlife said:


> The entire history of modern Israel is about who wipes who off the map.  So why is this a surprise?  In fact, even before the creation of modern Israel in 1947, the European Jewish leaders have already wiped off countries off the map. So, why is this a big deal?



I am fascinated-----can you name a jewish European leader and the nation he "wiped" off the map?     I am not referring to the giant jewish plot-----THE BUBONIC PLAGUE


----------



## RoccoR

anotherlife, et al,

My contemporary European History has a big hole in it.  Can you teach me something?



anotherlife said:


> The entire history of modern Israel is about who wipes who off the map.  So why is this a surprise?  In fact, even before the creation of modern Israel in 1947, the European Jewish leaders have already wiped off countries off the map. So, why is this a big deal?


*(QUESTION)*

"Before the creation of modern Israel in 1947" [let's say a thousand years (947)] what countries were "wiped-off" the map by "European Jewish Leaders?"

Most Respectfully,
R


----------

