# Israel's Legal Right To Exist



## MJB12741

Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?

Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks


----------



## turzovka

MJB12741 said:


> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks



Nice summation.    Could have been lengthened a bit more with facts to make the obvious even more obvious, i.e. Arab nations do not want peace with Israel, they want to destroy Israel.   Nor do any of these nations have a legitimate historical case for why Jews cannot be in that land.    The hatred and blame towards Israel by the West and by the U.N. defies right judgement.


----------



## MJB12741

turzovka said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice summation.    Could have been lengthened a bit more with facts to make the obvious even more obvious, i.e. Arab nations do not want peace with Israel, they want to destroy Israel.   Nor do any of these nations have a legitimate historical case for why Jews cannot be in that land.    The hatred and blame towards Israel by the West and by the U.N. defies right judgement.
Click to expand...


It's not possible for them to deal with the facts that the re-establishment of Israel as a nation was done both morally & legally. Perhaps we should all discuss the establishment of Muslim lands conquered by force & what happened to the indigenous populations under their rule.


----------



## montelatici

The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks


The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.


It's a bit of


P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
Click to expand...


Continue with what, a YouTube video?


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.



Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
Click to expand...


Its the same process that peacefully and legally created Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.


----------



## TheOldSchool

turzovka said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice summation.    Could have been lengthened a bit more with facts to make the obvious even more obvious, i.e. Arab nations do not want peace with Israel, they want to destroy Israel.   Nor do any of these nations have a legitimate historical case for why Jews cannot be in that land.    The hatred and blame towards Israel by the West and by the U.N. defies right judgement.
Click to expand...

Strange how you insult the West and the UN in a thread about how they gave Israel the legal right to exist.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
Click to expand...


The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
Click to expand...


You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.  

And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
Click to expand...





Yes by producing evidence from an unbiased and non partisan source to prove this is a LIE


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
Click to expand...


All Muslim lands are stolen lands conquered by force whereby the indigenous populations were forced to convert, leave or be killed.  Want an example?   What ever happened to the indigenous Zoroastrians of Iran?  And remember, "it's Istanbul, not Constantinople."  Want more examples?  Please advise.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
Click to expand...


The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
Click to expand...








 Or they could pretend to convert but in reality stay Jewish and follow the religion of Moses and Jesus


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
Click to expand...


Well isn't that nice of the Muslim conquerors?  Like I said previously, convert, leave or be killed.  Which would you prefer?


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
Click to expand...



There is even hope for you, although I have a feeling that the Jews don't want a member who is a nutcase like you.


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is even hope for you, although I have a feeling that the Jews don't want a member who is a nutcase like you.
Click to expand...


Oh Monte.  Them poppies must be good this year.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well isn't that nice of the Muslim conquerors?  Like I said previously, convert, leave or be killed.  Which would you prefer?
Click to expand...


It was not convert or be killed with, in fact, non-Muslims provided needed additional tax revenue that Muslims were not required to pay, so conversion was not eagerly encouraged by the Arabian leadership.  
The convert. leave, or be killed was rather more the Christian policy once Christianity became the state religion of Byzantium (Rome).


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is even hope for you, although I have a feeling that the Jews don't want a member who is a nutcase like you.
Click to expand...


That's exactly the sort of thing that Christians did when the Arabians were in power, they converted to Islam.  This Palestinian that converted to Judaism is the same individual that he was before converting, his ancestors are the same, they didn't change.  You have, without wanting to, made my point.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is even hope for you, although I have a feeling that the Jews don't want a member who is a nutcase like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the sort of thing that Christians did when the Arabians were in power, they converted to Islam.  This Palestinian that converted to Judaism is the same individual that he was before converting, his ancestors are the same, they didn't change.  You have, without wanting to, made my point.
Click to expand...


And you, apparently without realizing it, have just made mine.  The conquerors become the legal owners of the land.  So you can have absolutely no quarrel with Israel's right to exist.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is even hope for you, although I have a feeling that the Jews don't want a member who is a nutcase like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the sort of thing that Christians did when the Arabians were in power, they converted to Islam.  This Palestinian that converted to Judaism is the same individual that he was before converting, his ancestors are the same, they didn't change.  You have, without wanting to, made my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you, apparently without realizing it, have just made mine.  The conquerors become the legal owners of the land.  So you can have absolutely no quarrel with Israel's right to exist.
Click to expand...


Sure, before the second world war this was allowed but gaining land through conquest was made illegal as of 1945, UN Charter, article 2, para. 4.    In any case, this little interchange has finally made you realize that the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt.  Thanks again.......


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well isn't that nice of the Muslim conquerors?  Like I said previously, convert, leave or be killed.  Which would you prefer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was not convert or be killed with, in fact, non-Muslims provided needed additional tax revenue that Muslims were not required to pay, so conversion was not eagerly encouraged by the Arabian leadership.
> The convert. leave, or be killed was rather more the Christian policy once Christianity became the state religion of Byzantium (Rome).
Click to expand...








Try looking at the history again that shows the arab muslims carried out the commands in the koran and hadiths to kill or convert


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is even hope for you, although I have a feeling that the Jews don't want a member who is a nutcase like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the sort of thing that Christians did when the Arabians were in power, they converted to Islam.  This Palestinian that converted to Judaism is the same individual that he was before converting, his ancestors are the same, they didn't change.  You have, without wanting to, made my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you, apparently without realizing it, have just made mine.  The conquerors become the legal owners of the land.  So you can have absolutely no quarrel with Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, before the second world war this was allowed but gaining land through conquest was made illegal as of 1945, UN Charter, article 2, para. 4.    In any case, this little interchange has finally made you realize that the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt.  Thanks again.......
Click to expand...








 LIAR   as this is what that says


 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


no mention of not gaining land through force is there. And your islamonazi hero's are in breach of this every day all over the world.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is even hope for you, although I have a feeling that the Jews don't want a member who is a nutcase like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the sort of thing that Christians did when the Arabians were in power, they converted to Islam.  This Palestinian that converted to Judaism is the same individual that he was before converting, his ancestors are the same, they didn't change.  You have, without wanting to, made my point.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't it be amusing if all the Muslims in the Middle East who find out that their ancestors were originally Christian decided to convert back.  After all, when the Muslims left the Arabian Peninsula and invaded the surrounding countries, they forced the people to convert to Islam and slaughtered those who refused.  An example of converting back to the religion of their ancestors can be seen in the American Southwest where many raised Catholics are sending in their DNA and finding out they are Jewish,

Southwest Latinos Discovering Long-Forgotten Jewish Roots

Even some Sicilians are finding out they have Jewish roots.

Sicily’s Semitic Side


----------



## montelatici

There were many more Muslims than Jews in Spain before la Reconquista, most these folks will find out they were Berber (Moriscos) and Iberian Christians that converted to Islam and then were forced to convert back to Christianity in the 16th century after the Reconquista.

Same with Sicily, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule.  They will find out that they were Christians that converted to Islam and then converted back to Christianity after the Normans expelled the Arab overlords.

You really don't think these things through and just accept propaganda that defies logic (and history). LOL


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> There were many more Muslims than Jews in Spain before la Reconquista, most these folks will find out they were Berber (Moriscos) and Iberian Christians that converted to Islam and then were forced to convert back to Christianity in the 16th century after the Reconquista.
> 
> Same with Sicily, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule.  They will find out that they were Christians that converted to Islam and then converted back to Christianity after the Normans expelled the Arab overlords.
> 
> You really don't think these things through and just accept propaganda that defies logic (and history). LOL



"Same with Sicily, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule."

You're a master of "duh".

Arab-Moslem rule tends to be.... how shall we say... "less than conducive to a long life" for non-Islamics under Islamist fascism. So yes, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule. And today is Tuesday. That means it's not friday.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is even hope for you, although I have a feeling that the Jews don't want a member who is a nutcase like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the sort of thing that Christians did when the Arabians were in power, they converted to Islam.  This Palestinian that converted to Judaism is the same individual that he was before converting, his ancestors are the same, they didn't change.  You have, without wanting to, made my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you, apparently without realizing it, have just made mine.  The conquerors become the legal owners of the land.  So you can have absolutely no quarrel with Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, before the second world war this was allowed but gaining land through conquest was made illegal as of 1945, UN Charter, article 2, para. 4.    In any case, this little interchange has finally made you realize that the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt.  Thanks again.......
Click to expand...


Now THAT'S funny!  "the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt."


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were many more Muslims than Jews in Spain before la Reconquista, most these folks will find out they were Berber (Moriscos) and Iberian Christians that converted to Islam and then were forced to convert back to Christianity in the 16th century after the Reconquista.
> 
> Same with Sicily, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule.  They will find out that they were Christians that converted to Islam and then converted back to Christianity after the Normans expelled the Arab overlords.
> 
> You really don't think these things through and just accept propaganda that defies logic (and history). LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Same with Sicily, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule."
> 
> You're a master of "duh".
> 
> Arab-Moslem rule tends to be.... how shall we say... "less than conducive to a long life" for non-Islamics under Islamist fascism. So yes, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule. And today is Tuesday. That means it's not friday.
Click to expand...




MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is even hope for you, although I have a feeling that the Jews don't want a member who is a nutcase like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the sort of thing that Christians did when the Arabians were in power, they converted to Islam.  This Palestinian that converted to Judaism is the same individual that he was before converting, his ancestors are the same, they didn't change.  You have, without wanting to, made my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you, apparently without realizing it, have just made mine.  The conquerors become the legal owners of the land.  So you can have absolutely no quarrel with Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, before the second world war this was allowed but gaining land through conquest was made illegal as of 1945, UN Charter, article 2, para. 4.    In any case, this little interchange has finally made you realize that the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt.  Thanks again.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now THAT'S funny!  "the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt."
Click to expand...


If someone forces you to change your religion, will you be the as you were before?


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were many more Muslims than Jews in Spain before la Reconquista, most these folks will find out they were Berber (Moriscos) and Iberian Christians that converted to Islam and then were forced to convert back to Christianity in the 16th century after the Reconquista.
> 
> Same with Sicily, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule.  They will find out that they were Christians that converted to Islam and then converted back to Christianity after the Normans expelled the Arab overlords.
> 
> You really don't think these things through and just accept propaganda that defies logic (and history). LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Same with Sicily, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule."
> 
> You're a master of "duh".
> 
> Arab-Moslem rule tends to be.... how shall we say... "less than conducive to a long life" for non-Islamics under Islamist fascism. So yes, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule. And today is Tuesday. That means it's not friday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is even hope for you, although I have a feeling that the Jews don't want a member who is a nutcase like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the sort of thing that Christians did when the Arabians were in power, they converted to Islam.  This Palestinian that converted to Judaism is the same individual that he was before converting, his ancestors are the same, they didn't change.  You have, without wanting to, made my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you, apparently without realizing it, have just made mine.  The conquerors become the legal owners of the land.  So you can have absolutely no quarrel with Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, before the second world war this was allowed but gaining land through conquest was made illegal as of 1945, UN Charter, article 2, para. 4.    In any case, this little interchange has finally made you realize that the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt.  Thanks again.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now THAT'S funny!  "the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone forces you to change your religion, will you be the SAME as you were before?
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is even hope for you, although I have a feeling that the Jews don't want a member who is a nutcase like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the sort of thing that Christians did when the Arabians were in power, they converted to Islam.  This Palestinian that converted to Judaism is the same individual that he was before converting, his ancestors are the same, they didn't change.  You have, without wanting to, made my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you, apparently without realizing it, have just made mine.  The conquerors become the legal owners of the land.  So you can have absolutely no quarrel with Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, before the second world war this was allowed but gaining land through conquest was made illegal as of 1945, UN Charter, article 2, para. 4.    In any case, this little interchange has finally made you realize that the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt.  Thanks again.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now THAT'S funny!  "the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt."
Click to expand...


That's absolutely true, are the native americans no longer indigenous because many became Christian?  You are truly adept at making a fool of yourself.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were many more Muslims than Jews in Spain before la Reconquista, most these folks will find out they were Berber (Moriscos) and Iberian Christians that converted to Islam and then were forced to convert back to Christianity in the 16th century after the Reconquista.
> 
> Same with Sicily, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule.  They will find out that they were Christians that converted to Islam and then converted back to Christianity after the Normans expelled the Arab overlords.
> 
> You really don't think these things through and just accept propaganda that defies logic (and history). LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Same with Sicily, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule."
> 
> You're a master of "duh".
> 
> Arab-Moslem rule tends to be.... how shall we say... "less than conducive to a long life" for non-Islamics under Islamist fascism. So yes, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule. And today is Tuesday. That means it's not friday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is even hope for you, although I have a feeling that the Jews don't want a member who is a nutcase like you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the sort of thing that Christians did when the Arabians were in power, they converted to Islam.  This Palestinian that converted to Judaism is the same individual that he was before converting, his ancestors are the same, they didn't change.  You have, without wanting to, made my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you, apparently without realizing it, have just made mine.  The conquerors become the legal owners of the land.  So you can have absolutely no quarrel with Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, before the second world war this was allowed but gaining land through conquest was made illegal as of 1945, UN Charter, article 2, para. 4.    In any case, this little interchange has finally made you realize that the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt.  Thanks again.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now THAT'S funny!  "the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone forces you to change your religion, will you be the as you were before?
Click to expand...


Of course you are in terms of indigenousness. The native americans were forced to become Catholic in Latin America.  Are they no longer indigenous. What a bunch of dunces you people are.  The Israeli firster mob. 

"The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its dumbest member divided by the number of mobsters"


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> There were many more Muslims than Jews in Spain before la Reconquista, most these folks will find out they were Berber (Moriscos) and Iberian Christians that converted to Islam and then were forced to convert back to Christianity in the 16th century after the Reconquista.
> 
> Same with Sicily, there were far more Muslims in Sicily than Jews during Arab rule.  They will find out that they were Christians that converted to Islam and then converted back to Christianity after the Normans expelled the Arab overlords.
> 
> You really don't think these things through and just accept propaganda that defies logic (and history). LOL


 I think most of the readers realize by now  realize that you don't think Israel should exist and the Muslims (even though you keep on throwing in the Christians  into the mix to throw everyone off) to be the ones to rule the entire area just like they do the rest of the Middle East.  Perhaps it would be a good idea for  you to send in your DNA to see whether you are either Jewish or a Muslim.


----------



## montelatici

I have never said Israel should not exist.  I just present facts. Did my DNA, I am pure European, not a taint of Middle Eastern.  Also some Irish, which surprised me.  My cousin's red hair should have tipped me off.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> I have never said Israel should not exist.  I just present facts. Did my DNA, I am pure European, not a taint of Middle Eastern.  Also some Irish, which surprised me.  My cousin's red hair should have tipped me off.



Do Muslim countries have a legal right to exist?  Please explain.


----------



## Lastamender

turzovka said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice summation.    Could have been lengthened a bit more with facts to make the obvious even more obvious, i.e. Arab nations do not want peace with Israel, they want to destroy Israel.   Nor do any of these nations have a legitimate historical case for why Jews cannot be in that land.    The hatred and blame towards Israel by the West and by the U.N. defies right judgement.
Click to expand...


The Koran itself says Israel belongs to the Jews.


----------



## MJB12741

Lastamender said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice summation.    Could have been lengthened a bit more with facts to make the obvious even more obvious, i.e. Arab nations do not want peace with Israel, they want to destroy Israel.   Nor do any of these nations have a legitimate historical case for why Jews cannot be in that land.    The hatred and blame towards Israel by the West and by the U.N. defies right judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Koran itself says Israel belongs to the Jews.
Click to expand...


True.  And even Medina first belonged to the Jews before Mohammed & his hoards stole it from them.

Medina, Islam's second holiest city, was originally a Jewish "settlement"


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Sure, before the second world war this was allowed but gaining land through conquest was made illegal as of 1945, UN Charter, article 2, para. 4.    In any case, this little interchange has finally made you realize that the indigenous people remain the same, regardless what religion they happen to adopt.  Thanks again.......



Phew, good thing Israel did not get the land from conquest and that the territory became the Jewish National Home before 1945, then.  

And give me a break, the indigenous peoples do not remain the same when they mix with a group of invaders.  To think that way removes all purpose of identifying a group of indigenous peoples.  The ENTIRE point is to identify *pre-invasion cultures* and preserve them.


----------



## montelatici

Invaders do not mix much with the native people.  Firstly, they are small in number comparatively, as they are a military corps,  They tend to form a ruling elite that that practices little intermarriage with the native people.  The people of Palestine are more or less the same people that have always been there.  The Zionists were Europeans, from another continent.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Invaders do not mix much with the native people.  Firstly, they are small in number comparatively, as they are a military corps,  They tend to form a ruling elite that that practices little intermarriage with the native people.  The people of Palestine are more or less the same people that have always been there.  The Zionists were Europeans, from another continent.


The invading Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters were certainly not "more or less the same people that have always been there"™

You're quite ignorant of the history surrounding the area.


----------



## montelatici

Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.


If would be a good idea for you to contact this Hamas official and ask him to take back what he said.

(Video) Hamas Official: “Who are the Palestinians? The Palestinians don’t come from Palestine.”


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
Click to expand...

Your OPINION OF WHAT IS CIVILIZED.....to others it's REPRESSION


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Invaders do not mix much with the native people.  Firstly, they are small in number comparatively, as they are a military corps,  They tend to form a ruling elite that that practices little intermarriage with the native people.  The people of Palestine are more or less the same people that have always been there.  The Zionists were Europeans, from another continent.










 Sounds like the muslims all over the world.

The DNA results call you a LIAR


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your OPINION OF WHAT IS CIVILIZED.....to others it's REPRESSION
Click to expand...






 And it is called islam


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.









 Apart from the ones that prove the Jews were the majority, but they are discounted because they dont meet with your POV


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your OPINION OF WHAT IS CIVILIZED.....to others it's REPRESSION
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is called islam
Click to expand...

WRONG AGAIN


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the ones that prove the Jews were the majority, but they are discounted because they dont meet with your POV
Click to expand...

How can they be the the MAJORITY when most are ZIONISTS BUT SYNTHETIC JEWS


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your OPINION OF WHAT IS CIVILIZED.....to others it's REPRESSION
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is called islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG AGAIN
Click to expand...







 So you dont see the way muslims treat women as repression.   What was it the Oz imam said about women being slabs of meat on display in a butchers shop again


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the ones that prove the Jews were the majority, but they are discounted because they dont meet with your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can they be the the MAJORITY when most are ZIONISTS BUT SYNTHETIC JEWS
Click to expand...







 Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.


 Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the ones that prove the Jews were the majority, but they are discounted because they dont meet with your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can they be the the MAJORITY when most are ZIONISTS BUT SYNTHETIC JEWS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
Click to expand...

You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> If would be a good idea for you to contact this Hamas official and ask him to take back what he said.
> 
> (Video) Hamas Official: “Who are the Palestinians? The Palestinians don’t come from Palestine.”
Click to expand...


I am surprised you believe what those Islamist thugs claim, but since you believe everything the Zionist thugs say, I shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> If would be a good idea for you to contact this Hamas official and ask him to take back what he said.
> 
> (Video) Hamas Official: “Who are the Palestinians? The Palestinians don’t come from Palestine.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am surprised you believe what those Islamist thugs claim, but since you believe everything the Zionist thugs say, I shouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks that the invented "Palestinians" aren't simply Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians are lying to themselves. The Egyptian, Yessir Arafart and the Russian KGB invented the idea.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> If would be a good idea for you to contact this Hamas official and ask him to take back what he said.
> 
> (Video) Hamas Official: “Who are the Palestinians? The Palestinians don’t come from Palestine.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am surprised you believe what those Islamist thugs claim, but since you believe everything the Zionist thugs say, I shouldn't be surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the invented "Palestinians" aren't simply Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians are lying to themselves. The Egyptian, Yessir Arafart and the Russian KGB invented the idea.
Click to expand...


Yeah right. Unbelievable the depth of idiocy of these Zionist tools.  No interest in doing research to see how much Zionist propaganda they have been fed. The Palestinians were not Syrians or Egyptians or Lebanese, they have always been the people of Palestine, since it was a Roman province.  Offical correspondence available at academic institutions and within the UN archives disproves your disgusting idiocy. Your attempt at destroying a people's history and heritage is just as disgusting as antisemitism. 

FROM 1922.

*"PALESTINE.*

*CORRESPONDENCE *
*WITH THE*
*PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION*
*AND THE *
*ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*

*Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.*
*JUNE, 1922.*
*
*


_(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order;* the People of Palestine* cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> If would be a good idea for you to contact this Hamas official and ask him to take back what he said.
> 
> (Video) Hamas Official: “Who are the Palestinians? The Palestinians don’t come from Palestine.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am surprised you believe what those Islamist thugs claim, but since you believe everything the Zionist thugs say, I shouldn't be surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the invented "Palestinians" aren't simply Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians are lying to themselves. The Egyptian, Yessir Arafart and the Russian KGB invented the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Unbelievable the depth of idiocy of these Zionist tools.  No interest in doing research to see how much Zionist propaganda they have been fed. The Palestinians were not Syrians or Egyptians or Lebanese, they have always been the people of Palestine, since it was a Roman province.  Offical correspondence available at academic institutions and within the UN archives disproves your disgusting idiocy. Your attempt at destroying a people's history and heritage is just as disgusting as antisemitism.
> 
> FROM 1922.
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> _(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order;* the People of Palestine* cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
Click to expand...

Get a Gaza or West Bank phone book and check out the ethnicity of the names, That's one easy way to find out.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> If would be a good idea for you to contact this Hamas official and ask him to take back what he said.
> 
> (Video) Hamas Official: “Who are the Palestinians? The Palestinians don’t come from Palestine.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am surprised you believe what those Islamist thugs claim, but since you believe everything the Zionist thugs say, I shouldn't be surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the invented "Palestinians" aren't simply Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians are lying to themselves. The Egyptian, Yessir Arafart and the Russian KGB invented the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Unbelievable the depth of idiocy of these Zionist tools.  No interest in doing research to see how much Zionist propaganda they have been fed. The Palestinians were not Syrians or Egyptians or Lebanese, they have always been the people of Palestine, since it was a Roman province.  Offical correspondence available at academic institutions and within the UN archives disproves your disgusting idiocy. Your attempt at destroying a people's history and heritage is just as disgusting as antisemitism.
> 
> FROM 1922.
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> _(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order;* the People of Palestine* cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a Gaza or West Bank phone book and check out the ethnicity of the names, That's one easy way to find out.
Click to expand...

What a stupid argument.

Look in a US phone book.


----------



## montelatici

Get the facts, you idiot, instead of parroting a bunch of Zionist propaganda you've been fed.  The ethnicity of names thing was a bunch of Zionist propaganda by the racist pig Daniel Pipes, ffs. Arab family names are common to the whole area, just visit any Arab ancestry site.  For example, since many Palestinians were Christians let's try a Christian one:

"family names (last names) are about the same many times in the different countries like Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq etc. Take for example the names Haddad, Bader, Sayegh, Najjar, Khoury, Hijazin, Helou, Lahham, Totah, Batarseh, Jaar, Copty, Ennabi and many, many others...."

A Call to Arab Christians


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the ones that prove the Jews were the majority, but they are discounted because they dont meet with your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can they be the the MAJORITY when most are ZIONISTS BUT SYNTHETIC JEWS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
Click to expand...

 





  No such thing as a synthetic Jew, just another of your childish made up terms lifted from a hate site

 And you are nothing but a stain on the floor


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Get the facts, you idiot, instead of parroting a bunch of Zionist propaganda you've been fed.  The ethnicity of names thing was a bunch of Zionist propaganda by the racist pig Daniel Pipes, ffs. Arab family names are common to the whole area, just visit any Arab ancestry site.  For example, since many Palestinians were Christians let's try a Christian one:
> 
> "family names (last names) are about the same many times in the different countries like Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq etc. Take for example the names Haddad, Bader, Sayegh, Najjar, Khoury, Hijazin, Helou, Lahham, Totah, Batarseh, Jaar, Copty, Ennabi and many, many others...."
> 
> A Call to Arab Christians


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If would be a good idea for you to contact this Hamas official and ask him to take back what he said.
> 
> (Video) Hamas Official: “Who are the Palestinians? The Palestinians don’t come from Palestine.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am surprised you believe what those Islamist thugs claim, but since you believe everything the Zionist thugs say, I shouldn't be surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the invented "Palestinians" aren't simply Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians are lying to themselves. The Egyptian, Yessir Arafart and the Russian KGB invented the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Unbelievable the depth of idiocy of these Zionist tools.  No interest in doing research to see how much Zionist propaganda they have been fed. The Palestinians were not Syrians or Egyptians or Lebanese, they have always been the people of Palestine, since it was a Roman province.  Offical correspondence available at academic institutions and within the UN archives disproves your disgusting idiocy. Your attempt at destroying a people's history and heritage is just as disgusting as antisemitism.
> 
> FROM 1922.
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> _(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order;* the People of Palestine* cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a Gaza or West Bank phone book and check out the ethnicity of the names, That's one easy way to find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid argument.
> 
> Look in a US phone book.
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

Expected response to one who has been shown to be a fool and wrong on all counts.  You are a moron.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Expected response to one who has been shown to be a fool and wrong on all counts.  You are a moron.


----------



## Onyx

The established law is illegitimate.

Israel only has the "right" to exist as a country, and not a state.


----------



## Phoenall

Onyx said:


> The established law is illegitimate.
> 
> Israel only has the "right" to exist as a country, and not a state.









 They are the same thing if you look at any dictionary


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Expected response to one who has been shown to be a fool and wrong on all counts.  You are a moron.



I just want to thank Monte for making our day.  Day after day.  Bless you man for all the laughs you give us while those you support are killing us infidels all over the world.


----------



## montelatici

Seems to me it is the Palestinians that are being killed by Jews.  Haven't heard of Palestinians killing infidels all over the world.  But, thanks for the laughs, moron.


----------



## Roudy

^^^ "seems to me...blah blah blah...."  

Oh yeah, those poor Palestinian Neva Eva Eva participated in terror and killing of innocents.


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> If would be a good idea for you to contact this Hamas official and ask him to take back what he said.
> 
> (Video) Hamas Official: “Who are the Palestinians? The Palestinians don’t come from Palestine.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am surprised you believe what those Islamist thugs claim, but since you believe everything the Zionist thugs say, I shouldn't be surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the invented "Palestinians" aren't simply Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians are lying to themselves. The Egyptian, Yessir Arafart and the Russian KGB invented the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Unbelievable the depth of idiocy of these Zionist tools.  No interest in doing research to see how much Zionist propaganda they have been fed. The Palestinians were not Syrians or Egyptians or Lebanese, they have always been the people of Palestine, since it was a Roman province.  Offical correspondence available at academic institutions and within the UN archives disproves your disgusting idiocy. Your attempt at destroying a people's history and heritage is just as disgusting as antisemitism.
> 
> FROM 1922.
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> _(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order;* the People of Palestine* cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE
Click to expand...

He


Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> If would be a good idea for you to contact this Hamas official and ask him to take back what he said.
> 
> (Video) Hamas Official: “Who are the Palestinians? The Palestinians don’t come from Palestine.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am surprised you believe what those Islamist thugs claim, but since you believe everything the Zionist thugs say, I shouldn't be surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the invented "Palestinians" aren't simply Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians are lying to themselves. The Egyptian, Yessir Arafart and the Russian KGB invented the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Unbelievable the depth of idiocy of these Zionist tools.  No interest in doing research to see how much Zionist propaganda they have been fed. The Palestinians were not Syrians or Egyptians or Lebanese, they have always been the people of Palestine, since it was a Roman province.  Offical correspondence available at academic institutions and within the UN archives disproves your disgusting idiocy. Your attempt at destroying a people's history and heritage is just as disgusting as antisemitism.
> 
> FROM 1922.
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> _(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order;* the People of Palestine* cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a Gaza or West Bank phone book and check out the ethnicity of the names, That's one easy way to find out.
Click to expand...

why not hear it from the donkey's mouth?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Seems to me it is the Palestinians that are being killed by Jews.  Haven't heard of Palestinians killing infidels all over the world.  But, thanks for the laughs, moron.









 So you never heard of 9/11  or the Glasgow airport bombing  how about the London transport bombings.

 I haven't heard of Jews killing goyim all over the wotld, just arab muslim scum


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me it is the Palestinians that are being killed by Jews.  Haven't heard of Palestinians killing infidels all over the world.  But, thanks for the laughs, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you never heard of 9/11  or the Glasgow airport bombing  how about the London transport bombings.
> 
> I haven't heard of Jews killing goyim all over the wotld, just arab muslim scum
Click to expand...

The Palestinians did all that?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me it is the Palestinians that are being killed by Jews.  Haven't heard of Palestinians killing infidels all over the world.  But, thanks for the laughs, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you never heard of 9/11  or the Glasgow airport bombing  how about the London transport bombings.
> 
> I haven't heard of Jews killing goyim all over the wotld, just arab muslim scum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians did all that?
Click to expand...






 It was done in their name, they just mass murdered in Munich during the Olympics, mass murdered on planes they hijacked and mass murdered on boats they pirated. To say nothing of the mass murders in Lebanon and the attempted coup in Jordan. The world was shown how to deal with your hero's then and ignored the lesson.


----------



## MJB12741

Innocent Palestinians?  Robert Kennedy, Achille Lauro, Munich Olympics, dancing in the streets passing out candy on 911.  Yep!  Innocent, peace loving Palestinians.


----------



## montelatici

Innocent Jews? Count Bernadotte, King David Hotel, dancing on rooftops 9/11. Yep, innocent, peace loving Jews.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Innocent Jews? Count Bernadotte, King David Hotel, dancing on rooftops 9/11. Yep, innocent, peace loving Jews.


Don't forget Munich, various airline hijackings, the Achille Lauro, etc.

Yes, the Religion of Peace ™, Arab-Moslem franchise posing as "Pal'istanians"


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Innocent Jews? Count Bernadotte, King David Hotel, dancing on rooftops 9/11. Yep, innocent, peace loving Jews.








The king david hotel was in retaliation to the British mass murder of Jews legally migrating to palestine. You remember the boat that they closed down and left in port for a few weeks before sending it to Cyprus. Less than half the healthy Jews on board survived those weeks of horror
No proof of any Jews dancing on rooftops, or they would have been arrested along with 40,000 others for showing alarm at the mass murder of Americans. Read up on Jewish customs, or are you an expert on those as well ?


----------



## Roudy

montelatici said:


> Innocent Jews? Count Bernadotte, King David Hotel, dancing on rooftops 9/11. Yep, innocent, peace loving Jews.


----------



## Roudy

> Don't forget Munich, various airline hijackings, the Achille Lauro, etc.
> 
> Yes, the Religion of Peace ™, Arab-Moslem franchise posing as "Pal'istanians"


Yep, these innocent animals go around stabbing people, blowing up cafe's, shopping malls, and are inventors of the child suicide bombing, and promise to commit a second Holocaust on Jews in Zion, their own holy land.


----------



## MJB12741

Roudy said:


> Don't forget Munich, various airline hijackings, the Achille Lauro, etc.
> 
> Yes, the Religion of Peace ™, Arab-Moslem franchise posing as "Pal'istanians"
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, these innocent animals go around stabbing people, blowing up cafe's, shopping malls, and are inventors of the child suicide bombing, and promise to commit a second Holocaust on Jews in Zion, their own holy land.
Click to expand...


So true that Palestinians destroy their own land.  It's part of their Palestinian mentality.  Jeese I hope they get their own land with self determination without Israel to provide for then any longer.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If would be a good idea for you to contact this Hamas official and ask him to take back what he said.
> 
> (Video) Hamas Official: “Who are the Palestinians? The Palestinians don’t come from Palestine.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am surprised you believe what those Islamist thugs claim, but since you believe everything the Zionist thugs say, I shouldn't be surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who thinks that the invented "Palestinians" aren't simply Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians are lying to themselves. The Egyptian, Yessir Arafart and the Russian KGB invented the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Unbelievable the depth of idiocy of these Zionist tools.  No interest in doing research to see how much Zionist propaganda they have been fed. The Palestinians were not Syrians or Egyptians or Lebanese, they have always been the people of Palestine, since it was a Roman province.  Offical correspondence available at academic institutions and within the UN archives disproves your disgusting idiocy. Your attempt at destroying a people's history and heritage is just as disgusting as antisemitism.
> 
> FROM 1922.
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> _(a) _In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order;* the People of Palestine* cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get a Gaza or West Bank phone book and check out the ethnicity of the names, That's one easy way to find out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid argument.
> 
> Look in a US phone book.
Click to expand...


*O! be some other name: *
*What’s in a name? that which we call a Palestinian *
*By any other name would still smell like an Egyptian;*
*~~Shakeshit*


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the ones that prove the Jews were the majority, but they are discounted because they dont meet with your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can they be the the MAJORITY when most are ZIONISTS BUT SYNTHETIC JEWS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
Click to expand...




theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the ones that prove the Jews were the majority, but they are discounted because they dont meet with your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can they be the the MAJORITY when most are ZIONISTS BUT SYNTHETIC JEWS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
Click to expand...


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the ones that prove the Jews were the majority, but they are discounted because they dont meet with your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can they be the the MAJORITY when most are ZIONISTS BUT SYNTHETIC JEWS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apart from the ones that prove the Jews were the majority, but they are discounted because they dont meet with your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can they be the the MAJORITY when most are ZIONISTS BUT SYNTHETIC JEWS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 95913
Click to expand...

I dunno where you get these from Hoss but they are bloody good.  steve


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the ones that prove the Jews were the majority, but they are discounted because they dont meet with your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can they be the the MAJORITY when most are ZIONISTS BUT SYNTHETIC JEWS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
Click to expand...

And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional as usual.  You haven't a clue about the history.  Palestine was exclusively Christian and Muslim under Ottoman rule. As Ottoman census records prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the ones that prove the Jews were the majority, but they are discounted because they dont meet with your POV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can they be the the MAJORITY when most are ZIONISTS BUT SYNTHETIC JEWS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
Click to expand...

Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the ones that prove the Jews were the majority, but they are discounted because they dont meet with your POV
> 
> 
> 
> How can they be the the MAJORITY when most are ZIONISTS BUT SYNTHETIC JEWS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
Click to expand...

Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can they be the the MAJORITY when most are ZIONISTS BUT SYNTHETIC JEWS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
Click to expand...

Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.

When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.

I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
> 
> 
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
Click to expand...

Wow!  You f*ing liar!
You have been posting here for over 3 years that YOU are Jewish and so are your ancestors.
NOW you're saying either you're not or your ancestor's are not?
You actually claimed at one time that you could trace your ancestry back to the 2nd Temple!
How full of shit are you?


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
> 
> 
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
Click to expand...

*AAAAAARRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!*


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
> 
> 
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!  You f*ing liar!
> You have been posting here for over 3 years that YOU are Jewish and so are your ancestors.
> NOW you're saying either you're not or your ancestor's are not?
> You actually claimed at one time that you could trace your ancestry back to the 2nd Temple!
> How full of shit are you?
Click to expand...

if the cap fit wear it.....Sorry Indie YOU ARE ON A HINING TO NOTHING,ALL YOU CAN DO IS SPIT IN THE SKY.


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
> 
> 
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!  You f*ing liar!
> You have been posting here for over 3 years that YOU are Jewish and so are your ancestors.
> NOW you're saying either you're not or your ancestor's are not?
> You actually claimed at one time that you could trace your ancestry back to the 2nd Temple!
> How full of shit are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if the cap fit wear it.....Sorry Indie YOU ARE ON A HINING TO NOTHING,ALL YOU CAN DO IS SPIT IN THE SKY.
Click to expand...

You're a liar and a dick...completely untrustworthy.
Everything you post is bullshit.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
> 
> 
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *AAAAAARRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!*
Click to expand...

That's just it Hoss....I was born a Winner and Non Zionist..steve


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
> 
> 
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *AAAAAARRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just it Hoss....I was born a Winner and Non Zionist..steve
Click to expand...

And a liar.


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> 
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!  You f*ing liar!
> You have been posting here for over 3 years that YOU are Jewish and so are your ancestors.
> NOW you're saying either you're not or your ancestor's are not?
> You actually claimed at one time that you could trace your ancestry back to the 2nd Temple!
> How full of shit are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if the cap fit wear it.....Sorry Indie YOU ARE ON A HINING TO NOTHING,ALL YOU CAN DO IS SPIT IN THE SKY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a liar and a dick...completely untrustworthy.
> Everything you post is bullshit.
Click to expand...

KEEP SPITTING YOUR ZIONIST SPEW......YUK......YOU ARE GOOD AT IT....but theliq the all knowing theliq knows the TRUTH.


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> 
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *AAAAAARRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just it Hoss....I was born a Winner and Non Zionist..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a liar.
Click to expand...

STILL LOOKING IN THE MIRROR I SEE......THOU ART FORKED TONGUED LIKE YOUR HORDE,we all know it...that is why  I was born a Winner but you are the SYNTHETIC loser


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they weren't as this was before the advent of Zionism and when the Ottomans owned the land.
> 
> 
> Still waiting for the LINK's that prove your false racist claims, and not your usual crap from the hate sites. That is where you got this from as your definition of Zionism is what is posted on those sites.
> 
> 
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
Click to expand...








 Still waiting for your evidence to support your LIES that Zionists are terrorists. Not one piece of evidence as you know they all trace back to the hate sites you frequent.

 How can Turks, pakistanis and afghani's be semitic ?


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
> 
> 
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *AAAAAARRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just it Hoss....I was born a Winner and Non Zionist..steve
Click to expand...








 You were born a whiner and a LIAR, and you should be sectioned because you are a danger to yourself and others.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean, of course, to convert BACK to the religion of the indigenous peoples.
> 
> And, of course, you couldn't possibly have a problem with people converting to the religion and culture of the "conquerors" now, could you?  There is nothing wrong with THAT, is there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people converted many times from/to different religions.  They could convert to the religion of the European colonists/invaders brought to Palestine.  Somehow I doubt either the Christians or Muslims would want to become Jews, even if the orthodox Jewish nutcases approved such a thing.
Click to expand...

Then they can become Neo-Dhimmis; aking to what the Muslims did to so many populations that the Bloody Islamic Fist smashed down for so many centuries.


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *AAAAAARRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just it Hoss....I was born a Winner and Non Zionist..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> STILL LOOKING IN THE MIRROR I SEE......THOU ART FORKED TONGUED LIKE YOUR HORDE,we all know it...that is why  I was born a Winner but you are the SYNTHETIC loser
Click to expand...

You have been lying to us for several years.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

It is pretty obvious that these subhumans who try to deny the right of self-determination for Jewish people do not apply the same standards to any other group. 

Israel is a tiny little sliver of land on the world stage, surrounded by an enormous expanse of land controlled by those who persecute them. 

 I can only hope that these subhumans who join in their persecution are reincarnated as cockroaches, because that is all they deserve.


----------



## montelatici

First of all there are people of the Judaic faith, not  "Jewish people", a person of any ethnicity can practice Judaism.  There are Europeans that practice Judaism, Asians, there even probably Inuits that practice Judaism.

People of the Judaic faith can have all the self-determination they want, but colonizing/invading Palestine and dispossessing the native Christians and Muslims whose ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, whatever religion their ancestors practiced, was a criminal act.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> First of all there are people of the Judaic faith, not  "Jewish people", a person of any ethnicity can practice Judaism.  There are Europeans that practice Judaism, Asians, there even probably Inuits that practice Judaism.
> 
> People of the Judaic faith can have all the self-determination they want, but colonizing/invading Palestine and dispossessing the native Christians and Muslims whose ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, whatever religion their ancestors practiced, was a criminal act.


It's remarkable that you spam multiple threads with your silly "_invasion"_ slogan. That slogan seems to be a staple for those who simply have no grasp of the history surrounding the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## montelatici

When people from one place go to another place (in this case on another continent) to colonize the place and remove the native people living in said place, it's an invasion.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> When people from one place go to another place (in this case on another continent) to colonize the place and remove the native people living in said place, it's an invasion.



OUTSTANDING POINT!  And who said Monte is an imbecile?  Yes indeed, all Muslim countries are stolen countries conquered by invasion of the native population.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people from one place go to another place (in this case on another continent) to colonize the place and remove the native people living in said place, it's an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT!  And who said Monte is an imbecile?  Yes indeed, all Muslim countries are stolen countries conquered by invasion of the native population.
Click to expand...


Reread what you wrote and then try articulating the concept you want to communicate in English.  You see, I am not sure how a "native population" can invade itself.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people from one place go to another place (in this case on another continent) to colonize the place and remove the native people living in said place, it's an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT!  And who said Monte is an imbecile?  Yes indeed, all Muslim countries are stolen countries conquered by invasion of the native population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reread what you wrote and then try articulating the concept you want to communicate in English.  You see, I am not sure how a "native population" can invade itself.
Click to expand...


Well, what about those Jewish Zionists building their wailing wall around the Al Aqsa Mosque?


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all there are people of the Judaic faith, not  "Jewish people", a person of any ethnicity can practice Judaism.  There are Europeans that practice Judaism, Asians, there even probably Inuits that practice Judaism.
> 
> People of the Judaic faith can have all the self-determination they want, but colonizing/invading Palestine and dispossessing the native Christians and Muslims whose ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, whatever religion their ancestors practiced, was a criminal act.
> 
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you spam multiple threads with your silly "_invasion"_ slogan. That slogan seems to be a staple for those who simply have no grasp of the history surrounding the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Click to expand...



 The creature is just repeating the buzz terms it encounters at hate sites.

  Just like the idiocy about ethnicity vs religion.  You and I both know that extremely few people convert to Judaism because it is so damn hard to do and we both know that the majority of Jewish people are quite secular, but the thing will use anything it can grasp when it comes to hatred.


----------



## MJB12741

Dogmaphobe said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all there are people of the Judaic faith, not  "Jewish people", a person of any ethnicity can practice Judaism.  There are Europeans that practice Judaism, Asians, there even probably Inuits that practice Judaism.
> 
> People of the Judaic faith can have all the self-determination they want, but colonizing/invading Palestine and dispossessing the native Christians and Muslims whose ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, whatever religion their ancestors practiced, was a criminal act.
> 
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you spam multiple threads with your silly "_invasion"_ slogan. That slogan seems to be a staple for those who simply have no grasp of the history surrounding the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The creature is just repeating the buzz terms it encounters at hate sites.
> 
> Just like the idiocy about ethnicity vs religion.  You and I both know that extremely few people convert to Judaism because it is so damn hard to do and we both know that the majority of Jewish people are quite secular, but the thing will use anything it can grasp when it comes to hatred.
Click to expand...


Yes but bless him for all the fun he gives us here.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> When people from one place go to another place (in this case on another continent) to colonize the place and remove the native people living in said place, it's an invasion.


Well, obviously you prefer screeching out your sweaty, chest-heaving rants rather than learn the facts and history.


----------



## montelatici

Dogmaphobe said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all there are people of the Judaic faith, not  "Jewish people", a person of any ethnicity can practice Judaism.  There are Europeans that practice Judaism, Asians, there even probably Inuits that practice Judaism.
> 
> People of the Judaic faith can have all the self-determination they want, but colonizing/invading Palestine and dispossessing the native Christians and Muslims whose ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, whatever religion their ancestors practiced, was a criminal act.
> 
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you spam multiple threads with your silly "_invasion"_ slogan. That slogan seems to be a staple for those who simply have no grasp of the history surrounding the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The creature is just repeating the buzz terms it encounters at hate sites.
> 
> Just like the idiocy about ethnicity vs religion.  You and I both know that extremely few people convert to Judaism because it is so damn hard to do and we both know that the majority of Jewish people are quite secular, but the thing will use anything it can grasp when it comes to hatred.
Click to expand...



Just facts.  Most European Jews are the result of female conversions, as has been determined through DNA testing of modern European Jews.

"....the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe. These results point to a significant role for the conversion of women in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and provide the foundation for a detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history...."

A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages : Nature Communications

The only hatred is that which is displayed by you and your ilk vis-a-vis the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine that the European Zionists dispossessed.  It is very similar to the hate that the European invader/colonizer had (and some still have)  for the Native Americans that they dispossessed in the Americas.

An observer expressing criticism of the European Zionist dispossession of the native Christian and Muslims of Palestine or the dispossession of Native Americans by various groups of Europeans has nothing to do with hate, it is a statement of fact.  

Hate is expressed by those that celebrate the dispossession of a people.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people from one place go to another place (in this case on another continent) to colonize the place and remove the native people living in said place, it's an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously you prefer screeching out your sweaty, chest-heaving rants rather than learn the facts and history.
Click to expand...


The facts are quite evident, your ranting at the facts does not change them.  The nice thing is that the Zionists themselves stated what their intentions were early on, in 1899. 











The straightforward and comfortable manner with which the colonization is pursued is indicative how, before having to be concerned with the image of Zionism and public relations, Zionist leaders depicted their movement as a colonial mission during a time in which European nations were colonial powers. 




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


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people from one place go to another place (in this case on another continent) to colonize the place and remove the native people living in said place, it's an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously you prefer screeching out your sweaty, chest-heaving rants rather than learn the facts and history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are quite evident, your ranting at the facts does not change them.  The nice thing is that the Zionists themselves stated what their intentions were early on, in 1899.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The straightforward and comfortable manner with which the colonization is pursued is indicative how, before having to be concerned with the image of Zionism and public relations, Zionist leaders depicted their movement as a colonial mission during a time in which European nations were colonial powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times - World Bulletin
Click to expand...

Yes, dear. This is the same cut and paste article you have cut and pasted multiple times across multiple threads.

Now that you're done spamming this thread, why don't you wipe that unseemly drool from your keyboard and learn the facts surrounding the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## montelatici

Oh, so providing source material that debunks your assertions is spamming.  You are a hoot. 

What does the fall of the Ottoman Empire have to do with the Zionist's self-declared colonization and associated dispossession of the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine? LOL


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> First of all there are people of the Judaic faith, not  "Jewish people", a person of any ethnicity can practice Judaism.  There are Europeans that practice Judaism, Asians, there even probably Inuits that practice Judaism.
> 
> People of the Judaic faith can have all the self-determination they want, but colonizing/invading Palestine and dispossessing the native Christians and Muslims whose ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, whatever religion their ancestors practiced, was a criminal act.








 And there are Jews, just as there are arab's, Italians, French, Inuit and Africans.

They can only have the self determination they allow themselves, and this is what you cant understand. This is why tthe arab muslims fail because they only allow themselves the tiniest part of self determination because they would lose so much otherwise. They would have to accept they are in the wrong for starters and stop acting like 7C savages and start negotiating peace terms and mutual borders. Then they would have to stop holding their hands out and cawing gimme, gimme, gimme so they can buy black market weapons. Lastly they would have to stand up in the UN and explain why they have so many breaches of the UN charter and UN resolutions embedded in their charter, and what they are going to do to remove them. The Christians and muslims will be lucky to trace their ancestry back more than 5 or 6 generations as most are recent arrivals


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Oh, so providing source material that debunks your assertions is spamming.  You are a hoot.
> 
> What does the fall of the Ottoman Empire have to do with the Zionist's self-declared colonization and associated dispossession of the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine? LOL








 Everything if you engaged your brain and looked at the evidence ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> When people from one place go to another place (in this case on another continent) to colonize the place and remove the native people living in said place, it's an invasion.








 Not if they are invited to migrate and close colonise the land, as was the case with the Jews in 1850 and 1922. But then this fact destroys your islamomazi POV and makes you look like a complete IDIOT so you put me on ignore rather than face the reality


----------



## Shusha

I've said this before, and I will keep saying it as long as it is brought up:

Using DNA evidence to determine who is or who is not part of an ethnic or cultural group is a form of racism.  And to us this to dispossess a culture from their homeland is heinous.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all there are people of the Judaic faith, not  "Jewish people", a person of any ethnicity can practice Judaism.  There are Europeans that practice Judaism, Asians, there even probably Inuits that practice Judaism.
> 
> People of the Judaic faith can have all the self-determination they want, but colonizing/invading Palestine and dispossessing the native Christians and Muslims whose ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, whatever religion their ancestors practiced, was a criminal act.
> 
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you spam multiple threads with your silly "_invasion"_ slogan. That slogan seems to be a staple for those who simply have no grasp of the history surrounding the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The creature is just repeating the buzz terms it encounters at hate sites.
> 
> Just like the idiocy about ethnicity vs religion.  You and I both know that extremely few people convert to Judaism because it is so damn hard to do and we both know that the majority of Jewish people are quite secular, but the thing will use anything it can grasp when it comes to hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just facts.  Most European Jews are the result of female conversions, as has been determined through DNA testing of modern European Jews.
> 
> "....the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe. These results point to a significant role for the conversion of women in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and provide the foundation for a detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history...."
> 
> A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages : Nature Communications
> 
> The only hatred is that which is displayed by you and your ilk vis-a-vis the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine that the European Zionists dispossessed.  It is very similar to the hate that the European invader/colonizer had (and some still have)  for the Native Americans that they dispossessed in the Americas.
> 
> An observer expressing criticism of the European Zionist dispossession of the native Christian and Muslims of Palestine or the dispossession of Native Americans by various groups of Europeans has nothing to do with hate, it is a statement of fact.
> 
> Hate is expressed by those that celebrate the dispossession of a people.
Click to expand...


As usually you manipulate the data by cutting only the sections convenient for your POV.

From your link:
_"Here we show that all four major founders, ~40% of Ashkenazi mtDNA variation, *have ancestry in prehistoric Europe*, rather than the Near East or Caucasus."_

However we have presented you with the studies showing that all Jewish communities in the diaspora share the same genes connecting them to Levant area. Moreover there're even studies showing that Jews and Arabs in Israel share much more than they share with Europeans.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> First of all there are people of the Judaic faith, not  "Jewish people", a person of any ethnicity can practice Judaism.  There are Europeans that practice Judaism, Asians, there even probably Inuits that practice Judaism.
> 
> People of the Judaic faith can have all the self-determination they want, but colonizing/invading Palestine and dispossessing the native Christians and Muslims whose ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, whatever religion their ancestors practiced, was a criminal act.



"Judaic" , "Jewish" and "Jew" are one and the same word in Hebrew.
Your argument is invalid due to lack of basic understanding of the words in their original form and meaning, what you wrote has partial meaning only in English.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people from one place go to another place (in this case on another continent) to colonize the place and remove the native people living in said place, it's an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT!  And who said Monte is an imbecile?  Yes indeed, all Muslim countries are stolen countries conquered by invasion of the native population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reread what you wrote and then try articulating the concept you want to communicate in English.  You see, I am not sure how a "native population" can invade itself.
Click to expand...







 Very easily when they are not actually native but foriegn immigrants in the first place. Most arab's are from the arabian peninsular and most Christians are Greek or Roman. So how are the native to the land


----------



## montelatici

So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:

"All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."

This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.

Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.


European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.

But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all there are people of the Judaic faith, not  "Jewish people", a person of any ethnicity can practice Judaism.  There are Europeans that practice Judaism, Asians, there even probably Inuits that practice Judaism.
> 
> People of the Judaic faith can have all the self-determination they want, but colonizing/invading Palestine and dispossessing the native Christians and Muslims whose ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, whatever religion their ancestors practiced, was a criminal act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Judaic" , "Jewish" and "Jew" are one and the same word in Hebrew.
> Your argument is invalid due to lack of basic understanding of the words in their original form and meaning, what you wrote has partial meaning only in English.
Click to expand...


My "argument" is not only valid, it is basic fact.

This is a forum for communication in the English language.  If you don't understand English, it's your problem.  The word I used was Judaism, it is the word that in English  we use to describe the religion.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all there are people of the Judaic faith, not  "Jewish people", a person of any ethnicity can practice Judaism.  There are Europeans that practice Judaism, Asians, there even probably Inuits that practice Judaism.
> 
> People of the Judaic faith can have all the self-determination they want, but colonizing/invading Palestine and dispossessing the native Christians and Muslims whose ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, whatever religion their ancestors practiced, was a criminal act.
> 
> 
> 
> It's remarkable that you spam multiple threads with your silly "_invasion"_ slogan. That slogan seems to be a staple for those who simply have no grasp of the history surrounding the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The creature is just repeating the buzz terms it encounters at hate sites.
> 
> Just like the idiocy about ethnicity vs religion.  You and I both know that extremely few people convert to Judaism because it is so damn hard to do and we both know that the majority of Jewish people are quite secular, but the thing will use anything it can grasp when it comes to hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just facts.  Most European Jews are the result of female conversions, as has been determined through DNA testing of modern European Jews.
> 
> "....the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe. These results point to a significant role for the conversion of women in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and provide the foundation for a detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history...."
> 
> A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages : Nature Communications
> 
> The only hatred is that which is displayed by you and your ilk vis-a-vis the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine that the European Zionists dispossessed.  It is very similar to the hate that the European invader/colonizer had (and some still have)  for the Native Americans that they dispossessed in the Americas.
> 
> An observer expressing criticism of the European Zionist dispossession of the native Christian and Muslims of Palestine or the dispossession of Native Americans by various groups of Europeans has nothing to do with hate, it is a statement of fact.
> 
> Hate is expressed by those that celebrate the dispossession of a people.
Click to expand...









 Did you ignore this part of your link.................


*There is consensus that all Jewish Diaspora groups, including the Ashkenazim, trace their ancestry, at least in part, to the Levant, ~2,000–3,000 years ago*

*The Ashkenazim are thought to have emerged from dispersals north into the Rhineland of Mediterranean Jews in the early Middle Ages,*

*We are then faced with several competing models for Ashkenazi origins: a Levantine ancestry; a Mediterranean/west European ancestry; a North Caucasian ancestry; or, of course, a blend of these. This seems an ideal problem to tackle with genetic analysis, but after decades of intensive study a definitive answer remains elusive*

*Several suggest a primarily Levantine ancestry with south/west European admixture*

*The maternal line has also been studied, and indeed Ashkenazi mtDNAs are highly distinctive*


So it seems that you have been altering official details again because they say the Jews are from the M.E. after all.



 What a LYING POS LOSER you are


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people from one place go to another place (in this case on another continent) to colonize the place and remove the native people living in said place, it's an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously you prefer screeching out your sweaty, chest-heaving rants rather than learn the facts and history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts are quite evident, your ranting at the facts does not change them.  The nice thing is that the Zionists themselves stated what their intentions were early on, in 1899.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The straightforward and comfortable manner with which the colonization is pursued is indicative how, before having to be concerned with the image of Zionism and public relations, Zionist leaders depicted their movement as a colonial mission during a time in which European nations were colonial powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists plan to colonize Palestine in 1899 NY Times - World Bulletin
Click to expand...








 By BUYING the land and setting up colonies, not by invading with armed force like the Catholics and muslims did


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all there are people of the Judaic faith, not  "Jewish people", a person of any ethnicity can practice Judaism.  There are Europeans that practice Judaism, Asians, there even probably Inuits that practice Judaism.
> 
> People of the Judaic faith can have all the self-determination they want, but colonizing/invading Palestine and dispossessing the native Christians and Muslims whose ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, whatever religion their ancestors practiced, was a criminal act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Judaic" , "Jewish" and "Jew" are one and the same word in Hebrew.
> Your argument is invalid due to lack of basic understanding of the words in their original form and meaning, what you wrote has partial meaning only in English.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "argument" is not only valid, it is basic fact.
> 
> This is a forum for communication in the English language.  If you don't understand English, it's your problem.  The word I used was Judaism, it is the word that in English  we use to describe the religion.
Click to expand...







 Then why does your new link not say what you claim ?  It actually says the exact oppositte


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.



Again you manipulate and cut the 1st part of some "science" blog with another part (earlier) from a research, but only the parts and blogs that suit your pov.

We have already dealt with this "study"


montelatici said:


> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.



No the later quote doesn't come from a study but a blog, and we have already dealt with it 2 days ago.
It only proves that that you cut a sentence from here and there just to manipulate the info to suit your POV.

_"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... *These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant*."_
_
The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.  - PubMed - NCBI_



_
_


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Oh, so providing source material that debunks your assertions is spamming.  You are a hoot.
> 
> What does the fall of the Ottoman Empire have to do with the Zionist's self-declared colonization and associated dispossession of the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine? LOL





What does the invasion by Catholics and muslims have to do with the Jews rights ?


----------



## Shusha

Wow.  Shocking.  People intermarry.  So the people who were expelled from Israel mixed with the European population amongst whom they were living.  And Arab invaders mixed with the native Jewish people of Israel and over-wrote their culture.  

What's your point?  I'm pretty sure we've been over the fact that, according to you, intermarriage of invading cultures and native cultures results in legitimacy for the invading culture.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.



There's no such thing as "Arab Jews",and I'm not talking about culture or language, but geographical and tribal origin. There were Jews living in Mecca, Medina and Yemen in diaspora but they were simply Jews- meaning of the tribe of Judea.


----------



## Shusha

Phoenall said:


> Did you ignore this part of your link.................
> 
> 
> There is consensus that all Jewish Diaspora groups, including the Ashkenazim, trace their ancestry, at least in part, to the Levant, ~2,000–3,000 years ago
> 
> The Ashkenazim are thought to have emerged from dispersals north into the Rhineland of Mediterranean Jews in the early Middle Ages,
> 
> We are then faced with several competing models for Ashkenazi origins: a Levantine ancestry; a Mediterranean/west European ancestry; a North Caucasian ancestry; or, of course, a blend of these. This seems an ideal problem to tackle with genetic analysis, but after decades of intensive study a definitive answer remains elusive
> 
> Several suggest a primarily Levantine ancestry with south/west European admixture
> 
> The maternal line has also been studied, and indeed Ashkenazi mtDNAs are highly distinctive



And, of course, he is only posting the one study which supports his POV, while ignoring the other studies which have pointed to a much higher percentage of Middle Eastern origin for Ashkenazi Jews.


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you manipulate and cut the 1st part of some "science" blog with another part (earlier) from a research, but only the parts and blogs that suit your pov.
> 
> We have already dealt with this "study"
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the later quote doesn't come from a study but a blog, and we have already dealt with it 2 days ago.
> It only proves that that you cut a sentence from here and there just to manipulate the info to suit your POV.
> 
> _"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... *These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant*."
> 
> The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.  - PubMed - NCBI_
Click to expand...


We went over this years ago, it's not from a blog, it comes directly from the study as reported by Haaretz:

*"The researchers found that more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to indigenous Europeans...."*


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


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ignore this part of your link.................
> 
> 
> There is consensus that all Jewish Diaspora groups, including the Ashkenazim, trace their ancestry, at least in part, to the Levant, ~2,000–3,000 years ago
> 
> The Ashkenazim are thought to have emerged from dispersals north into the Rhineland of Mediterranean Jews in the early Middle Ages,
> 
> We are then faced with several competing models for Ashkenazi origins: a Levantine ancestry; a Mediterranean/west European ancestry; a North Caucasian ancestry; or, of course, a blend of these. This seems an ideal problem to tackle with genetic analysis, but after decades of intensive study a definitive answer remains elusive
> 
> Several suggest a primarily Levantine ancestry with south/west European admixture
> 
> The maternal line has also been studied, and indeed Ashkenazi mtDNAs are highly distinctive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, he is only posting the one study which supports his POV, while ignoring the other studies which have pointed to a much higher percentage of Middle Eastern origin for Ashkenazi Jews.
Click to expand...


It's recent and from a neutral source. Not a propaganda piece. 




Marta D. Costa
 & Joana B. Pereira
These authors contributed equally to this work

*Affiliations*

*Institute of Integrative and Comparative Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK*
Marta D. Costa
, Joana B. Pereira
, Verónica Fernandes
, Ken Khong Eng
 & Martin B. Richards

*IPATIMUP (Instituto de Patologia e Imunologia Molecular da Universidade do Porto), Porto 4200-465, Portugal*
Marta D. Costa
, Joana B. Pereira
, Verónica Fernandes
, Pedro Soares
 &Luísa Pereira

*School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK*
Maria Pala
, Martin Carr
 & Martin B. Richards

*Dipartimento di Biologia e Biotecnologie, Università di Pavia, Pavia 27100, Italy*
Anna Olivieri
 & Ugo A. Perego

*Dipartimento di Chimica, Biologia e Biotecnologie, Università di Perugia, Perugia 06123, Italy*
Alessandro Achilli

*Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115, USA*
Ugo A. Perego
 & Scott R. Woodward

*Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, Moscow 119991, Russia*
Sergei Rychkov
 & Oksana Naumova

*Charles University, Medical Faculty in Pilsen, Institute of Biology, CZ-301 66 Pilsen, Czech Republic*
Jiři Hatina

*Ancestry, Provo, Utah 84604, USA*
Scott R. Woodward

*Centre for Global Archaeological Research, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM Penang, Malaysia*
Ken Khong Eng

*School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK*
Vincent Macaulay

*Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Porto 4200-319, Portugal*
Luísa Pereira


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you manipulate and cut the 1st part of some "science" blog with another part (earlier) from a research, but only the parts and blogs that suit your pov.
> 
> We have already dealt with this "study"
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the later quote doesn't come from a study but a blog, and we have already dealt with it 2 days ago.
> It only proves that that you cut a sentence from here and there just to manipulate the info to suit your POV.
> 
> _"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... *These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant*."
> 
> The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.  - PubMed - NCBI_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We went over this years ago, it's not from a blog, it comes directly from the study as reported by Haaretz:
> 
> *"The researchers found that more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to indigenous Europeans...."*
> 
> 
> read more: Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News
Click to expand...


Haaretz is a left wing anti semitic publication which receives "donations" from the PA and European countries...so they mentioned the same "study" you cut and paste and??

We've read your links and they don't agree with what you try to present.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you manipulate and cut the 1st part of some "science" blog with another part (earlier) from a research, but only the parts and blogs that suit your pov.
> 
> We have already dealt with this "study"
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the later quote doesn't come from a study but a blog, and we have already dealt with it 2 days ago.
> It only proves that that you cut a sentence from here and there just to manipulate the info to suit your POV.
> 
> _"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... *These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant*."
> 
> The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.  - PubMed - NCBI_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We went over this years ago, it's not from a blog, it comes directly from the study as reported by Haaretz:
> 
> *"The researchers found that more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to indigenous Europeans...."*
> 
> 
> read more: Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News
Click to expand...


What happened to your other link that refutes what you say, conveniently ignoring?


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "Arab Jews",and I'm not talking about culture or language, but geographical and tribal origin. There were Jews living in Mecca, Medina and Yemen in diaspora but they were simply Jews- meaning of the tribe of Judea.
Click to expand...


Of course there were Arab Jews, they were self-described as such.  Arab is cultural and linguistic affiliation. You might want to inform yourself.  I've known many Arab Jews, there were many Arab Jew families in Tunisia and they differentiated themselves from the Italian Jews that traded with them.

Here is where you can learn about Arab Jews.

Reflections By An Arab Jew - Ella Shohat


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you manipulate and cut the 1st part of some "science" blog with another part (earlier) from a research, but only the parts and blogs that suit your pov.
> 
> We have already dealt with this "study"
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the later quote doesn't come from a study but a blog, and we have already dealt with it 2 days ago.
> It only proves that that you cut a sentence from here and there just to manipulate the info to suit your POV.
> 
> _"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... *These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant*."
> 
> The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.  - PubMed - NCBI_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We went over this years ago, it's not from a blog, it comes directly from the study as reported by Haaretz:
> 
> *"The researchers found that more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to indigenous Europeans...."*
> 
> 
> read more: Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haaretz is a left wing anti semitic publication which receives "donations" from the PA and European countries...so they mentioned the same "study" you cut and paste and??
> 
> We've read your links and they don't agree with what you try to present.
Click to expand...


I see, then you need to read it directly from the study.  Will you stop parroting denial propaganda then? Here it is direct from the study.  Now STFU.

"it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe..."

A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages : Nature Communications


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you manipulate and cut the 1st part of some "science" blog with another part (earlier) from a research, but only the parts and blogs that suit your pov.
> 
> We have already dealt with this "study"
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the later quote doesn't come from a study but a blog, and we have already dealt with it 2 days ago.
> It only proves that that you cut a sentence from here and there just to manipulate the info to suit your POV.
> 
> _"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... *These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant*."
> 
> The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.  - PubMed - NCBI_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We went over this years ago, it's not from a blog, it comes directly from the study as reported by Haaretz:
> 
> *"The researchers found that more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to indigenous Europeans...."*
> 
> 
> read more: Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to your other link that refutes what you say, conveniently ignoring?
Click to expand...


No link refutes what I say because I am just presenting facts.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as "Arab Jews",and I'm not talking about culture or language, but geographical and tribal origin. There were Jews living in Mecca, Medina and Yemen in diaspora but they were simply Jews- meaning of the tribe of Judea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there were Arab Jews, they were self-described as such.  Arab is cultural and linguistic affiliation. You might want to inform yourself.  I've known many Arab Jews, there were many Arab Jew families in Tunisia and they differentiated themselves from the Italian Jews that traded with them.
> 
> Here is where you can learn about Arab Jews.
> 
> Reflections By An Arab Jew - Ella Shohat
Click to expand...


In the same article she writes "Sephardic Jews" and Iraqi Jews but still Jews...Jews in the diaspora spoke the language of the place, like Indian who comes to America speaks English.

Jew in Hebrew means - of the tribe of Judea.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you manipulate and cut the 1st part of some "science" blog with another part (earlier) from a research, but only the parts and blogs that suit your pov.
> 
> We have already dealt with this "study"
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the later quote doesn't come from a study but a blog, and we have already dealt with it 2 days ago.
> It only proves that that you cut a sentence from here and there just to manipulate the info to suit your POV.
> 
> _"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... *These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant*."
> 
> The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.  - PubMed - NCBI_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We went over this years ago, it's not from a blog, it comes directly from the study as reported by Haaretz:
> 
> *"The researchers found that more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to indigenous Europeans...."*
> 
> 
> read more: Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to your other link that refutes what you say, conveniently ignoring?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link refutes what I say because I am just presenting facts.
Click to expand...


It's good that you've convinced yourself, but we've already refuted you numerous times, even using your own links  
No need to get irritated, maybe next time...

Israel's Legal Right To Exist

Israel's Legal Right To Exist

Israel's Legal Right To Exist


----------



## montelatici

Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.

Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you manipulate and cut the 1st part of some "science" blog with another part (earlier) from a research, but only the parts and blogs that suit your pov.
> 
> We have already dealt with this "study"
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the later quote doesn't come from a study but a blog, and we have already dealt with it 2 days ago.
> It only proves that that you cut a sentence from here and there just to manipulate the info to suit your POV.
> 
> _"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... *These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant*."
> 
> The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.  - PubMed - NCBI_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We went over this years ago, it's not from a blog, it comes directly from the study as reported by Haaretz:
> 
> *"The researchers found that more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to indigenous Europeans...."*
> 
> 
> read more: Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to your other link that refutes what you say, conveniently ignoring?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link refutes what I say because I am just presenting facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's good that you've convinced yourself, but we've already refuted you numerous times, even using your own links
> No need to get irritated, maybe next time...
> 
> Israel's Legal Right To Exist
> 
> Israel's Legal Right To Exist
> 
> Israel's Legal Right To Exist
Click to expand...


You haven't refuted any of the facts I've presented.  And you won't be able to, they are facts.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.
> 
> Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.



Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.

Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again you manipulate and cut the 1st part of some "science" blog with another part (earlier) from a research, but only the parts and blogs that suit your pov.
> 
> We have already dealt with this "study"
> No the later quote doesn't come from a study but a blog, and we have already dealt with it 2 days ago.
> It only proves that that you cut a sentence from here and there just to manipulate the info to suit your POV.
> 
> _"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... *These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant*."
> 
> The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.  - PubMed - NCBI_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We went over this years ago, it's not from a blog, it comes directly from the study as reported by Haaretz:
> 
> *"The researchers found that more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to indigenous Europeans...."*
> 
> 
> read more: Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happened to your other link that refutes what you say, conveniently ignoring?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link refutes what I say because I am just presenting facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's good that you've convinced yourself, but we've already refuted you numerous times, even using your own links
> No need to get irritated, maybe next time...
> 
> Israel's Legal Right To Exist
> 
> Israel's Legal Right To Exist
> 
> Israel's Legal Right To Exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't refuted any of the facts I've presented.  And you won't be able to, they are facts.
Click to expand...


No they're not- they're questionable theory as everything in science, and they contradict what you tried to present.
Your "'Cause I say so" is neither fact nor science, no matter how many times you cutn'paste it.
And finally it takes away from your credibility.


----------



## fanger

rylah said:


> one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.


Have you ever questioned why that is? By the way judaism is a religion not a nation


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you manipulate and cut the 1st part of some "science" blog with another part (earlier) from a research, but only the parts and blogs that suit your pov.
> 
> We have already dealt with this "study"
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the later quote doesn't come from a study but a blog, and we have already dealt with it 2 days ago.
> It only proves that that you cut a sentence from here and there just to manipulate the info to suit your POV.
> 
> _"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... *These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant*."
> 
> The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.  - PubMed - NCBI_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We went over this years ago, it's not from a blog, it comes directly from the study as reported by Haaretz:
> 
> *"The researchers found that more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to indigenous Europeans...."*
> 
> 
> read more: Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News
Click to expand...








 Strange how your link stops after just 10 words, and you have to pay for the rest ......................


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you manipulate and cut the 1st part of some "science" blog with another part (earlier) from a research, but only the parts and blogs that suit your pov.
> 
> We have already dealt with this "study"
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the later quote doesn't come from a study but a blog, and we have already dealt with it 2 days ago.
> It only proves that that you cut a sentence from here and there just to manipulate the info to suit your POV.
> 
> _"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... *These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant*."
> 
> The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.  - PubMed - NCBI_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We went over this years ago, it's not from a blog, it comes directly from the study as reported by Haaretz:
> 
> *"The researchers found that more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to indigenous Europeans...."*
> 
> 
> read more: Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News
Click to expand...







 Which came from a blog, and yiu are caught LYING again


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> I see, then you need to read it directly from the study.  Will you stop parroting denial propaganda then? Here it is direct from the study.  Now STFU.
> 
> "it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe..."



No, your link is not directly from the study of Ashkenzai maternal ancestry.  It is an alternative interpretation of the study which actually contradicts the conclusions drawn by those who conducted the study, who write:

_The observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population._

_...the very presence of the Ashkenazi founding lineages, albeit at low frequencies, in North African, Near Eastern, and Caucasian Jews, supports a common Levantine ancestry..._



Now, I'm going to say again that I despise these conversations as modern, technology-assisted racism in the vein of "your skin isn't white enough, your eyes aren't blue enough and your hair isn't blonde enough".  And the use of these studies to deny a relationship between the Jewish people and their ancestral homeland is heinous.  And I would like to also call attention to the fact that DNA analysis is only typically or commonly used to deny the Jewish people.  No one suggests using DNA analysis to determine the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim.


----------



## Phoenall

fanger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever questioned why that is? By the way judaism is a religion not a nation
Click to expand...







 Yes and found that it led to two groups that wanted supremacy over the world, so tried to eradicate the leading religion of the time and usurp it with their own. The Romans failed as did their empire, leaving the muslims that invented a new religion based around the evil and vile sections of Judaism and Christianity. This is why they are hated so much today


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you manipulate and cut the 1st part of some "science" blog with another part (earlier) from a research, but only the parts and blogs that suit your pov.
> 
> We have already dealt with this "study"
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you on the other hand, fail to tell the rest of the story:
> 
> "All told, more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to Europe, with only a few lineages originating in the Near East."
> 
> This is a real scientific study, performed by trained geneticists from neutral institutions, not the Zionist propaganda that you refer to.
> 
> Arab Jews, Arab Christians and Arab Muslims are the pretty much the same people. Of course there would similarity between them.  And yes, before the Zionist invasion, there were Arab Jews.  They spoke Arabic and were culturally Arab.  This documentary films Arab Jews in the late 1800s.
> 
> 
> European Jews (the Zionists from northern and eastern Europe), on the other hand, have less of a genetic tie to the Middle East than southern Europeans.
> 
> But, even if the genetic propaganda were true, the European Zionists still had no claim to, nor the right to colonize and dispossess the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No the later quote doesn't come from a study but a blog, and we have already dealt with it 2 days ago.
> It only proves that that you cut a sentence from here and there just to manipulate the info to suit your POV.
> 
> _"Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations... *These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant*."
> 
> The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.  - PubMed - NCBI_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We went over this years ago, it's not from a blog, it comes directly from the study as reported by Haaretz:
> 
> *"The researchers found that more than 80 percent of the maternal lineages of Ashkenazi Jews could be traced to indigenous Europeans...."*
> 
> 
> read more: Study traces Ashkenazi roots to European women who probably converted to Judaism - Jewish World News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haaretz is a left wing anti semitic publication which receives "donations" from the PA and European countries...so they mentioned the same "study" you cut and paste and??
> 
> We've read your links and they don't agree with what you try to present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, then you need to read it directly from the study.  Will you stop parroting denial propaganda then? Here it is direct from the study.  Now STFU.
> 
> "it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe..."
> 
> A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages : Nature Communications
Click to expand...








 Not quite what it says as you claim is it freddy boy It is talking about maternal ancestry only of a small number of ashkenazi Jews, not the whole of the ashkenazi Jewish population. It would take up all the bandwidth to post the complete subject, but it talks of 1% here and 3% there and these small groups in their totallity showing an 80% due to assimilation. 80% of 100 is just 80, not 8 million as you are implying. 
Not much further on it goes on to say this

 As might be expected from the autosomal picture, Y-chromosome studies generally show the opposite trend to mtDNA (with a predominantly Near Eastern source) 

Showing that the same study puts the origins of the ashkenazi Jews firmly in the near east .


 So in reality it niether confirms nor negates anything, and just muddies the already turbulent stream


----------



## rylah

fanger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever questioned why that is? By the way judaism is a religion not a nation
Click to expand...


Before entering Canaan Moses our Rabbi told sons of Jacob that they'll settle and prosper and get used to the land. Then they shall be exiled to the 4 corners of earth, persecuted, tortured and until they "won't know what the next day brings"!
Sons of Israel were shocked and asked for the reason Moses uncovered that...
Moses answered them that they should forget about EXISTENCE but rather focus on LIVING. And so Jews produced their greatest works during the hardest of times.

Am Israel Hai!


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.
> 
> Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.



Sure, and when a Jew learns to speak Arabic, he doesn't miraculously turn Arab.  

What actually happens is that a person of one ethnic group marries and procreates with someone from a different ethnic group.  One of the two cultures usually "wins out" and the family adopts and continues that particular culture.  Thus a European non-Jew may marry a Jew and convert to Judaism and raise Jewish children.  Or an Arab may marry a Jew and produce children who are both Arabic and Jewish and one or the other of those cultures may become predominate in that society.  It is also possible that groups living in a diaspora will not intermarry much with the local population and instead largely marry and produce children within its own community (which seems to be mostly the case with the Jewish people).  

This idea you seem to have that there has been and continues to be a mass conversion to the faith of Judaism absent of marriage and procreation is grossly mistaken.  It is extremely rare today, let alone hundreds or thousands of years ago.  

If one knows anything about Judaism, one should know that there is no reason to convert to Judaism.  Non-Jews are welcome in the Jewish community as non-Jews (B'nei Noah) and converting serves no purpose.  (Except for marriage and the rearing of children).


----------



## Shusha

fanger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever questioned why that is?
Click to expand...


Of course the Jewish people have questioned it.  There are some fascinating and beautiful theological answers, which are probably beyond the scope of this board.  

But you are only using this to segue into "Jews are evil".  So, let's just not.


----------



## Hossfly

fanger said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever questioned why that is? By the way judaism is a religion not a nation
Click to expand...

fanger is a prime candidate to show the readers why this happened.  All the losers like fanger pick on some small groups as scapegoats for their own failures.  Anyone reading this board can quickly pick up that fanger uses his Jew hatred to cover up his own inadequacies.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, then you need to read it directly from the study.  Will you stop parroting denial propaganda then? Here it is direct from the study.  Now STFU.
> 
> "it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your link is not directly from the study of Ashkenzai maternal ancestry.  It is an alternative interpretation of the study which actually contradicts the conclusions drawn by those who conducted the study, who write:
> 
> _The observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population._
> 
> _...the very presence of the Ashkenazi founding lineages, albeit at low frequencies, in North African, Near Eastern, and Caucasian Jews, supports a common Levantine ancestry..._
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'm going to say again that I despise these conversations as modern, technology-assisted racism in the vein of "your skin isn't white enough, your eyes aren't blue enough and your hair isn't blonde enough".  And the use of these studies to deny a relationship between the Jewish people and their ancestral homeland is heinous.  And I would like to also call attention to the fact that DNA analysis is only typically or commonly used to deny the Jewish people.  No one suggests using DNA analysis to determine the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim.
Click to expand...


It is a link to the study.  Stop lying.

*"A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages*

Marta D. Costa
, Joana B. Pereira
, Maria Pala
, Verónica Fernandes
, Anna Olivieri
, Alessandro Achilli
,Ugo A. Perego
, Sergei Rychkov
, Oksana Naumova
, Jiři Hatina
, Scott R. Woodward
, Ken Khong Eng
,Vincent Macaulay
, Martin Carr
, Pedro Soares
, Luísa Pereira
 & Martin B. Richards

_Nature Communications_ 4, Article number: 2543 (2013)
doi:10.1038/ncomms3543
Download Citation

Anthropology
Population genetics

Received:
11 July 2013
Accepted:
04 September 2013
Published online:
08 October 2013"

A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages : Nature Communications

It is fine for anyone to self identify as any ethnic group. But, one can't use that self-identification to claim land inhabited by native people and dispossess those native people, people whose ancestors had lived on the land for thousands of years.  And, whose DNA/ancestry is close to 100% from the area.

Fact is, the Zionists were Europeans with Middle East ancestry equivalent to other Europeans that were Christians.


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.
> 
> Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.
Click to expand...


I look at historical fact.  You have been spoon fed a fantasy.


----------



## Kondor3

montelatici said:


> First of all there are people of the Judaic faith, not  "Jewish people", a person of any ethnicity can practice Judaism.  There are Europeans that practice Judaism, Asians, there even probably Inuits that practice Judaism.
> 
> People of the Judaic faith can have all the self-determination they want, but colonizing/invading Palestine and dispossessing the native Christians and Muslims whose ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, whatever religion their ancestors practiced, was a criminal act.


Doesn't matter.

Leave.

Live.


----------



## montelatici

The Muslims will not leave.  The Christians have been leaving since the Zionist invasion began, they had the wealth to do so, and Palestinian Christians are doing well in South America, Chile especially.  But, the Palestinian Christians still believe they will be able to return someday from what I have read.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, then you need to read it directly from the study.  Will you stop parroting denial propaganda then? Here it is direct from the study.  Now STFU.
> 
> "it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your link is not directly from the study of Ashkenzai maternal ancestry.  It is an alternative interpretation of the study which actually contradicts the conclusions drawn by those who conducted the study, who write:
> 
> _The observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population._
> 
> _...the very presence of the Ashkenazi founding lineages, albeit at low frequencies, in North African, Near Eastern, and Caucasian Jews, supports a common Levantine ancestry..._
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'm going to say again that I despise these conversations as modern, technology-assisted racism in the vein of "your skin isn't white enough, your eyes aren't blue enough and your hair isn't blonde enough".  And the use of these studies to deny a relationship between the Jewish people and their ancestral homeland is heinous.  And I would like to also call attention to the fact that DNA analysis is only typically or commonly used to deny the Jewish people.  No one suggests using DNA analysis to determine the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a link to the study.  Stop lying.
> 
> *"A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages*
> 
> Marta D. Costa
> , Joana B. Pereira
> , Maria Pala
> , Verónica Fernandes
> , Anna Olivieri
> , Alessandro Achilli
> ,Ugo A. Perego
> , Sergei Rychkov
> , Oksana Naumova
> , Jiři Hatina
> , Scott R. Woodward
> , Ken Khong Eng
> ,Vincent Macaulay
> , Martin Carr
> , Pedro Soares
> , Luísa Pereira
> & Martin B. Richards
> 
> _Nature Communications_ 4, Article number: 2543 (2013)
> doi:10.1038/ncomms3543
> Download Citation
> 
> Anthropology
> Population genetics
> 
> Received:
> 11 July 2013
> Accepted:
> 04 September 2013
> Published online:
> 08 October 2013"
> 
> A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages : Nature Communications
> 
> It is fine for anyone to self identify as any ethnic group. But, one can't use that self-identification to claim land inhabited by native people and dispossess those native people, people whose ancestors had lived on the land for thousands of years.  And, whose DNA/ancestry is close to 100% from the area.
> 
> Fact is, the Zionists were Europeans with Middle East ancestry equivalent to other Europeans that were Christians.
Click to expand...


So... then you're presuming Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders are "native people" relative to the geographic area of Pal'istan?

It appears the dispossession of those you claim were dispossessed were dispossessed by dispossessors from foreign Islamic lands.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The Muslims will not leave.  The Christians have been leaving since the Zionist invasion began, they had the wealth to do so, and Palestinian Christians are doing well in South America, Chile especially.  But, the Palestinian Christians still believe they will be able to return someday from what I have read.


Actually, non-Islamics in Islamist controlled lands have historically been dispossessed and driven out of Islamist controlled areas.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, then you need to read it directly from the study.  Will you stop parroting denial propaganda then? Here it is direct from the study.  Now STFU.
> 
> "it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your link is not directly from the study of Ashkenzai maternal ancestry.  It is an alternative interpretation of the study which actually contradicts the conclusions drawn by those who conducted the study, who write:
> 
> _The observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population._
> 
> _...the very presence of the Ashkenazi founding lineages, albeit at low frequencies, in North African, Near Eastern, and Caucasian Jews, supports a common Levantine ancestry..._
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'm going to say again that I despise these conversations as modern, technology-assisted racism in the vein of "your skin isn't white enough, your eyes aren't blue enough and your hair isn't blonde enough".  And the use of these studies to deny a relationship between the Jewish people and their ancestral homeland is heinous.  And I would like to also call attention to the fact that DNA analysis is only typically or commonly used to deny the Jewish people.  No one suggests using DNA analysis to determine the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a link to the study.  Stop lying.
> 
> *"A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages*
> 
> Marta D. Costa
> , Joana B. Pereira
> , Maria Pala
> , Verónica Fernandes
> , Anna Olivieri
> , Alessandro Achilli
> ,Ugo A. Perego
> , Sergei Rychkov
> , Oksana Naumova
> , Jiři Hatina
> , Scott R. Woodward
> , Ken Khong Eng
> ,Vincent Macaulay
> , Martin Carr
> , Pedro Soares
> , Luísa Pereira
> & Martin B. Richards
> 
> _Nature Communications_ 4, Article number: 2543 (2013)
> doi:10.1038/ncomms3543
> Download Citation
> 
> Anthropology
> Population genetics
> 
> Received:
> 11 July 2013
> Accepted:
> 04 September 2013
> Published online:
> 08 October 2013"
> 
> A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages : Nature Communications
> 
> It is fine for anyone to self identify as any ethnic group. But, one can't use that self-identification to claim land inhabited by native people and dispossess those native people, people whose ancestors had lived on the land for thousands of years.  And, whose DNA/ancestry is close to 100% from the area.
> 
> Fact is, the Zionists were Europeans with Middle East ancestry equivalent to other Europeans that were Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... then you're presuming Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders are "native people" relative to the geographic area of Pal'istan?
> 
> It appears the dispossession of those you claim were dispossessed were dispossessed by dispossessors from foreign Islamic lands.
Click to expand...


No, the Muslims and Christians of Palestine are the native people of Palestine.  The Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese are the native people of Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, respectively.  It isn't that difficult to understand.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims will not leave.  The Christians have been leaving since the Zionist invasion began, they had the wealth to do so, and Palestinian Christians are doing well in South America, Chile especially.  But, the Palestinian Christians still believe they will be able to return someday from what I have read.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, non-Islamics in Islamist controlled lands have historically been dispossessed and driven out of Islamist controlled areas.
Click to expand...


In the case of the Christians of Palestine, they have lived there since Christianity began, over 2000 years.  makes your assertion bullshit, doesn't it.  They began leaving when the European Zionists initiated their invasion. Their ancestors are the original Christians.

Most Christians around the world know this, it's only the American Christians that have been brainwashed to celebrate the oppression of fellow Christians by the Israelis, just because they are Palestinians.

Lenin's term, "useful idiots" applies to American Christians. As a Roman Catholic I support my fellow Christians.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, then you need to read it directly from the study.  Will you stop parroting denial propaganda then? Here it is direct from the study.  Now STFU.
> 
> "it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your link is not directly from the study of Ashkenzai maternal ancestry.  It is an alternative interpretation of the study which actually contradicts the conclusions drawn by those who conducted the study, who write:
> 
> _The observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population._
> 
> _...the very presence of the Ashkenazi founding lineages, albeit at low frequencies, in North African, Near Eastern, and Caucasian Jews, supports a common Levantine ancestry..._
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'm going to say again that I despise these conversations as modern, technology-assisted racism in the vein of "your skin isn't white enough, your eyes aren't blue enough and your hair isn't blonde enough".  And the use of these studies to deny a relationship between the Jewish people and their ancestral homeland is heinous.  And I would like to also call attention to the fact that DNA analysis is only typically or commonly used to deny the Jewish people.  No one suggests using DNA analysis to determine the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a link to the study.  Stop lying.
> 
> *"A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages*
> 
> Marta D. Costa
> , Joana B. Pereira
> , Maria Pala
> , Verónica Fernandes
> , Anna Olivieri
> , Alessandro Achilli
> ,Ugo A. Perego
> , Sergei Rychkov
> , Oksana Naumova
> , Jiři Hatina
> , Scott R. Woodward
> , Ken Khong Eng
> ,Vincent Macaulay
> , Martin Carr
> , Pedro Soares
> , Luísa Pereira
> & Martin B. Richards
> 
> _Nature Communications_ 4, Article number: 2543 (2013)
> doi:10.1038/ncomms3543
> Download Citation
> 
> Anthropology
> Population genetics
> 
> Received:
> 11 July 2013
> Accepted:
> 04 September 2013
> Published online:
> 08 October 2013"
> 
> A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages : Nature Communications
> 
> It is fine for anyone to self identify as any ethnic group. But, one can't use that self-identification to claim land inhabited by native people and dispossess those native people, people whose ancestors had lived on the land for thousands of years.  And, whose DNA/ancestry is close to 100% from the area.
> 
> Fact is, the Zionists were Europeans with Middle East ancestry equivalent to other Europeans that were Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... then you're presuming Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders are "native people" relative to the geographic area of Pal'istan?
> 
> It appears the dispossession of those you claim were dispossessed were dispossessed by dispossessors from foreign Islamic lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Muslims and Christians of Palestine are the native people of Palestine.  The Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese are the native people of Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, respectively.  It isn't that difficult to understand.
Click to expand...


And those thieving Jewish Zionists built their wailing wall around the Al Aqsa Mosque when all those native Palestinian mosques & Christian churches came to be.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, then you need to read it directly from the study.  Will you stop parroting denial propaganda then? Here it is direct from the study.  Now STFU.
> 
> "it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your link is not directly from the study of Ashkenzai maternal ancestry.  It is an alternative interpretation of the study which actually contradicts the conclusions drawn by those who conducted the study, who write:
> 
> _The observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population._
> 
> _...the very presence of the Ashkenazi founding lineages, albeit at low frequencies, in North African, Near Eastern, and Caucasian Jews, supports a common Levantine ancestry..._
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'm going to say again that I despise these conversations as modern, technology-assisted racism in the vein of "your skin isn't white enough, your eyes aren't blue enough and your hair isn't blonde enough".  And the use of these studies to deny a relationship between the Jewish people and their ancestral homeland is heinous.  And I would like to also call attention to the fact that DNA analysis is only typically or commonly used to deny the Jewish people.  No one suggests using DNA analysis to determine the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a link to the study.  Stop lying.
> 
> *"A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages*
> 
> Marta D. Costa
> , Joana B. Pereira
> , Maria Pala
> , Verónica Fernandes
> , Anna Olivieri
> , Alessandro Achilli
> ,Ugo A. Perego
> , Sergei Rychkov
> , Oksana Naumova
> , Jiři Hatina
> , Scott R. Woodward
> , Ken Khong Eng
> ,Vincent Macaulay
> , Martin Carr
> , Pedro Soares
> , Luísa Pereira
> & Martin B. Richards
> 
> _Nature Communications_ 4, Article number: 2543 (2013)
> doi:10.1038/ncomms3543
> Download Citation
> 
> Anthropology
> Population genetics
> 
> Received:
> 11 July 2013
> Accepted:
> 04 September 2013
> Published online:
> 08 October 2013"
> 
> A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages : Nature Communications
> 
> It is fine for anyone to self identify as any ethnic group. But, one can't use that self-identification to claim land inhabited by native people and dispossess those native people, people whose ancestors had lived on the land for thousands of years.  And, whose DNA/ancestry is close to 100% from the area.
> 
> Fact is, the Zionists were Europeans with Middle East ancestry equivalent to other Europeans that were Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... then you're presuming Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders are "native people" relative to the geographic area of Pal'istan?
> 
> It appears the dispossession of those you claim were dispossessed were dispossessed by dispossessors from foreign Islamic lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the Muslims and Christians of Palestine are the native people of Palestine.  The Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese are the native people of Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, respectively.  It isn't that difficult to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And those thieving Jewish Zionists built their wailing wall around the Al Aqsa Mosque when all those native Muslim Palestinian mosques & Christian churches came to be.
Click to expand...


Monte boy.  You are a blast!  Please post more often.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> It is fine for anyone to self identify as any ethnic group. But, one can't use that self-identification to claim land inhabited by native people and dispossess those native people, people whose ancestors had lived on the land for thousands of years.



You continue to argue that invaders become the natives.  And you continue to argue that once a people is expelled from a nation they are no longer native.  Thus, "nativeness", in your view, is a factor of possession or residence.  

Which means the "European Jews", even if they did not originate on the land in question (which they obviously did) are the new natives.


----------



## montelatici

The European Jews are Europeans, they are the invaders or colonizers, take your pick.  The Palestinian Christians and Muslims are the offspring of the original inhabitants, that they converted to Christianity and Islam does not make them any less the native people than the Native Americans in the Americas if they converted to Christianity or any other religion.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> The European Jews are Europeans, they are the invaders or colonizers, take your pick.  The Palestinian Christians and Muslims are the offspring of the original inhabitants, that they converted to Christianity and Islam does not make them any less the native people than the Native Americans in the Americas if they converted to Christianity or any other religion.


Ever heard of Moses? Joshua?


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The European Jews are Europeans, they are the invaders or colonizers, take your pick.  The Palestinian Christians and Muslims are the offspring of the original inhabitants, that they converted to Christianity and Islam does not make them any less the native people than the Native Americans in the Americas if they converted to Christianity or any other religion.



Right.  So in order to live in your fictional world you have to completely disconnect the "European Jews" from, you know, Jews who originated in Israel and Judah (which is silly) and you have to pretend that the "natives" of Israel and Judah miraculously changed their language, religion and entire culture without an invasion of another culture (which is silly).


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The European Jews are Europeans, they are the invaders or colonizers, take your pick.  The Palestinian Christians and Muslims are the offspring of the original inhabitants, that they converted to Christianity and Islam does not make them any less the native people than the Native Americans in the Americas if they converted to Christianity or any other religion.


So... the invading Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese Islamists magically became Pal'istanians, how?


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The European Jews are Europeans, they are the invaders or colonizers, take your pick.  The Palestinian Christians and Muslims are the offspring of the original inhabitants, that they converted to Christianity and Islam does not make them any less the native people than the Native Americans in the Americas if they converted to Christianity or any other religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of Moses? Joshua?
Click to expand...

 
Must be those invaders of antiquity that drove out the naive Muslims & Christians Monte refers to.  Oh wait, there were no Muslims or Christians yet. Lets ask Monte about this.


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
Click to expand...

There is nothing civilized about the brutal occupation of the Palestinians by the Israelis.


----------



## Hollie

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing civilized about the brutal occupation of the Palestinians by the Israelis.
Click to expand...

Do you identifiable few cliche-driven types have a pecking order that determines who posts the slogans and clichés on any given night?


----------



## Hossfly

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing civilized about the brutal occupation of the Palestinians by the Israelis.
Click to expand...



Do the readers think it will be that difficult to get Eloy to move into one of these great apartments?   He can spend evenings telling his new neighbors how brutal the Israelis are.

A look around Rawabi, Palestine’s new city in West Bank - in pictures | The National


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing civilized about the brutal occupation of the Palestinians by the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you identifiable few cliche-driven types have a pecking order that determines who posts the slogans and clichés on any given night?
Click to expand...

Unlike the Zionists who shotgun Israeli talking points en mass.


----------



## Hollie

Hossfly said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing civilized about the brutal occupation of the Palestinians by the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do the readers think it will be that difficult to get Eloy to move into one of these great apartments?   He can spend evenings telling his new neighbors how brutal the Israelis are.
> 
> A look around Rawabi, Palestine’s new city in West Bank - in pictures | The National
Click to expand...

Kuffar welfare dollars really do fall off the infidel tree.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is nothing civilized about the brutal occupation of the Palestinians by the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you identifiable few cliche-driven types have a pecking order that determines who posts the slogans and clichés on any given night?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlike the Zionists who shotgun Israeli talking points en mass.
Click to expand...

_The Zionists_™


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.
> 
> Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I look at historical fact.  You have been spoon fed a fantasy.
Click to expand...


 You can use those affirmations all you want, and the more you repeat it the more you yourself believe it.

FACT is your recent posting history shows manipulation of data, selective vision and total negligence of anything contradicting your POV- even when shown by the data in the same links you've posted.


----------



## member

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.
> 
> Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I look at historical fact.  You have been spoon fed a fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can use those affirmations all you want, and the more you repeat it the more you yourself believe it.
> 
> FACT is your recent posting history shows manipulation of data, selective vision and total negligence of anything contradicting your POV- even when shown by the data in the same links you've posted.
Click to expand...


_*". . .the more you repeat it....*_ 

 *<*-------- *the more you yourself believe it."*





 
*"FACT is your recent posting history shows:"*





 *"manipulation of data. . ."* 






 *"selective vision. . ."*







​






*". . .and total negligence of anything contradicting your POV... "*




_*"....even when shown by the data*_ 

 *in the same links you've posted."

*


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, then you need to read it directly from the study.  Will you stop parroting denial propaganda then? Here it is direct from the study.  Now STFU.
> 
> "it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your link is not directly from the study of Ashkenzai maternal ancestry.  It is an alternative interpretation of the study which actually contradicts the conclusions drawn by those who conducted the study, who write:
> 
> _The observed global pattern of distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a European host population._
> 
> _...the very presence of the Ashkenazi founding lineages, albeit at low frequencies, in North African, Near Eastern, and Caucasian Jews, supports a common Levantine ancestry..._
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'm going to say again that I despise these conversations as modern, technology-assisted racism in the vein of "your skin isn't white enough, your eyes aren't blue enough and your hair isn't blonde enough".  And the use of these studies to deny a relationship between the Jewish people and their ancestral homeland is heinous.  And I would like to also call attention to the fact that DNA analysis is only typically or commonly used to deny the Jewish people.  No one suggests using DNA analysis to determine the legitimacy of the Palestinian claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a link to the study.  Stop lying.
> 
> *"A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages*
> 
> Marta D. Costa
> , Joana B. Pereira
> , Maria Pala
> , Verónica Fernandes
> , Anna Olivieri
> , Alessandro Achilli
> ,Ugo A. Perego
> , Sergei Rychkov
> , Oksana Naumova
> , Jiři Hatina
> , Scott R. Woodward
> , Ken Khong Eng
> ,Vincent Macaulay
> , Martin Carr
> , Pedro Soares
> , Luísa Pereira
> & Martin B. Richards
> 
> _Nature Communications_ 4, Article number: 2543 (2013)
> doi:10.1038/ncomms3543
> Download Citation
> 
> Anthropology
> Population genetics
> 
> Received:
> 11 July 2013
> Accepted:
> 04 September 2013
> Published online:
> 08 October 2013"
> 
> A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages : Nature Communications
> 
> It is fine for anyone to self identify as any ethnic group. But, one can't use that self-identification to claim land inhabited by native people and dispossess those native people, people whose ancestors had lived on the land for thousands of years.  And, whose DNA/ancestry is close to 100% from the area.
> 
> Fact is, the Zionists were Europeans with Middle East ancestry equivalent to other Europeans that were Christians.
Click to expand...








 That does not prove anything either way if you read it completely. All you do is cherry pick the parts that meet with your islamonazi POV and matches your education at the hands of the priests and nuns. Then when shown to be devious and a LIAR you start getting agitated and aggressive.

 Time for a new hobby like playing with the snakes in the pits or doing real live crossy road


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.
> 
> Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I look at historical fact.  You have been spoon fed a fantasy.
Click to expand...








 Historical fact like that told by Winston Churchill when he told parliament that the arab muslims had illegally migrated to palestine increasing the population above that achievable by all world Jewry to match


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Muslims will not leave.  The Christians have been leaving since the Zionist invasion began, they had the wealth to do so, and Palestinian Christians are doing well in South America, Chile especially.  But, the Palestinian Christians still believe they will be able to return someday from what I have read.










 Not if your hero's hamas and fatah have anything to say about it. They have already ethnically cleansed 90% of the Christian population and you dent this even when faced with the evidence. The muslims will be forced to leave and return to their original homes or face being evicted and put in camps


----------



## Phoenall

So when the Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese illegally migrated into the mandate of palestine they suddenly lost their original nationality and were granted a new nationality by WHO ? ? ? ? ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims will not leave.  The Christians have been leaving since the Zionist invasion began, they had the wealth to do so, and Palestinian Christians are doing well in South America, Chile especially.  But, the Palestinian Christians still believe they will be able to return someday from what I have read.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, non-Islamics in Islamist controlled lands have historically been dispossessed and driven out of Islamist controlled areas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the case of the Christians of Palestine, they have lived there since Christianity began, over 2000 years.  makes your assertion bullshit, doesn't it.  They began leaving when the European Zionists initiated their invasion. Their ancestors are the original Christians.
> 
> Most Christians around the world know this, it's only the American Christians that have been brainwashed to celebrate the oppression of fellow Christians by the Israelis, just because they are Palestinians.
> 
> Lenin's term, "useful idiots" applies to American Christians. As a Roman Catholic I support my fellow Christians.
Click to expand...








 Try again as Christianity began in the 4C when the Roman empire was falling apart. All Christians ( Catholics to you ) dont know this at all they only know what they have been spoonfed by their hateful nazi priests and nuns. You really need to stop making things up when reality shows you to be wrong and an idiot. Try reading some real history books for once and get yourself educated


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> So when the Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese illegally migrated into the mandate of palestine they suddenly lost their original nationality and were granted a new nationality by WHO ? ? ? ? ?


Post war treaties and the British Mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel's Legal Right To Exist​*
I have heard that talking point a gazillion times.

Never seen anything proving it ti be true.


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.
> 
> Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I look at historical fact.  You have been spoon fed a fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can use those affirmations all you want, and the more you repeat it the more you yourself believe it.
> 
> FACT is your recent posting history shows manipulation of data, selective vision and total negligence of anything contradicting your POV- even when shown by the data in the same links you've posted.
Click to expand...



No manipulation of data, no selection vision just facts. There are no "contradicting" facts, just Zionist propaganda that has been developed to attempt to justify the colonization/invasion of Palestine and the removal and/or oppression of the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants by European Zionists.

That's just a fact.  No amount of smoke and mirrors will change the facts.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.
> 
> Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I look at historical fact.  You have been spoon fed a fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can use those affirmations all you want, and the more you repeat it the more you yourself believe it.
> 
> FACT is your recent posting history shows manipulation of data, selective vision and total negligence of anything contradicting your POV- even when shown by the data in the same links you've posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No manipulation of data, no selection vision just facts. There are no "contradicting" facts, just Zionist propaganda that has been developed to attempt to justify the colonization/invasion of Palestine and the removal and/or oppression of the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants by European Zionists.
> 
> That's just a fact.  No amount of smoke and mirrors will change the facts.
Click to expand...


Here we go again.  "Native Christian & Muslim inhabitants" when the Jews were there long before there were any Christians or Muslims.  So who invaded who?  Duh!


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.
> 
> Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I look at historical fact.  You have been spoon fed a fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can use those affirmations all you want, and the more you repeat it the more you yourself believe it.
> 
> FACT is your recent posting history shows manipulation of data, selective vision and total negligence of anything contradicting your POV- even when shown by the data in the same links you've posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No manipulation of data, no selection vision just facts. There are no "contradicting" facts, just Zionist propaganda that has been developed to attempt to justify the colonization/invasion of Palestine and the removal and/or oppression of the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants by European Zionists.
> 
> That's just a fact.  No amount of smoke and mirrors will change the facts.
Click to expand...

_Monty facts_ ™ tend to be suspect. 

For example, why does anyone presume that Arab invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon suddenly become a "native population" of some non-existent "country" you call Pal'istan. 

Islamo-propaganda won't help with such nonsense.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yeah, I would suspect a response like that.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist*​
> I have heard that talking point a gazillion times.
> 
> Never seen anything proving it ti be true.


*(OBSERVATION)*

The "Right to Exist" --- and --- the "Right to Self-Determination" are related variations of the same thing.  The idea of a "Right" having some significant meaning is fictitious.

•  "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people.  It is centered on the idea that the government having the ability to assumed the authority and establish the political control over a specific geo-political territory; and the ability to defend it.

•  Self-Determination (the Right) is a characteristic of the people to recognize its existence and decide the decide their own destiny in the international order. ​*(COMMENT)*

"Existence" is about nations _(with the directions they take)_ and the "Self-Determination" is about  the people _(and the direction the people take)_.  

I hold the belief that those that keep asking for "proof," have no true understanding of an evolving world of politics --- or the "reality" of the international community in which we live.  In this case, Israel and each member nation of the Arab League are "tangible proof" of existence _(you can actually reach-out and touch it)_.  The diversity of different type of governments is evidence of self-Determination.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Eloy

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.
> 
> Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I look at historical fact.  You have been spoon fed a fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can use those affirmations all you want, and the more you repeat it the more you yourself believe it.
> 
> FACT is your recent posting history shows manipulation of data, selective vision and total negligence of anything contradicting your POV- even when shown by the data in the same links you've posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No manipulation of data, no selection vision just facts. There are no "contradicting" facts, just Zionist propaganda that has been developed to attempt to justify the colonization/invasion of Palestine and the removal and/or oppression of the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants by European Zionists.
> 
> That's just a fact.  No amount of smoke and mirrors will change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.  "Native Christian & Muslim inhabitants" when the Jews were there long before there were any Christians or Muslims.  So who invaded who?  Duh!
Click to expand...

The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.


----------



## Hollie

Eloy said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I look at historical fact.  You have been spoon fed a fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can use those affirmations all you want, and the more you repeat it the more you yourself believe it.
> 
> FACT is your recent posting history shows manipulation of data, selective vision and total negligence of anything contradicting your POV- even when shown by the data in the same links you've posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No manipulation of data, no selection vision just facts. There are no "contradicting" facts, just Zionist propaganda that has been developed to attempt to justify the colonization/invasion of Palestine and the removal and/or oppression of the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants by European Zionists.
> 
> That's just a fact.  No amount of smoke and mirrors will change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.  "Native Christian & Muslim inhabitants" when the Jews were there long before there were any Christians or Muslims.  So who invaded who?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.
Click to expand...

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the various refutations to your slogans and clichés.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when the Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese illegally migrated into the mandate of palestine they suddenly lost their original nationality and were granted a new nationality by WHO ? ? ? ? ?
> 
> 
> 
> Post war treaties and the British Mandate.
Click to expand...







 What treaties and what British mandate state that illegal immigrants will get a new nationallity when they migrate illegally to the Mandate of palestine.

 Britain was a Mandatory not the Lon mandate, it was not the one that brought about the mandate so had no such authority unless given by the LoN

 Once again you confuse the issue deliberately so it meets with your POV


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.
> 
> Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I look at historical fact.  You have been spoon fed a fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can use those affirmations all you want, and the more you repeat it the more you yourself believe it.
> 
> FACT is your recent posting history shows manipulation of data, selective vision and total negligence of anything contradicting your POV- even when shown by the data in the same links you've posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No manipulation of data, no selection vision just facts. There are no "contradicting" facts, just Zionist propaganda that has been developed to attempt to justify the colonization/invasion of Palestine and the removal and/or oppression of the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants by European Zionists.
> 
> That's just a fact.  No amount of smoke and mirrors will change the facts.
Click to expand...

The length pali supporters will go...

So you post links without reading them, those links are shown to actually contradict what you tried to prove and all of a sudden they become "Zionist propaganda" ?? 

Btw you still haven't answered which tribes those "native Palestinians" belong to?

And that's exactly why you dance around comparing Christians and Muslims to Europeans- apples to oranges and clear manipulation.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist*​
> I have heard that talking point a gazillion times.
> 
> Never seen anything proving it ti be true.








 UN charter and International laws that cover Israel's existence. Try the UN charter first for clarification, or read this



Resolution 181 laid a foundation within international law and diplomacy[76] for the creation of the state of Israel; as it was the first formal recognition by an international body of the legitimacy of a Jewish state, to exist within a partition of the territory along with an Arab state.

The UN followed the practice of the Peace Conference of Paris and the League of Nations regarding the creation of states.[77] Religious and minority rights were placed under the protection of the United Nations and recognition of the new states was conditioned upon acceptance of a constitutional plan of legal protections.[78][79] Israel acknowledged that obligation, and Israel's declaration of independence stated that the State of Israel would ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.* In the hearings before the Ad Hoc Political Committee that considered Israel's application for membership in the United Nations, Abba Eban said that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution.[80] *The instruments that he cited were the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, and various cables and letters of confirmation addressed to the Secretary General.* Eban's explanations and Israel's undertakings were noted in the text of General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, May 11, 1949*.,[81] The British Mandate for Palestine expired on May 15, 1948, and the UK recognized Israeli independence eight months later.

Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations - Wikipedia




 So you see Israel is legal while palestine is not


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, an  Inuit convert to Judaism is certainly not from the tribe of Judea. He is an Inuit that practices Judaism.  Just as a European convert to Judaism is not from the tribe of Judea, he is a European that practices Judaism.
> 
> Just as an Inuit that converts to Sanatana Dharma doesn't miraculously become a Hindu.  He/she becomes an Inuit that practices Sanatana Dharma he does not miraculously change to be from one of the Hindu tribes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I look at historical fact.  You have been spoon fed a fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can use those affirmations all you want, and the more you repeat it the more you yourself believe it.
> 
> FACT is your recent posting history shows manipulation of data, selective vision and total negligence of anything contradicting your POV- even when shown by the data in the same links you've posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No manipulation of data, no selection vision just facts. There are no "contradicting" facts, just Zionist propaganda that has been developed to attempt to justify the colonization/invasion of Palestine and the removal and/or oppression of the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants by European Zionists.
> 
> That's just a fact.  No amount of smoke and mirrors will change the facts.
Click to expand...









 Then were is the mention of the Jewish inhabitants that were in the majority until the Jews from Europe migrated there at the request of the Ottomans ?

That is a deliberate  omission to manipulate the facts to meet your POV


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break, go study what it takes to convert to Judaism for men and women... and tell me would you circumcise yourself without anesthetics being 30 and take upon yourself 613 restrictions in addition to becoming one of the most persecuted and hated nations in history.
> 
> Your mistake is common- you look at Judaism through the eyes of Christianity and Islam, therefore can't grasp the simplest things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I look at historical fact.  You have been spoon fed a fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can use those affirmations all you want, and the more you repeat it the more you yourself believe it.
> 
> FACT is your recent posting history shows manipulation of data, selective vision and total negligence of anything contradicting your POV- even when shown by the data in the same links you've posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No manipulation of data, no selection vision just facts. There are no "contradicting" facts, just Zionist propaganda that has been developed to attempt to justify the colonization/invasion of Palestine and the removal and/or oppression of the native Christian and Muslim inhabitants by European Zionists.
> 
> That's just a fact.  No amount of smoke and mirrors will change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.  "Native Christian & Muslim inhabitants" when the Jews were there long before there were any Christians or Muslims.  So who invaded who?  Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.
Click to expand...







 So why does the Ottoman census show that the Jews were in the majority until the late part of the 19C when arab muslims flooded into palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, I would suspect a response like that.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist*​
> I have heard that talking point a gazillion times.
> 
> Never seen anything proving it ti be true.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Right to Exist" --- and --- the "Right to Self-Determination" are related variations of the same thing.  The idea of a "Right" having some significant meaning is fictitious.
> 
> •  "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people.  It is centered on the idea that the government having the ability to assumed the authority and establish the political control over a specific geo-political territory; and the ability to defend it.
> 
> •  Self-Determination (the Right) is a characteristic of the people to recognize its existence and decide the decide their own destiny in the international order.​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> "Existence" is about nations _(with the directions they take)_ and the "Self-Determination" is about  the people _(and the direction the people take)_.
> 
> I hold the belief that those that keep asking for "proof," have no true understanding of an evolving world of politics --- or the "reality" of the international community in which we live.  In this case, Israel and each member nation of the Arab League are "tangible proof" of existence _(you can actually reach-out and touch it)_.  The diversity of different type of governments is evidence of self-Determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

• "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people.​
The government of Israel was created in the direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, I would suspect a response like that.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist*​
> I have heard that talking point a gazillion times.
> 
> Never seen anything proving it ti be true.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Right to Exist" --- and --- the "Right to Self-Determination" are related variations of the same thing.  The idea of a "Right" having some significant meaning is fictitious.
> 
> •  "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people.  It is centered on the idea that the government having the ability to assumed the authority and establish the political control over a specific geo-political territory; and the ability to defend it.
> 
> •  Self-Determination (the Right) is a characteristic of the people to recognize its existence and decide the decide their own destiny in the international order.​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> "Existence" is about nations _(with the directions they take)_ and the "Self-Determination" is about  the people _(and the direction the people take)_.
> 
> I hold the belief that those that keep asking for "proof," have no true understanding of an evolving world of politics --- or the "reality" of the international community in which we live.  In this case, Israel and each member nation of the Arab League are "tangible proof" of existence _(you can actually reach-out and touch it)_.  The diversity of different type of governments is evidence of self-Determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> • "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people.​
> The government of Israel was created in the direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.
Click to expand...







 You mean the illegal immigrant arab muslims dont you, not the palestinian Jews who had a legal right to be there. No International law prior to 1967 grants illegal immigrants the right to decide what another nation can and cant do


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, I would suspect a response like that.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist*​
> I have heard that talking point a gazillion times.
> 
> Never seen anything proving it ti be true.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> The "Right to Exist" --- and --- the "Right to Self-Determination" are related variations of the same thing.  The idea of a "Right" having some significant meaning is fictitious.
> 
> •  "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people.  It is centered on the idea that the government having the ability to assumed the authority and establish the political control over a specific geo-political territory; and the ability to defend it.
> 
> •  Self-Determination (the Right) is a characteristic of the people to recognize its existence and decide the decide their own destiny in the international order.​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> "Existence" is about nations _(with the directions they take)_ and the "Self-Determination" is about  the people _(and the direction the people take)_.
> 
> I hold the belief that those that keep asking for "proof," have no true understanding of an evolving world of politics --- or the "reality" of the international community in which we live.  In this case, Israel and each member nation of the Arab League are "tangible proof" of existence _(you can actually reach-out and touch it)_.  The diversity of different type of governments is evidence of self-Determination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> • "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people.​
> The government of Israel was created in the direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.
Click to expand...

When you dishonestly and selectively make your own edits to the text, out of context, it's again clear that your agenda is one of dishonesty and deceit. 

The part of the text you dishonestly and selectively purged was: "It is centered on the idea that the government having the ability to assumed the authority and establish the political control over a specific geo-political territory; and the ability to defend it."

There was no Pal'istanian government and no "country of Pal'istan" you have invented and insist existed at some time in the past. Your delusions are your own but no one else has any reason to accept them as anything but _your_ delusions.


----------



## Shusha

Phoenall said:


> So when the Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese illegally migrated into the mandate of palestine they suddenly lost their original nationality and were granted a new nationality by WHO ? ? ? ? ?



Nobody had to grant it to them.  According to monte, they magically became natives who had lived there for thousands of years.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist*​
> I have heard that talking point a gazillion times.
> 
> Never seen anything proving it ti be true.



You continually post comments claiming that the people of Palestine have a right to self-determination.  You continually claim that this right is inherent and inviolable and can not be abrogated.  

Your own principled statements are enough for Israel's right to exist be true.


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.



Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?

Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights.  He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is a subjective impression based on an emotional perception.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> •  "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people.  It is centered on the idea that the government having the ability to assumed the authority and establish the political control over a specific geo-political territory; and the ability to defend it.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​The government of Israel was created in the direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs *(vast majority of the people)* has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of *Resolution 181 (II)*.   This has a limited application on influencing the decisions of the Allied Powers, the Powers which had  the full rights and title to the territory.  Well it does not.  If it did, then all sorts of authoritative decrees would be out there.  In fact, there is an enormous amount of non-binding, ambiguous, and unsupported emotional paper wars inflicting dangerously deep lacerations and cuts, that are independently fatal.
•  The Jewish Agency coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.
*√*  Unfortunately the Arab League aggression across the frontier prevented full compliance.​•  "Existence" IS NOT dependent on some proportionality or influence extended by a "majority."  This is especially true under the conditions as presented by the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."​
In the case of a disagreement by inhabitants, it is not unusual for the parties concerned to engage in a Civil War or some other type conflict to resolved the dispute.  Several of the Allied Powers experienced such disputes.  Just to name a few:

America
Revolutionary War (Modern United States and Canada), 1775-1784
American Civil War (United States), 1861–1865


Japan
Boshin War (Japan), 1868–1869
Satsuma Rebellion (Japan), 1877


War in the Vendée (France), 1793–1804; between Royalist and Republican forces, part of the French Revolutionary Wars

Austrian Civil War, February 1934
Spanish Civil War, 1936–1939
Italian Civil War, 1943–1945

Wars of the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland, and Scotland),
Irish Confederate Wars, some parts of which were a civil war.[3]
Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, to some extent a civil war, 1644–1652
English Civil War, 1642–1651
First English Civil War, 1642–1646
Second English Civil War, 1648–1649
Third English Civil War, 1650–1651


It should be noticed that many historians still consider the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict  a typeof Civil War that has not been resolved.  As a Civil War the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict might be considered more of an NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) as opposed to an International Armed Conflict (IAC).

*IACs 'vs' NIACs*​
The outcomes of a Civil War usually is the deciding factor as to the Status of government and territorial boundaries.  But again, the political result (usually) has nothing to do with the desires of the proportional majority, but more on the outcome of the military confrontation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a subjective impression based on an emotional perception.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> •  "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people.  It is centered on the idea that the government having the ability to assumed the authority and establish the political control over a specific geo-political territory; and the ability to defend it.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​The government of Israel was created in the direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs *(vast majority of the people)* has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of *Resolution 181 (II)*.   This has a limited application on influencing the decisions of the Allied Powers, the Powers which had  the full rights and title to the territory.  Well it does not.  If it did, then all sorts of authoritative decrees would be out there.  In fact, there is an enormous amount of non-binding, ambiguous, and unsupported emotional paper wars inflicting dangerously deep lacerations and cuts, that are independently fatal.
> •  The Jewish Agency coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.
> *√*  Unfortunately the Arab League aggression across the frontier prevented full compliance.​•  "Existence" IS NOT dependent on some proportionality or influence extended by a "majority."  This is especially true under the conditions as presented by the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."​
> In the case of a disagreement by inhabitants, it is not unusual for the parties concerned to engage in a Civil War or some other type conflict to resolved the dispute.  Several of the Allied Powers experienced such disputes.  Just to name a few:
> 
> America
> Revolutionary War (Modern United States and Canada), 1775-1784
> American Civil War (United States), 1861–1865
> 
> 
> Japan
> Boshin War (Japan), 1868–1869
> Satsuma Rebellion (Japan), 1877
> 
> 
> War in the Vendée (France), 1793–1804; between Royalist and Republican forces, part of the French Revolutionary Wars
> 
> Austrian Civil War, February 1934
> Spanish Civil War, 1936–1939
> Italian Civil War, 1943–1945
> 
> Wars of the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland, and Scotland),
> Irish Confederate Wars, some parts of which were a civil war.[3]
> Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, to some extent a civil war, 1644–1652
> English Civil War, 1642–1651
> First English Civil War, 1642–1646
> Second English Civil War, 1648–1649
> Third English Civil War, 1650–1651
> 
> 
> It should be noticed that many historians still consider the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict  a typeof Civil War that has not been resolved.  As a Civil War the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict might be considered more of an NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) as opposed to an International Armed Conflict (IAC).
> 
> *IACs 'vs' NIACs*​
> The outcomes of a Civil War usually is the deciding factor as to the Status of government and territorial boundaries.  But again, the political result (usually) has nothing to do with the desires of the proportional majority, but more on the outcome of the military confrontation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

How many "civil wars" were between the natives and a foreign colonial project?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a subjective impression based on an emotional perception.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> •  "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people.  It is centered on the idea that the government having the ability to assumed the authority and establish the political control over a specific geo-political territory; and the ability to defend it.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​The government of Israel was created in the direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs *(vast majority of the people)* has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of *Resolution 181 (II)*.   This has a limited application on influencing the decisions of the Allied Powers, the Powers which had  the full rights and title to the territory.  Well it does not.  If it did, then all sorts of authoritative decrees would be out there.  In fact, there is an enormous amount of non-binding, ambiguous, and unsupported emotional paper wars inflicting dangerously deep lacerations and cuts, that are independently fatal.
> •  The Jewish Agency coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.
> *√*  Unfortunately the Arab League aggression across the frontier prevented full compliance.​•  "Existence" IS NOT dependent on some proportionality or influence extended by a "majority."  This is especially true under the conditions as presented by the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."​
> In the case of a disagreement by inhabitants, it is not unusual for the parties concerned to engage in a Civil War or some other type conflict to resolved the dispute.  Several of the Allied Powers experienced such disputes.  Just to name a few:
> 
> America
> Revolutionary War (Modern United States and Canada), 1775-1784
> American Civil War (United States), 1861–1865
> 
> 
> Japan
> Boshin War (Japan), 1868–1869
> Satsuma Rebellion (Japan), 1877
> 
> 
> War in the Vendée (France), 1793–1804; between Royalist and Republican forces, part of the French Revolutionary Wars
> 
> Austrian Civil War, February 1934
> Spanish Civil War, 1936–1939
> Italian Civil War, 1943–1945
> 
> Wars of the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland, and Scotland),
> Irish Confederate Wars, some parts of which were a civil war.[3]
> Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, to some extent a civil war, 1644–1652
> English Civil War, 1642–1651
> First English Civil War, 1642–1646
> Second English Civil War, 1648–1649
> Third English Civil War, 1650–1651
> 
> 
> It should be noticed that many historians still consider the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict  a typeof Civil War that has not been resolved.  As a Civil War the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict might be considered more of an NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) as opposed to an International Armed Conflict (IAC).
> 
> *IACs 'vs' NIACs*​
> The outcomes of a Civil War usually is the deciding factor as to the Status of government and territorial boundaries.  But again, the political result (usually) has nothing to do with the desires of the proportional majority, but more on the outcome of the military confrontation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs *(vast majority of the people)* has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of *Resolution 181 (II)*​

Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented.

It is a non issue.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is an invalid question.

Post-WWII is the time period we are discussing.  But!!! We can broaden the period beyond the "existence" of Israel (May 1948) ---  if you wish.



P F Tinmore said:


> How many "civil wars" were between the natives and a foreign colonial project?


*(COMMENT)*

The question implies that the Allied Powers used the Jewish Immigration to invade a territory.

First:  The territory in question, without regard to who lived there, was relinquished by the former Sovereign Powers (Ottoman/Turks) to the Allied Powers (Article 16 - Treaty of Lausanne).  All rights and Title were surrendered.

Second:  The Arab Palestinian can only claim an invasion --- if --- their territory was invaded.  But the Arab Palestinian HAD NO "Rights and Title" to any territory in the region.  There is a latent question here:  What "Arab Palestinian Territory" was invaded?  Answer:  None --- NO "Rights and Title".

Third:  The Allied Powers, no matter the method _(direct military invasion or proxy settlements)_,  cannot invade itself.   The immigration of the Jewish People was to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) by all jewish people willing to reconstitute the JNH.​
We talked about what makes things sound and valid.  We cannot discuss a condition *(Arab Palestinian Rights and Title)* that never existed.  And even if that point was in dispute, the military outcome settled the point long ago.  Now what we have is a belligerent people that are parasitic and survive only on donor contributions, unable to support themselves and stand alone _(an original Article 22 Criteria in the Covenant)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is an invalid question.
> 
> Post-WWII is the time period we are discussing.  But!!! We can broaden the period beyond the "existence" of Israel (May 1948) ---  if you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many "civil wars" were between the natives and a foreign colonial project?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question implies that the Allied Powers used the Jewish Immigration to invade a territory.
> 
> First:  The territory in question, without regard to who lived there, was relinquished to the former Sovereign Powers (Ottoman/Turks) to the Allied Powers (Article 16 - Treaty of Lausanne).  All rights and Title were surrendered.
> 
> Second:  The Arab Palestinian can only claim an invasion --- if --- their territory was invaded.  But the Arab Palestinian HAD NO "Rights and Title" to any territory in the region.  There is a latent question here:  What "Arab Palestinian Territory" was invaded?  Answer:  None --- NO "Rights and Title".
> 
> Third:  The Allied Powers, no matter the method _(direct military invasion or proxy settlements)_,  cannot invade itself.   The immigration of the Jewish People was to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) by all jewish people willing to reconstitute the JNH.​
> We talked about what makes things sound and valid.  We cannot discuss a condition *(Arab Palestinian Rights and Title)* that never existed.  And even if that point was in dispute, the military outcome settled the point long ago.  No what we have is a belligerent people that are parasitic and survive only on donor contributions, unable to support themselves and stand alone _(an original Article 22 Criteria in the Covenant)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

We talked about what makes things sound and valid. We cannot discuss a condition *(Arab Palestinian Rights and Title)* that never existed.​
Another Israeli talking point.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You get this wrong every time, but in this case it actually doesn't make any difference.  Although you do not acknowledge the UN announcement of implementation (PAL/169), only demonstrates the intellectual honesty involved here.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs *(vast majority of the people)* has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of *Resolution 181 (II)*
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented.
> It is a non issue.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

As you copied 'n' pasted --- I said "recommendation."  In this case we are talking about "INTENT."  What the Allied Powers had as an "INTENT."

The INTENT was the establishment of a Jewish National Home as expressed in the Balfour Declaration over a century ago.  It was clearly Repeated in the San Remo Agreement, outlined in the Mandate, and in the recommendation of 1947 --- the Resolution _(no matter what you consider the status as used by the Palestinians)_.   The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.

Whether or not the UNPC was right or wrong is irrelevant.  Today, the sovereignty of Israel is well establish; while the Arab Palestinians are a people that argue and struggle to make Jihadism and radicalized Islam an art form.
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Does a "talking point" (I've not seen a Talking Point Paper from the Israeli Government) make it any less valid?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We talked about what makes things sound and valid. We cannot discuss a condition *(Arab Palestinian Rights and Title)* that never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

If you want to challenge the point, then disassemble it by demonstrating that it is flawed.  In this case, you may easily do that by demonstrating that it is FALSE.

•  Produce a valid argument that presents evidence that the Arab Palestinian had rights and title.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?
> 
> Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights.  He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.
Click to expand...

No one expelled the Jews of Polish and Russian shtetls from Palestine ever. Apart from sentimental prayerful aspirations, these Jews had no connection to Palestinian land.


----------



## Hollie

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?
> 
> Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights.  He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one expelled the Jews of Polish and Russian shtetls from Palestine ever. Apart from sentimental prayerful aspirations, these Jews had no connection to Palestinian land.
Click to expand...

What "Pal'istanian land" would that be. The geographic area you falsely and ignorantly label as "Pal'istanian land" was controlled by the Ottoman Turks. You suffer the same false assumptions and presumptions as another poster who has convinced himself that his invented "country of Pal'istan" actually existed. 

It did not.


----------



## Ropey

Israel exists.  Israel is strong.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> How many "civil wars" were between the natives and a foreign colonial project?



Oh, come on.  You act as though the Jewish people didn't exist and didn't exist in "Palestine".  The civil war is between the native Jewish people (both those in the territory and those in the diaspora) and the Arab Christians and Muslims (a mixture of an invading culture and some of the original inhabitants).


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?
> 
> Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights.  He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one expelled the Jews of Polish and Russian shtetls from Palestine ever. Apart from sentimental prayerful aspirations, these Jews had no connection to Palestinian land.
Click to expand...


So you AGREE that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing gives those expelled a right to return.  And in order to continue to live in your fantasy that the Jewish people have no rights you must deny a self-evident and obvious reality that the Jewish people originated on the land and were in a Diaspora.  You have to disconnect the Jewish people from being Jewish.  You have to pretend that the Jewish people had no source.  Like UNESCO you deny historical fact.


----------



## montelatici

Europeans were not expelled from Palestine. Zionist Europeans invaded Palestine and expelled the native people whose ancestors of different faiths at different times had lived their for thousands of years.  Many of their ancestors, if not the majority, may have practiced Judaism before converting to Christianity and then to Islam, by the way.  

Your dog won't hunt.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici , P F Tinmore , Eloy ,

Just hypothetically speaking, for clarity to see where your heads are at, IF a people had been the indigenous people native to the land under question and IF they had been ethnically cleansed and IF they maintained their cultural integrity all throughout the diaspora -- would they have the right to return to their homeland? 

Yes or no?  Why or why not?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Europeans were not expelled from Palestine. Zionist Europeans invaded Palestine and expelled the native people whose ancestors of different faiths at different times had lived their for thousands of years.  Many of their ancestors, if not the majority, may have practiced Judaism before converting to Christianity and then to Islam, by the way.
> 
> Your dog won't hunt.


That's rather pointless. Firstly, there was no _Zionist Invasion™ _of Turkish territory which you ignorantly and falsely believe to the "country of Pal'istan". There was, of course colonization by Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese land grabbers and that was coincident with the conquests by both the Turks and Romans.

My carma just ran over your dogma.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici , P F Tinmore , Eloy ,
> 
> Just hypothetically speaking, for clarity to see where your heads are at, IF a people had been the indigenous people native to the land under question and IF they had been ethnically cleansed and IF they maintained their cultural integrity all throughout the diaspora -- would they have the right to return to their homeland?
> 
> Yes or no?  Why or why not?



While extremely problematic to be able to prove such a thing after 2,000 years, they would have a right to be resettled but their resettlement would have to be subject to the wishes of the native people that had remained in said homeland and would certainly not have any right to dispossess and/or rule over the people that had remained in the homeland.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans were not expelled from Palestine. Zionist Europeans invaded Palestine and expelled the native people whose ancestors of different faiths at different times had lived their for thousands of years.  Many of their ancestors, if not the majority, may have practiced Judaism before converting to Christianity and then to Islam, by the way.
> 
> Your dog won't hunt.
> 
> 
> 
> That's rather pointless. Firstly, there was no _Zionist Invasion™ _of Turkish territory which you ignorantly and falsely believe to the "country of Pal'istan". There was, of course colonization by Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese land grabbers and that was coincident with the conquests by both the Turks and Romans.
> 
> My carma just ran over your dogma.
Click to expand...


You have read too much fantasy and science fiction.  No one believes it.


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?
> 
> Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights.  He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one expelled the Jews of Polish and Russian shtetls from Palestine ever. Apart from sentimental prayerful aspirations, these Jews had no connection to Palestinian land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you AGREE that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing gives those expelled a right to return.  And in order to continue to live in your fantasy that the Jewish people have no rights you must deny a self-evident and obvious reality that the Jewish people originated on the land and were in a Diaspora.  You have to disconnect the Jewish people from being Jewish.  You have to pretend that the Jewish people had no source.  Like UNESCO you deny historical fact.
Click to expand...

The legal concept of right of return did not exist in Roman law. We live in a different time than people two millennia ago. The collective punishment of a civilian population and ethnic cleansing was unjust in 70 CE but such recognition of this action by the Romans as inherently wrong was only incorporated into international law relatively recently and within living memory. Two wrongs do not make a right and the Israeli cleansing of Palestine to make way for a Jewish state and its perpetuation in the Occupied Territories is considered illegal today. We have come a long way since the 1st century.


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> montelatici , P F Tinmore , Eloy ,
> 
> Just hypothetically speaking, for clarity to see where your heads are at, IF a people had been the indigenous people native to the land under question and IF they had been ethnically cleansed and IF they maintained their cultural integrity all throughout the diaspora -- would they have the right to return to their homeland?
> 
> Yes or no?  Why or why not?


Nowadays, ethnically cleansing is considered criminal.


----------



## MJB12741

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?
> 
> Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights.  He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one expelled the Jews of Polish and Russian shtetls from Palestine ever. Apart from sentimental prayerful aspirations, these Jews had no connection to Palestinian land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you AGREE that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing gives those expelled a right to return.  And in order to continue to live in your fantasy that the Jewish people have no rights you must deny a self-evident and obvious reality that the Jewish people originated on the land and were in a Diaspora.  You have to disconnect the Jewish people from being Jewish.  You have to pretend that the Jewish people had no source.  Like UNESCO you deny historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legal concept of right of return did not exist in Roman law. We live in a different time than people two millennia ago. The collective punishment of a civilian population and ethnic cleansing was unjust in 70 CE but such recognition of this action by the Romans as inherently wrong was only incorporated into international law relatively recently and within living memory. Two wrongs do not make a right and the Israeli cleansing of Palestine to make way for a Jewish state and its perpetuation in the Occupied Territories is considered illegal today. We have come a long way since the 1st century.
Click to expand...


"Ethnic cleansing"  Right on.  You have a very fine brain.  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are only just over 6 million of them left.  It's a GENOCIDE I tell ya, a GENOCIDE.

Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org


----------



## Hollie

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici , P F Tinmore , Eloy ,
> 
> Just hypothetically speaking, for clarity to see where your heads are at, IF a people had been the indigenous people native to the land under question and IF they had been ethnically cleansed and IF they maintained their cultural integrity all throughout the diaspora -- would they have the right to return to their homeland?
> 
> Yes or no?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> Nowadays, ethnically cleansing is considered criminal.
Click to expand...

That, is obviously subject to who is doing the considering. 

You might want to consider doing some overseas outreach and direct your lecture to Islamist controlled nations across the Islamist Middle East. Islamo-fascism has largely purged non-Islamics from an entire portion of the globe.


----------



## montelatici

You have no clue as to what genocide means, do you.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> You have no clue as to what genocide means, do you.


You have no clue how pointless your attempt at argument is, do you.


----------



## montelatici

Go back to your fantasy and science fiction.  This is for adults.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Go back to your fantasy and science fiction.  This is for adults.


I can't help you if you continue to choose self-imposed ignorance over enlightenment.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Does a "talking point" (I've not seen a Talking Point Paper from the Israeli Government) make it any less valid?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We talked about what makes things sound and valid. We cannot discuss a condition *(Arab Palestinian Rights and Title)* that never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you want to challenge the point, then disassemble it by demonstrating that it is flawed.  In this case, you may easily do that by demonstrating that it is FALSE.
> 
> •  Produce a valid argument that presents evidence that the Arab Palestinian had rights and title.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It is Israel's standard talking point that the Palestinians and Palestine did not exist.

You keep using that mantra.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You get this wrong every time, but in this case it actually doesn't make any difference.  Although you do not acknowledge the UN announcement of implementation (PAL/169), only demonstrates the intellectual honesty involved here.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs *(vast majority of the people)* has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of *Resolution 181 (II)*
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented.
> It is a non issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you copied 'n' pasted --- I said "recommendation."  In this case we are talking about "INTENT."  What the Allied Powers had as an "INTENT."
> 
> The INTENT was the establishment of a Jewish National Home as expressed in the Balfour Declaration over a century ago.  It was clearly Repeated in the San Remo Agreement, outlined in the Mandate, and in the recommendation of 1947 --- the Resolution _(no matter what you consider the status as used by the Palestinians)_.   The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.
> 
> Whether or not the UNPC was right or wrong is irrelevant.  Today, the sovereignty of Israel is well establish; while the Arab Palestinians are a people that argue and struggle to make Jihadism and radicalized Islam an art form.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.​
There are two things here.

One is their intent to colonize Palestine. This cannot be denied. Everyone openly said it and it is well documented. It is a settler colonial project.

The other is a little more complicated. The ME was divided into separate states with international borders defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the title and rights to these states with the stipulation that the people become citizens of their respective states.

It is the people who are sovereigns within their defined territory. The colonial project bumps into this fact and that is why one hundred years later there is still no resolution.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when the Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese illegally migrated into the mandate of palestine they suddenly lost their original nationality and were granted a new nationality by WHO ? ? ? ? ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody had to grant it to them.  According to monte, they magically became natives who had lived there for thousands of years.
Click to expand...







 Which would be impossible as the arab muslims were not invented prior to 627 C.E. and did not enter palestine until some time in the late 690's, fully conquering it in the mid 700's. The Christians did not emerge until the 4C and were Romano-Greco and not indigenous, they had been wiped out by the Romans sometime in the 1C.

 He really needs to read the proper history books


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Does a "talking point" (I've not seen a Talking Point Paper from the Israeli Government) make it any less valid?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We talked about what makes things sound and valid. We cannot discuss a condition *(Arab Palestinian Rights and Title)* that never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you want to challenge the point, then disassemble it by demonstrating that it is flawed.  In this case, you may easily do that by demonstrating that it is FALSE.
> 
> •  Produce a valid argument that presents evidence that the Arab Palestinian had rights and title.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Israel's standard talking point that the Palestinians and Palestine did not exist.
> 
> You keep using that mantra.
Click to expand...








 NO that is your talking point as at no time have Israel stated that palestine and the palestinians did not exist. They have stated that the area known as palestine was not a nation until 1988, and that for 2000 years the only palestinians in existence were the Jews.

It is your mantra to say

* " It is Israel's standard talking point that the Palestinians and Palestine did not exist. "*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You get this wrong every time, but in this case it actually doesn't make any difference.  Although you do not acknowledge the UN announcement of implementation (PAL/169), only demonstrates the intellectual honesty involved here.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs *(vast majority of the people)* has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of *Resolution 181 (II)*
> 
> 
> 
> Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented.
> It is a non issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you copied 'n' pasted --- I said "recommendation."  In this case we are talking about "INTENT."  What the Allied Powers had as an "INTENT."
> 
> The INTENT was the establishment of a Jewish National Home as expressed in the Balfour Declaration over a century ago.  It was clearly Repeated in the San Remo Agreement, outlined in the Mandate, and in the recommendation of 1947 --- the Resolution _(no matter what you consider the status as used by the Palestinians)_.   The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.
> 
> Whether or not the UNPC was right or wrong is irrelevant.  Today, the sovereignty of Israel is well establish; while the Arab Palestinians are a people that argue and struggle to make Jihadism and radicalized Islam an art form.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.​
> There are two things here.
> 
> One is their intent to colonize Palestine. This cannot be denied. Everyone openly said it and it is well documented. It is a settler colonial project.
> 
> The other is a little more complicated. The ME was divided into separate states with international borders defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the title and rights to these states with the stipulation that the people become citizens of their respective states.
> 
> It is the people who are sovereigns within their defined territory. The colonial project bumps into this fact and that is why one hundred years later there is still no resolution.
Click to expand...








 WRONG as that is just the islamonazi version of the facts, the reality is that the arab muslims were in the process of colonising the former Ottoman empire by moving people about. This is why Saudi Arabian arabs came to be kings of Syria and Jordan. It worked at first until the indigenous people realised they were being forced against their will to provide for foriegn leaders.

 The treaty of Lausanns says no such thing and does not name palestine at all, and the only borders were those agreed after the fall of the Ottoman empire. A good example is the borders of the mandate of palestine that you try and pass of as the nation of palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a subjective impression based on an emotional perception.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> •  "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people.  It is centered on the idea that the government having the ability to assumed the authority and establish the political control over a specific geo-political territory; and the ability to defend it.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​The government of Israel was created in the direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs *(vast majority of the people)* has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of *Resolution 181 (II)*.   This has a limited application on influencing the decisions of the Allied Powers, the Powers which had  the full rights and title to the territory.  Well it does not.  If it did, then all sorts of authoritative decrees would be out there.  In fact, there is an enormous amount of non-binding, ambiguous, and unsupported emotional paper wars inflicting dangerously deep lacerations and cuts, that are independently fatal.
> •  The Jewish Agency coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.
> *√*  Unfortunately the Arab League aggression across the frontier prevented full compliance.​•  "Existence" IS NOT dependent on some proportionality or influence extended by a "majority."  This is especially true under the conditions as presented by the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."​
> In the case of a disagreement by inhabitants, it is not unusual for the parties concerned to engage in a Civil War or some other type conflict to resolved the dispute.  Several of the Allied Powers experienced such disputes.  Just to name a few:
> 
> America
> Revolutionary War (Modern United States and Canada), 1775-1784
> American Civil War (United States), 1861–1865
> 
> 
> Japan
> Boshin War (Japan), 1868–1869
> Satsuma Rebellion (Japan), 1877
> 
> 
> War in the Vendée (France), 1793–1804; between Royalist and Republican forces, part of the French Revolutionary Wars
> 
> Austrian Civil War, February 1934
> Spanish Civil War, 1936–1939
> Italian Civil War, 1943–1945
> 
> Wars of the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland, and Scotland),
> Irish Confederate Wars, some parts of which were a civil war.[3]
> Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, to some extent a civil war, 1644–1652
> English Civil War, 1642–1651
> First English Civil War, 1642–1646
> Second English Civil War, 1648–1649
> Third English Civil War, 1650–1651
> 
> 
> It should be noticed that many historians still consider the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict  a typeof Civil War that has not been resolved.  As a Civil War the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict might be considered more of an NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) as opposed to an International Armed Conflict (IAC).
> 
> *IACs 'vs' NIACs*​
> The outcomes of a Civil War usually is the deciding factor as to the Status of government and territorial boundaries.  But again, the political result (usually) has nothing to do with the desires of the proportional majority, but more on the outcome of the military confrontation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many "civil wars" were between the natives and a foreign colonial project?
Click to expand...









 First you have to prove your foreign colonial project as there were Jews living in fear in the M.E. and you try and deny they ever existed


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a subjective impression based on an emotional perception.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> •  "Existence" (Right to Exist) is a characteristic of a national authority established by the people.  It is centered on the idea that the government having the ability to assumed the authority and establish the political control over a specific geo-political territory; and the ability to defend it.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​The government of Israel was created in the direct opposition of the vast majority of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs *(vast majority of the people)* has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of *Resolution 181 (II)*.   This has a limited application on influencing the decisions of the Allied Powers, the Powers which had  the full rights and title to the territory.  Well it does not.  If it did, then all sorts of authoritative decrees would be out there.  In fact, there is an enormous amount of non-binding, ambiguous, and unsupported emotional paper wars inflicting dangerously deep lacerations and cuts, that are independently fatal.
> •  The Jewish Agency coordinated with the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) shall instruct the Provisional Councils of Government of both the Arab and Jewish States, after their formation, to proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government, central and local.
> *√*  Unfortunately the Arab League aggression across the frontier prevented full compliance.​•  "Existence" IS NOT dependent on some proportionality or influence extended by a "majority."  This is especially true under the conditions as presented by the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."​
> In the case of a disagreement by inhabitants, it is not unusual for the parties concerned to engage in a Civil War or some other type conflict to resolved the dispute.  Several of the Allied Powers experienced such disputes.  Just to name a few:
> 
> America
> Revolutionary War (Modern United States and Canada), 1775-1784
> American Civil War (United States), 1861–1865
> 
> 
> Japan
> Boshin War (Japan), 1868–1869
> Satsuma Rebellion (Japan), 1877
> 
> 
> War in the Vendée (France), 1793–1804; between Royalist and Republican forces, part of the French Revolutionary Wars
> 
> Austrian Civil War, February 1934
> Spanish Civil War, 1936–1939
> Italian Civil War, 1943–1945
> 
> Wars of the Three Kingdoms (England, Ireland, and Scotland),
> Irish Confederate Wars, some parts of which were a civil war.[3]
> Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, to some extent a civil war, 1644–1652
> English Civil War, 1642–1651
> First English Civil War, 1642–1646
> Second English Civil War, 1648–1649
> Third English Civil War, 1650–1651
> 
> 
> It should be noticed that many historians still consider the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict  a typeof Civil War that has not been resolved.  As a Civil War the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict might be considered more of an NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict) as opposed to an International Armed Conflict (IAC).
> 
> *IACs 'vs' NIACs*​
> The outcomes of a Civil War usually is the deciding factor as to the Status of government and territorial boundaries.  But again, the political result (usually) has nothing to do with the desires of the proportional majority, but more on the outcome of the military confrontation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are acting as if, the ratio of Jews to Arabs *(vast majority of the people)* has some impact on the intent of the UN and the direction the recommendation of *Resolution 181 (II)*​
> 
> Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented.
> 
> It is a non issue.
Click to expand...








 How many more times must you be told 181 was accepted and implemented, even your hero's have accepted this so why cant you ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is an invalid question.
> 
> Post-WWII is the time period we are discussing.  But!!! We can broaden the period beyond the "existence" of Israel (May 1948) ---  if you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many "civil wars" were between the natives and a foreign colonial project?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The question implies that the Allied Powers used the Jewish Immigration to invade a territory.
> 
> First:  The territory in question, without regard to who lived there, was relinquished to the former Sovereign Powers (Ottoman/Turks) to the Allied Powers (Article 16 - Treaty of Lausanne).  All rights and Title were surrendered.
> 
> Second:  The Arab Palestinian can only claim an invasion --- if --- their territory was invaded.  But the Arab Palestinian HAD NO "Rights and Title" to any territory in the region.  There is a latent question here:  What "Arab Palestinian Territory" was invaded?  Answer:  None --- NO "Rights and Title".
> 
> Third:  The Allied Powers, no matter the method _(direct military invasion or proxy settlements)_,  cannot invade itself.   The immigration of the Jewish People was to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) by all jewish people willing to reconstitute the JNH.​
> We talked about what makes things sound and valid.  We cannot discuss a condition *(Arab Palestinian Rights and Title)* that never existed.  And even if that point was in dispute, the military outcome settled the point long ago.  No what we have is a belligerent people that are parasitic and survive only on donor contributions, unable to support themselves and stand alone _(an original Article 22 Criteria in the Covenant)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We talked about what makes things sound and valid. We cannot discuss a condition *(Arab Palestinian Rights and Title)* that never existed.​
> Another Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...







NO another tinnmore play the talking point card because I am losing the argument


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?
> 
> Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights.  He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one expelled the Jews of Polish and Russian shtetls from Palestine ever. Apart from sentimental prayerful aspirations, these Jews had no connection to Palestinian land.
Click to expand...






Correct they were taken as slaves into exile by the Romans and were spread all over Europe. Apart from a distinct DNA structure that is only found in Jewish tribes that shows they are from that part of the world, a very close link to the Jewish culture and religious practices they have no connections.
What connections do the arab muslims have to palestine other than islamonazi LIES and propaganda ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Europeans were not expelled from Palestine. Zionist Europeans invaded Palestine and expelled the native people whose ancestors of different faiths at different times had lived their for thousands of years.  Many of their ancestors, if not the majority, may have practiced Judaism before converting to Christianity and then to Islam, by the way.
> 
> Your dog won't hunt.








The ancestors of those European Jews were taken as slaves by the Romans when they left the lands of Israel. The same Romans that invented Catholosism


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Europeans were not expelled from Palestine. Zionist Europeans invaded Palestine and expelled the native people whose ancestors of different faiths at different times had lived their for thousands of years.  Many of their ancestors, if not the majority, may have practiced Judaism before converting to Christianity and then to Islam, by the way.
> 
> Your dog won't hunt.
> 
> 
> 
> That's rather pointless. Firstly, there was no _Zionist Invasion™ _of Turkish territory which you ignorantly and falsely believe to the "country of Pal'istan". There was, of course colonization by Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese land grabbers and that was coincident with the conquests by both the Turks and Romans.
> 
> My carma just ran over your dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have read too much fantasy and science fiction.  No one believes it.
Click to expand...








And you read too much islamonazi propaganda as the Jews were expelled from Israel by the Holy Roman Empire and taken to Europe as slaves. They became widespread and rose to the top in their fields of expertise, which led to the Christians once again expelling them from the land. These same Jews were invited to migrate to palestine in around1825 by the Ottomans after the arab muslims failed to colonise and cultivate the land. All a matter of history as written by some of the worlds greatest historians, so why do you only accept the islamonazi version of events ?


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were a small minority and fat outnumbered by Arabs until the Zionists moved in during the last century. The Israelis live on stolen land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do none of Team Palestine consider the objective points of their claims when they make statements like this?
> 
> Here Eloy is claiming that minorities have no rights, let alone equal rights.  He is also claiming that expulsion from land and the consequent return to that land is theft, and therefore that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing leads to legitimate possession of territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one expelled the Jews of Polish and Russian shtetls from Palestine ever. Apart from sentimental prayerful aspirations, these Jews had no connection to Palestinian land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you AGREE that invasion and conquest and ethnic cleansing gives those expelled a right to return.  And in order to continue to live in your fantasy that the Jewish people have no rights you must deny a self-evident and obvious reality that the Jewish people originated on the land and were in a Diaspora.  You have to disconnect the Jewish people from being Jewish.  You have to pretend that the Jewish people had no source.  Like UNESCO you deny historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The legal concept of right of return did not exist in Roman law. We live in a different time than people two millennia ago. The collective punishment of a civilian population and ethnic cleansing was unjust in 70 CE but such recognition of this action by the Romans as inherently wrong was only incorporated into international law relatively recently and within living memory. Two wrongs do not make a right and the Israeli cleansing of Palestine to make way for a Jewish state and its perpetuation in the Occupied Territories is considered illegal today. We have come a long way since the 1st century.
Click to expand...







 It still doesnt exist in  any laws other than those of individual nations. So the arab muslims can go back to their nation of first alliegance.

 The only ethnic cleansing taking place is that of the non muslims by hamas and fatah, and only idiots deny that this is the case. The arab muslims are recent arrivals to the lands and as such have no rights and should be deported back to their first nation.   Or the USA should be cleansed of all of the invaders that have ethnically cleansed the lands of its indigenous people and be forced to set an example of doing what the nazi's and muslims believe is right. We can start with the nazi's and muslims cant we ?


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici , P F Tinmore , Eloy ,
> 
> Just hypothetically speaking, for clarity to see where your heads are at, IF a people had been the indigenous people native to the land under question and IF they had been ethnically cleansed and IF they maintained their cultural integrity all throughout the diaspora -- would they have the right to return to their homeland?
> 
> Yes or no?  Why or why not?
> 
> 
> 
> Nowadays, ethnically cleansing is considered criminal.
Click to expand...









 Unless it is carried out by nazi's and muslims, then it is allowed

 But the Jews have ethnically cleansed the land so much that the population has increased by 1000% since 1948, what are they doing wrong ?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Does a "talking point" (I've not seen a Talking Point Paper from the Israeli Government) make it any less valid?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We talked about what makes things sound and valid. We cannot discuss a condition *(Arab Palestinian Rights and Title)* that never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you want to challenge the point, then disassemble it by demonstrating that it is flawed.  In this case, you may easily do that by demonstrating that it is FALSE.
> 
> •  Produce a valid argument that presents evidence that the Arab Palestinian had rights and title.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Israel's standard talking point that the Palestinians and Palestine did not exist.
> 
> You keep using that mantra.
Click to expand...


Aside from your invention of this mythical "country of Pal'istan" you insist existed, no, your invented country of Pal'istan, inhabited by the invented citizens of your invented country of Pal'istan never existed. 

This fantasy world you inhabit along with these fantastical notions you insist are real and extant are.... kinda' creepy.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> You have no clue as to what genocide means, do you.











Well you certainly dont as this is what it says

the definition of genocide

noun
1.
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group



It does not mean the increase in the population of a group by over 1000% in a 68 year period and giving them the latest in medical treatment to allow them to live longer and increase their numbers even more. 

The only genocide taking place is that of the Christians by hamas and fatah that have seen a decrease in the population numbers by 90% in the last 8 years


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Go back to your fantasy and science fiction.  This is for adults.









 Then why are you here if this is for adults and not spoilt brats


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Does a "talking point" (I've not seen a Talking Point Paper from the Israeli Government) make it any less valid?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We talked about what makes things sound and valid. We cannot discuss a condition *(Arab Palestinian Rights and Title)* that never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you want to challenge the point, then disassemble it by demonstrating that it is flawed.  In this case, you may easily do that by demonstrating that it is FALSE.
> 
> •  Produce a valid argument that presents evidence that the Arab Palestinian had rights and title.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is Israel's standard talking point that the Palestinians and Palestine did not exist.
> 
> You keep using that mantra.
Click to expand...








 WRONG    it is your attempt at silencing the truth and reality that palestine as a nation never existed prior to 1988 and the palestinians where what the Jews were called as an insult.  But you now run with the islamonazi talking points that have turned history and reality around to suit the nazi POV.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You totally ignored the stated intention.  The Mandate for Palestine was unique, in that it had this "special intention" attached to it.
*EXCERPT:* The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
...   ...   ...   
At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes
representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
*SOURCE:* Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1​


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The INTENT was the establishment of a Jewish National Home as expressed in the Balfour Declaration over a century ago.  It was clearly Repeated in the San Remo Agreement, outlined in the Mandate, and in the recommendation of 1947 --- the Resolution _(no matter what you consider the status as used by the Palestinians)_.   The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.
> 
> 
> 
> One is their intent to colonize Palestine. This cannot be denied. Everyone openly said it and it is well documented. It is a settler colonial project.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire.  When the pro-Palestinians use the term "colonial project," their intention is to convey that some Allied Power (in this case Britain) was attempting to extend the empire.  Nothing is further from the truth.

The Arab Palestinian, in using this phrase - and attempting to imply that the combined Allied Powers or the Jewish People, or some combination, PLANNED in 1916 to subjugate the non-Jewish population, to either Jewish domination or Mandatory exploitation.  They imply that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights; in that the immigrant Jewish People and the British Mandatory have stripped the right to self-determination from the Arab Palestinian inhabitants; and prevented the Arab Palestinian inhabitants to freely pursue their economic, social, cultural development and political statement.  The "victim mentality."

The Arab Palestinian inhabitants were offered, numerous times by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory to participate in the processes to establish self-governing institutions.  However, the Arab Palestinian inhabitants, having consistently declining to participate and rejecting recommendations that would fulfill the original intent of the Mandate _(the establishment of a Jewish National Home)_, demanding that the Mandatory and the Council of the League of Nations relinquish the entirety of the region to the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab Palestinian inhabitants.  Recognizing that the Arab Palestinian inhabitants had no intention of attempting a good faith resolution, the Mandatory and the Jewish Agency moved on a more productive path which has resulted in the creation of the most highly developed country of the entire region; including every member of the Arab League.  (Ranked 18th on the 2015) 



I understand that, the entire Arab League, all 22 Nations, are at a disadvantage because they did not received Allied Powers Support in the form of American Aid, and so they attribute the successful growth in Human Development by Israel to this American intervention.  However every single Arab League Member actually received some sort of aid either from the US or other major world power.  And, the Palestinians are totally dependent on Donor Nation contributions.


P F Tinmore said:


> The ME was divided into separate states with international borders defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the title and rights to these states with the stipulation that the people become citizens of their respective states.
> 
> It is the people who are sovereigns within their defined territory. The colonial project bumps into this fact and that is why one hundred years later there is still no resolution.


*(COMMENT)*

Again you are confusing things.  Sovereignty (or being sovereign) has more than one meaning.  Yes, there is the application of this term to that of the individual.  HOWEVER, as it applies to nations and states, it is all about "power and authority."  Don't try to confuse the participants to this discussion with some esoteric meaning.


Israel successfully defended its bid for independence and sovereignty in the 1948/49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack on Yom Kipper by the Arab League.  Of the four (4) nation states immediately adjacent to Israel, two Arab States _*(Egypt and Jordan)*_ have made formal treaties (the war has been concluded and international boundaries have been established.  Syria is in chaos and unable to form a united government.  Syria actually lacks sovereignty over large expanses of the state.  Lebanon has lost sovereignty of a major section of Lebanon _*(the al-Bekka Valley)*_ to the Hezbollah.  Thus, it cannot speaks for that territory, lost to terrorist control.

In the early part of the 20th Century, Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty, was achieved through the Citizenship and Nationality Instruction of the Palestine Order in Council, and later, the 1925 Citizenship act.   Pro-Palestinians attempt to churn the political waters in trying to imply that the Treaty of Lausanne had some relevance in this regard.  It does not.

Both the Jewish Immigrant and the inhabitants formerly under The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) _(later Arab Palestinians under Civil Administration of the Mandate)_ became citizens of the Government of Palestine (the British Mandatory).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

_"When the pro-Palestinians use the term "colonial project," their intention is to convey that some Allied Power (in this case Britain) was attempting to extend the empire. Nothing is further from the truth._"

Bozo the clown at it again. The moron hasn't a clue about history. Britain's support of Zionism was directly related to protecting the Suez Canal through an imperial colonial outpost. Had the clown  read some of Lord Kichener writings before posting his usual bullshit he would not have made the usual fool of himself.

"Britain’s involvement with Zionism arose from the necessity to protect Sue. Without Zionist access to the finance necessary with which to develop Palestine’s infrastructure, protecting Suez would have been commensurately more difficult. Zionists, unsurprisingly, expected that in exchange for financing the country’s economic development, they would have at least some voice in its governance....."

https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/portal/files/16903387/RichmondPhD.pdf

The U.S. saw it the same way, as stated in this congressional hearing:


"......This obvious situation doubtless inspired the announcement of the British Government November 2nd last albeit the sentimental side of the proposal may have been quite as persuasive A compact powerful and self governing people in Asia Minor thrust between the German controlled Turkish dominions to the North and the Suez Canal with Arabia to the South would do much to check the tide of aggression from that quarter and* safeguard the great sea route through the Suez Canal to India...." *


The American War Congress and Zionism


----------



## Eloy

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...


Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.


----------



## Hollie

Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.
Click to expand...


Are you clueless regarding the historic connection the Jewish people had to the area where Israel now exists?

Oh, never mind. Rhetorical question.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> _"When the pro-Palestinians use the term "colonial project," their intention is to convey that some Allied Power (in this case Britain) was attempting to extend the empire. Nothing is further from the truth._"
> 
> Bozo the clown at it again. The moron hasn't a clue about history. Britain's support of Zionism was directly related to protecting the Suez Canal through an imperial colonial outpost. Had the clown  read some of Lord Kichener writings before posting his usual bullshit he would not have made the usual fool of himself.
> 
> "Britain’s involvement with Zionism arose from the necessity to protect Sue. Without Zionist access to the finance necessary with which to develop Palestine’s infrastructure, protecting Suez would have been commensurately more difficult. Zionists, unsurprisingly, expected that in exchange for financing the country’s economic development, they would have at least some voice in its governance....."
> 
> https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/portal/files/16903387/RichmondPhD.pdf
> 
> The U.S. saw it the same way, as stated in this congressional hearing:
> 
> 
> "......This obvious situation doubtless inspired the announcement of the British Government November 2nd last albeit the sentimental side of the proposal may have been quite as persuasive A compact powerful and self governing people in Asia Minor thrust between the German controlled Turkish dominions to the North and the Suez Canal with Arabia to the South would do much to check the tide of aggression from that quarter and* safeguard the great sea route through the Suez Canal to India...." *
> 
> 
> The American War Congress and Zionism








When did the Suez canal become of political interest again, as all Britain needed to do was mine it so that they could destroy it at any time. They owned it after treaty with Egypt, and paid for the work to be carried out, so why should Egypt be allowed to come along and take over the running.


 Now are your manipulated cut and pastes in any way different to what could be said about the Catholic church and its endeavours in South America or Europe. Just look at the future pope throwing dead Jews into pits of quick lime or into crematoria to hide the damning evidence of their hand in the final solution. How the Catholic church is in bed with islamofascism and neo nazism and is yet to apologise for its actions during WW2. Time for the Jews to go after the Catholic church for reparations for the crimes committed in its name over the last 2 millenia


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.
Click to expand...







 They took in more than the America's did at first, until the Jew haters kicked up and called a halt to the numbers. 

 But they did as under international laws of 1923 the land of palestine was British. ( England is just one part of Britain, as Washington is just one part of America )

 Why do you neo nazis always shoot yourselves in the foot and get things so wrong all the time ?


----------



## montelatici

Native people of Palestine that maintained the Jewish faith as well as the native people of Palestine that converted to Christianity and Islam, have an historic connection.  Not Europeans from another continent.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Native people of Palestine that maintained the Jewish faith as well as the native people of Palestine that converted to Christianity and Islam, have an historic connection.  Not Europeans from another continent.



Your irrelevant opinion is duly noted and ignored. 

Not surprisingly, you provide an allowance for Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders from foreign nations as being somehow "native people". Hilarious. 

You have the option to rally the more excitable keyboard gee'hadis at your madrassah, travel to Gaza and pick up a weapon for something more than your usual gee-had of none.


----------



## montelatici

There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria or Lebanon.  It's a Zionist fantasy.  

You need to go back to your Hasbara training facility, your fantasy and science fiction is no longer considered kosher.  It's been too thoroughly debunked.

We Christians do Crusades, we don't do "gee-had".


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria or Lebanon.  It's a Zionist fantasy.
> 
> You need to go back to your Hasbara training facility, your fantasy and science fiction is no longer considered kosher.  It's been too thoroughly debunked.
> 
> We Christians do Crusades, we don't do "gee-had".



There were invaders, squatters, land grabbers from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The history of the geographic area you and others believe was an autonomous "country" called Pal'istan was invaded and colonized by various cultures. 

Don't let your islamo-fantasies and profound ignorance of history allow you to make such continued errors.


----------



## montelatici

There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria and/or Lebanon that settled in Palestine, you nutter. Even the Turks only ruled the place.

No one, except morons like you, dispute the fact that the ancestors of the Palestinian people are the native people that converted, in time, to Christianity then many to Islam, from Judaism, Roman sects, Samaritan religion, etc.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria and/or Lebanon that settled in Palestine, you nutter. Even the Turks only ruled the place.
> 
> No one, except morons like you, dispute the fact that the ancestors of the Palestinian people are the native people that converted, in time, to Christianity then many to Islam, from Judaism, Roman sects, Samaritan religion, etc.


I can see you're angry, frustrated and embarrassed at having your ignorance brought forth in a public venue, but you have no one but yourself and the prayer leader at your madrassah. There were invaders, squatters, land grabbers from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The history of the geographic area you and others believe was an autonomous "country" called Pal'istan was invaded and colonized by various cultures.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria and/or Lebanon that settled in Palestine, you nutter. Even the Turks only ruled the place.
> 
> No one, except morons like you, dispute the fact that the ancestors of the Palestinian people are the native people that converted, in time, to Christianity then many to Islam, from Judaism, Roman sects, Samaritan religion, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you're angry, frustrated and embarrassed at having your ignorance brought forth in a public venue, but you have no one but yourself and the prayer leader at your madrassah. There were invaders, squatters, land grabbers from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. The history of the geographic area you and others believe was an autonomous "country" called Pal'istan was invaded and colonized by various cultures.
Click to expand...


Please go easy on Monte. Think about what a loss he would be to us for laughs if he leaves us.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Native people of Palestine that maintained the Jewish faith as well as the native people of Palestine that converted to Christianity and Islam, have an historic connection.  Not Europeans from another continent.








 Even if they were dragged away by the Catholic church as slaves. Or is that why you are so opposed to the Jews getting their rights as it will open up the can of worms created by the Roman Catholics


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria or Lebanon.  It's a Zionist fantasy.
> 
> You need to go back to your Hasbara training facility, your fantasy and science fiction is no longer considered kosher.  It's been too thoroughly debunked.
> 
> We Christians do Crusades, we don't do "gee-had".









 No you do mass murder of innocents as proven through the ages starting with the Jews and ending with the Jews. How many South American natives did your church murder again ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria and/or Lebanon that settled in Palestine, you nutter. Even the Turks only ruled the place.
> 
> No one, except morons like you, dispute the fact that the ancestors of the Palestinian people are the native people that converted, in time, to Christianity then many to Islam, from Judaism, Roman sects, Samaritan religion, etc.









 You can always tell when monte is losing the argument he resorts to childish name calling and making outlandish claims


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You totally ignored the stated intention.  The Mandate for Palestine was unique, in that it had this "special intention" attached to it.
> *EXCERPT:* The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
> ...   ...   ...
> At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes
> representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> *SOURCE:* Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The INTENT was the establishment of a Jewish National Home as expressed in the Balfour Declaration over a century ago.  It was clearly Repeated in the San Remo Agreement, outlined in the Mandate, and in the recommendation of 1947 --- the Resolution _(no matter what you consider the status as used by the Palestinians)_.   The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.
> 
> 
> 
> One is their intent to colonize Palestine. This cannot be denied. Everyone openly said it and it is well documented. It is a settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire.  When the pro-Palestinians use the term "colonial project," their intention is to convey that some Allied Power (in this case Britain) was attempting to extend the empire.  Nothing is further from the truth.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, in using this phrase - and attempting to imply that the combined Allied Powers or the Jewish People, or some combination, PLANNED in 1916 to subjugate the non-Jewish population, to either Jewish domination or Mandatory exploitation.  They imply that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights; in that the immigrant Jewish People and the British Mandatory have stripped the right to self-determination from the Arab Palestinian inhabitants; and prevented the Arab Palestinian inhabitants to freely pursue their economic, social, cultural development and political statement.  The "victim mentality."
> 
> The Arab Palestinian inhabitants were offered, numerous times by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory to participate in the processes to establish self-governing institutions.  However, the Arab Palestinian inhabitants, having consistently declining to participate and rejecting recommendations that would fulfill the original intent of the Mandate _(the establishment of a Jewish National Home)_, demanding that the Mandatory and the Council of the League of Nations relinquish the entirety of the region to the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab Palestinian inhabitants.  Recognizing that the Arab Palestinian inhabitants had no intention of attempting a good faith resolution, the Mandatory and the Jewish Agency moved on a more productive path which has resulted in the creation of the most highly developed country of the entire region; including every member of the Arab League.  (Ranked 18th on the 2015)
> View attachment 96409​I understand that, the entire Arab League, all 22 Nations, are at a disadvantage because they did not received Allied Powers Support in the form of American Aid, and so they attribute the successful growth in Human Development by Israel to this American intervention.  However every single Arab League Member actually received some sort of aid either from the US or other major world power.  And, the Palestinians are totally dependent on Donor Nation contributions.
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ME was divided into separate states with international borders defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the title and rights to these states with the stipulation that the people become citizens of their respective states.
> 
> It is the people who are sovereigns within their defined territory. The colonial project bumps into this fact and that is why one hundred years later there is still no resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again you are confusing things.  Sovereignty (or being sovereign) has more than one meaning.  Yes, there is the application of this term to that of the individual.  HOWEVER, as it applies to nations and states, it is all about "power and authority."  Don't try to confuse the participants to this discussion with some esoteric meaning.
> View attachment 96414​Israel successfully defended its bid for independence and sovereignty in the 1948/49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack on Yom Kipper by the Arab League.  Of the four (4) nation states immediately adjacent to Israel, two Arab States _*(Egypt and Jordan)*_ have made formal treaties (the war has been concluded and international boundaries have been established.  Syria is in chaos and unable to form a united government.  Syria actually lacks sovereignty over large expanses of the state.  Lebanon has lost sovereignty of a major section of Lebanon _*(the al-Bekka Valley)*_ to the Hezbollah.  Thus, it cannot speaks for that territory, lost to terrorist control.
> 
> In the early part of the 20th Century, Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty, was achieved through the Citizenship and Nationality Instruction of the Palestine Order in Council, and later, the 1925 Citizenship act.   Pro-Palestinians attempt to churn the political waters in trying to imply that the Treaty of Lausanne had some relevance in this regard.  It does not.
> 
> Both the Jewish Immigrant and the inhabitants formerly under The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) _(later Arab Palestinians under Civil Administration of the Mandate)_ became citizens of the Government of Palestine (the British Mandatory).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire.​
I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You totally ignored the stated intention.  The Mandate for Palestine was unique, in that it had this "special intention" attached to it.
> *EXCERPT:* The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
> ...   ...   ...
> At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes
> representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> *SOURCE:* Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The INTENT was the establishment of a Jewish National Home as expressed in the Balfour Declaration over a century ago.  It was clearly Repeated in the San Remo Agreement, outlined in the Mandate, and in the recommendation of 1947 --- the Resolution _(no matter what you consider the status as used by the Palestinians)_.   The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.
> 
> 
> 
> One is their intent to colonize Palestine. This cannot be denied. Everyone openly said it and it is well documented. It is a settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire.  When the pro-Palestinians use the term "colonial project," their intention is to convey that some Allied Power (in this case Britain) was attempting to extend the empire.  Nothing is further from the truth.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, in using this phrase - and attempting to imply that the combined Allied Powers or the Jewish People, or some combination, PLANNED in 1916 to subjugate the non-Jewish population, to either Jewish domination or Mandatory exploitation.  They imply that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights; in that the immigrant Jewish People and the British Mandatory have stripped the right to self-determination from the Arab Palestinian inhabitants; and prevented the Arab Palestinian inhabitants to freely pursue their economic, social, cultural development and political statement.  The "victim mentality."
> 
> The Arab Palestinian inhabitants were offered, numerous times by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory to participate in the processes to establish self-governing institutions.  However, the Arab Palestinian inhabitants, having consistently declining to participate and rejecting recommendations that would fulfill the original intent of the Mandate _(the establishment of a Jewish National Home)_, demanding that the Mandatory and the Council of the League of Nations relinquish the entirety of the region to the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab Palestinian inhabitants.  Recognizing that the Arab Palestinian inhabitants had no intention of attempting a good faith resolution, the Mandatory and the Jewish Agency moved on a more productive path which has resulted in the creation of the most highly developed country of the entire region; including every member of the Arab League.  (Ranked 18th on the 2015)
> View attachment 96409​I understand that, the entire Arab League, all 22 Nations, are at a disadvantage because they did not received Allied Powers Support in the form of American Aid, and so they attribute the successful growth in Human Development by Israel to this American intervention.  However every single Arab League Member actually received some sort of aid either from the US or other major world power.  And, the Palestinians are totally dependent on Donor Nation contributions.
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ME was divided into separate states with international borders defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the title and rights to these states with the stipulation that the people become citizens of their respective states.
> 
> It is the people who are sovereigns within their defined territory. The colonial project bumps into this fact and that is why one hundred years later there is still no resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again you are confusing things.  Sovereignty (or being sovereign) has more than one meaning.  Yes, there is the application of this term to that of the individual.  HOWEVER, as it applies to nations and states, it is all about "power and authority."  Don't try to confuse the participants to this discussion with some esoteric meaning.
> View attachment 96414​Israel successfully defended its bid for independence and sovereignty in the 1948/49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack on Yom Kipper by the Arab League.  Of the four (4) nation states immediately adjacent to Israel, two Arab States _*(Egypt and Jordan)*_ have made formal treaties (the war has been concluded and international boundaries have been established.  Syria is in chaos and unable to form a united government.  Syria actually lacks sovereignty over large expanses of the state.  Lebanon has lost sovereignty of a major section of Lebanon _*(the al-Bekka Valley)*_ to the Hezbollah.  Thus, it cannot speaks for that territory, lost to terrorist control.
> 
> In the early part of the 20th Century, Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty, was achieved through the Citizenship and Nationality Instruction of the Palestine Order in Council, and later, the 1925 Citizenship act.   Pro-Palestinians attempt to churn the political waters in trying to imply that the Treaty of Lausanne had some relevance in this regard.  It does not.
> 
> Both the Jewish Immigrant and the inhabitants formerly under The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) _(later Arab Palestinians under Civil Administration of the Mandate)_ became citizens of the Government of Palestine (the British Mandatory).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire.​
Click to expand...


Instead of spamming the board with multiple cut and paste instances of the same YouTube video, why not post a link to any one of the previous instances of your cut and paste?

"I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism."

By regular colonialism, do you mean the regular islamist colonialism? 

Not that I would anticipate a bit of honesty on your part but history is unequivocal in its demonstration of perpetual islamist war and conquest in furtherance of its colonial goals.


----------



## Hossfly

Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.
Click to expand...

Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria and/or Lebanon that settled in Palestine, you nutter. Even the Turks only ruled the place.
> 
> No one, except morons like you, dispute the fact that the ancestors of the Palestinian people are the native people that converted, in time, to Christianity then many to Islam, from Judaism, Roman sects, Samaritan religion, etc.



Then where did the families of these notable "palestinians" like:

* Yassir Arafat (PLO), Salah Al-Bardaweel (Hamas), Munib Al-Masri ("palestinian Rothchild"), Jamal Al Afghani, Daud Turki
Mohammed al-Halabi,* *Issam Al Yamani, Dalal Mughrabi, Hussein al-Araj (Nablus mayor),  Mohammed al-Halabi....*

originally come from?

*
*


----------



## Hossfly

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria and/or Lebanon that settled in Palestine, you nutter. Even the Turks only ruled the place.
> 
> No one, except morons like you, dispute the fact that the ancestors of the Palestinian people are the native people that converted, in time, to Christianity then many to Islam, from Judaism, Roman sects, Samaritan religion, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then where did the families of these notable "palestinians" like:
> 
> * Yassir Arafat (PLO), Salah Al-Bardaweel (Hamas), Munib Al-Masri ("palestinian Rothchild"), Jamal Al Afghani, Daud Turki
> Mohammed al-Halabi,* *Issam Al Yamani, Dalal Mughrabi, Hussein al-Araj (Nablus mayor),  Mohammed al-Halabi....*
> 
> originally come from?
Click to expand...



I think, rylah, that most of us like to hear it from the "horse's mouth."   If this Hamas official says there are no Palestinians, I think most sensible people will go with that.

(Video) Hamas Official: “Who are the Palestinians? The Palestinians don’t come from Palestine.”


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> There were no invaders from Egypt, Syria and/or Lebanon that settled in Palestine



Seriously?  You are claiming that no one from Egypt, Syria or Lebanon EVER migrated to "Palestine"?

That is TOO funny, because Tinman posted a story just this month about a poor, victimized Palestinian who was an invader from Lebanon.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.​


​
Yep.  In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc.  We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.


----------



## montelatici

The data is available from the Survey of Palestine, Vol. 1





A Survey of Palestine Volume 2  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University

Volume 1 page 212

59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the pur- poses of permanent settlement is insignificant.


A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University


----------



## Hollie

On the other hand:

The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library

*A Population Boom *
As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.

The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.



Quite clearly, the Arab-Islamist invaders had an agenda.


----------



## Eloy

Hossfly said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
Click to expand...

I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> On the other hand:
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> *A Population Boom *
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite clearly, the Arab-Islamist invaders had an agenda.



Jewish Virtual Library fantasy and propaganda versus official census data.  You are a hoot Hollie.  Don't you realize that you are making a fool of yourself?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand:
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> *A Population Boom *
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite clearly, the Arab-Islamist invaders had an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish Virtual Library fantasy and propaganda versus official census data.  You are a hoot Hollie.  Don't you realize that you are making a fool of yourself?
Click to expand...


How predictable. Monty gets infuriated when his claims are refuted and has no recourse but to launch himself into one of his typical, saliva-slinging tirades.

What a hoot.


----------



## MJB12741

Lets show some compassion for the poor guy.  He lives here in the USA & suffers 24/7 with our great countries support for Israel.  And not even one of those Zionists ever offered to help him leave here to go live in some Muslim country where he would be loved.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand:
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> *A Population Boom *
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite clearly, the Arab-Islamist invaders had an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish Virtual Library fantasy and propaganda versus official census data.  You are a hoot Hollie.  Don't you realize that you are making a fool of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How predictable. Monty gets infuriated when his claims are refuted and has no recourse but to launch himself into one of his typical, saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> What a hoot.
Click to expand...


They are not claims at all.  They are official census data.  You are so silly, it is embarrassing.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand:
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> *A Population Boom *
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite clearly, the Arab-Islamist invaders had an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish Virtual Library fantasy and propaganda versus official census data.  You are a hoot Hollie.  Don't you realize that you are making a fool of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How predictable. Monty gets infuriated when his claims are refuted and has no recourse but to launch himself into one of his typical, saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> What a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not claims at all.  They are official census data.  You are so silly, it is embarrassing.
Click to expand...


They are just claims. It's unfortunate for you that refutation to your cutting and pasting is so easily achieved.

Gullibility on your part is not an attribute you can impose on others.


----------



## montelatici

No, they are official survey data compiled by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 you idiot.


----------



## Hossfly

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
Click to expand...


It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?


I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> No, they are official survey data compiled by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 you idiot.


Oh, yes. I somehow missed your whining in reference to your so-called "official" data. "Offical".... because I say so.

Such an angry, Monty.

What a hoot.


----------



## Eloy

Hossfly said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
Click to expand...

The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.


----------



## Hossfly

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
Click to expand...

Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are merely a SYNTHETIC ZIONIST BUT NOT A JEW,.....I am the MAGNIFICENT
> 
> 
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your evidence to support your LIES that Zionists are terrorists. Not one piece of evidence as you know they all trace back to the hate sites you frequent.
> 
> How can Turks, pakistanis and afghani's be semitic ?
Click to expand...

Only A Fool Would Lean Upon,Lean Upon His Own Misunderstandings....................Only theliq Brought The Truth,Brought The Truth,In Due Season

Plenty of sites to view ZIONIST TERRORISM...just type in Zionist Terrorism,if you have the desire because you can take your pick,buggered if I'm going to keep doing it for you,time and time again.


As for the Turkic(Not Turks from Turkey,you moron) Tribes and others from Central Asia who converted to be Jews(who invariably also become Zionists) Can NEVER BE SEMITIC,but they are Synthetic Jews.........Where in my prose did I mention Turks,Pakistanis and Afghans?????Methinks you are loopy

PS..unlike YOU...I DON'T DO HATE SITES


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.
> 
> 
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
Click to expand...

Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.
> 
> 
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
Click to expand...

You defend the indefensible Hoss...and shamefully Critisize others of whom you disagree.....this is not dialogue at all,just throwing red-herrings around to disguise the facts..............not good enough Hossie...steve


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are official survey data compiled by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes. I somehow missed your whining in reference to your so-called "official" data. "Offical".... because I say so.
> 
> Such an angry, Monty.
> 
> What a hoot.
Click to expand...


Not angry at all, just enjoying watching you try to present propaganda as fact while denying official census data.  You just don't get it.  Official census data as complied by the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry archived in the Berman Jewish Policy Archive, is fact.  Note, it is a Jewish archive you idiot.


----------



## theliq

Dogmaphobe said:


> It is pretty obvious that these subhumans who try to deny the right of self-determination for Jewish people do not apply the same standards to any other group.
> 
> Israel is a tiny little sliver of land on the world stage, surrounded by an enormous expanse of land controlled by those who persecute them.
> 
> I can only hope that these subhumans who join in their persecution are reincarnated as cockroaches, because that is all they deserve.


Classic Moronic Prose,written and signed by a Zionist...now you see what I mean about these wretches.steve


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are official survey data compiled by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes. I somehow missed your whining in reference to your so-called "official" data. "Offical".... because I say so.
> 
> Such an angry, Monty.
> 
> What a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not angry at all, just enjoying watching you try to present propaganda as fact while denying official census data.  You just don't get it.  Official census data as complied by the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry archived in the Berman Jewish Policy Archive, is fact.  Note, it is a Jewish archive you idiot.
Click to expand...

Oh, my. You're infuriated. Your claim to "official" data is always a hoot when you are the one adding the "official'ness" slogan. Obviously you're unable to address the facts I gave you regarding the arab invasion of what you believe to be the "country of Pal'istan", so you are left to your usual retreat of stomping your feet like a petulant child. Note, I gave you a reference to a Jewish archive.


----------



## theliq

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are official survey data compiled by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes. I somehow missed your whining in reference to your so-called "official" data. "Offical".... because I say so.
> 
> Such an angry, Monty.
> 
> What a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not angry at all, just enjoying watching you try to present propaganda as fact while denying official census data.  You just don't get it.  Official census data as complied by the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry archived in the Berman Jewish Policy Archive, is fact.  Note, it is a Jewish archive you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my. You're infuriated. Your claim to "official" data is always a hoot when you are the one adding the "official'ness" slogan. Obviously you're unable to address the facts I gave you regarding the arab invasion of what you believe to be the "country of Pal'istan", so you are left to your usual retreat of stomping your feet like a petulant child. Note, I gave you a reference to a Jewish archive.
Click to expand...

Yet another Zionist inspired crock of Shit...........you are not fit to lick Montes feet...........FULL STOP...theliq Viva Palestine,Viva Israel


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
Click to expand...

Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww4S4a3-J4c


----------



## Hossfly

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
Click to expand...

Since you are a relatively new poster, Eloy, could  you tell us what other forums you have been on criticizing what is happening to people in Muslim countries?  Seems like you just concentrate in the one country where Jews are involved.  After all in many Muslim countries people are treated like dogs if they are non Muslims and even Muslims of different sects.  Are you even aware of what is going on in these countries, or are you just concerned with Israel because it is the Jews who happen to be governing the land and not Muslims?


----------



## Eloy

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
Click to expand...

Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.


----------



## Shusha

Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.


I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You defend the indefensible Hoss...and shamefully Critisize others of whom you disagree.....this is not dialogue at all,just throwing red-herrings around to disguise the facts..............not good enough Hossie...steve
Click to expand...

You lied about your genealogy, thus you are scum.


----------



## Hossfly

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.
Click to expand...


I guess it is really difficult for some people to criticize what is going on in Muslim countries because their main raison de etre  is to criticize Israel because it is a Jewish state.  The readers of this forum (unless they are anti-Semites themselves) can see right through a poster  who only wants to criticize Israel  and stays silent on the atrocities happening in Muslim countries.


----------



## Eloy

Hossfly said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> 
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it is really difficult for some people to criticize what is going on in Muslim countries because their main raison de etre  is to criticize Israel because it is a Jewish state.  The readers of this forum (unless they are anti-Semites themselves) can see right through a poster  who only wants to criticize Israel  and stays silent on the atrocities happening in Muslim countries.
Click to expand...

Who are "some people", I wonder.


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You defend the indefensible Hoss...and shamefully Critisize others of whom you disagree.....this is not dialogue at all,just throwing red-herrings around to disguise the facts..............not good enough Hossie...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied about your genealogy, thus you are scum.
Click to expand...

if THE CAP FIT ........wear it


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> 
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it is really difficult for some people to criticize what is going on in Muslim countries because their main raison de etre  is to criticize Israel because it is a Jewish state.  The readers of this forum (unless they are anti-Semites themselves) can see right through a poster  who only wants to criticize Israel  and stays silent on the atrocities happening in Muslim countries.
Click to expand...

well this is an Is/Pal thread but if you want a response on ISIS etc these Muslim ASSHOLES are beyond REDEMPTION Hoss Syria


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.
Click to expand...


To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel.  (Your post #207 in this thread.)  It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.  

To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.


----------



## Hossfly

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it is really difficult for some people to criticize what is going on in Muslim countries because their main raison de etre  is to criticize Israel because it is a Jewish state.  The readers of this forum (unless they are anti-Semites themselves) can see right through a poster  who only wants to criticize Israel  and stays silent on the atrocities happening in Muslim countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are "some people", I wonder.
Click to expand...

If the shoe fits, wear it.


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it is really difficult for some people to criticize what is going on in Muslim countries because their main raison de etre  is to criticize Israel because it is a Jewish state.  The readers of this forum (unless they are anti-Semites themselves) can see right through a poster  who only wants to criticize Israel  and stays silent on the atrocities happening in Muslim countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well this is an Is/Pal thread but if you want a response on ISIS etc these Muslim ASSHOLES are beyond REDEMPTION Hoss Syria
Click to expand...

Maybe Australia doesn't think the same way you do about those "big, bad Zionists" so let's show how they are getting together with Israel.

Launching a new chapter in Australia–Israel relations | The Strategist?


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel.  (Your post #207 in this thread.)  It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.
> 
> To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.* It's true, that it was promised to us by God, but why should they care?"   Goldmann, Nahum: _Le Paradoxe Juif_ (The Jewish Paradox), p.121
It is facts which demonize some Jews, not me when I quote the Zionist founder of Israel.


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel.  (Your post #207 in this thread.)  It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.
> 
> To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

Well prior to 1948 it was not Jewish land.......that the rest of the world wanted to solve the Jewish question,the Jews were offered lots of places in the world prior to taking over parts of Palestine,it was the Zionists that wanted only parts/all of Palestine(which Israel have expanded over the years) So you may not call it theft but others disagree.....Eloy was NOT repeat NOT DEMONIZING Jews at all but stating the facts,what he should have mentioned is the barbaric way towards the Palestinian,the inhumanity of the Zionists have treated and continued to treat the Palestinians......if the boot was on the other foot,no doubt you would be the first to squeal and therein lies your total Hypocricy......Anyway I will give you a scenario,if the Palestinians say with Russia and China decided to ensure the Palestinians get their land back(like Israel and America have done)....would you then think that OK,just doing the same as the Israel/America did ???????thought not.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it is really difficult for some people to criticize what is going on in Muslim countries because their main raison de etre  is to criticize Israel because it is a Jewish state.  The readers of this forum (unless they are anti-Semites themselves) can see right through a poster  who only wants to criticize Israel  and stays silent on the atrocities happening in Muslim countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well this is an Is/Pal thread but if you want a response on ISIS etc these Muslim ASSHOLES are beyond REDEMPTION Hoss Syria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe Australia doesn't think the same way you do about those "big, bad Zionists" so let's show how they are getting together with Israel.
> 
> Launching a new chapter in Australia–Israel relations | The Strategist?
Click to expand...

Until the last election Australia supported the Palestinians and Israel as I do.....it is only since a year ago approx., that things were reversed,so you got that wrong Hoss....The Jewish/Zionist Lobby here as in America are very powerful....that some ultra conservatives in our Conservative Government are lap dogs to the Zionists that does not represent the Australian people at all......you should note that this reversal was done on the quiet or the sly which is A Typical when Zionists are involved.....the Government only got in with the help of some right wing parties and do not have the balance of power at all in the senate,they need the help of minor parties in that house to get any legislation through,not much gets through and has not for about a year now......it is as they say a hung parliament...steve


----------



## Hossfly

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel.  (Your post #207 in this thread.)  It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.
> 
> To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.* It's true, that it was promised to us by God, but why should they care?"   Goldmann, Nahum: _Le Paradoxe Juif_ (The Jewish Paradox), p.121
> It is facts which demonize some Jews, not me when I quote the Zionist founder of Israel.
Click to expand...

 

Living in Israel​
Zionism​
Politics of Israel​
Palestine​
Israeli–Palestinian Conflict​

​See this Quora comment by Ariella Ray on an answer that referenced this Ben Gurion quote:

....it's important to realize that this was NOT said as any type of admission that Israel 'stole' land from Arabs; Ben-Gurion was speaking rhetorically to a friend about the prospect of peace and deliberately taking the Arab point of view. This is very clear in the book where the quote appears, but if you take the quote out of context, it's not obvious that Ben-Gurion is playing devil's advocate and this is not HIS view of the situation, but the Arab point of view.

Many, many other statements by B-G make it abundantly clear that Jews/Israelis were NOT to seize land without payment, and his great desire to live in peace with their neighbors.

Also regarding the quote - There is also some doubt as to whether B-G actually said this, even speaking rhetorically. The only source for the quote is a book written over 25 years later by the one person who B-G (purportedly) made the statement to. I'm not claiming that B-G didn't say this - I wasn't there, and there was no reason for the source of the quote, an ardent Zionist, to lie; I just want to make it clear that to use the quote as anything other than confirmation that B-G understood the Arab point of view is completely wrong.​


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.*



As long as you believe "Jews stole their land" you are not respecting the big picture which is:  the Jewish people originated on that land and that land was taken from us.  The land belongs to BOTH peoples for different reasons.  

*And as long as you disregard that fundamental truth and the fundamental rights of BOTH peoples you are demonizing Jews for wanting the same, exact thing that the Palestinian people want.  *

Self-determination.  Return.  A homeland in the place of our ancestors.  

As long as you criticize the Jewish people for wanting and trying to achieve those things, those exact same things that the Palestinian people want, you are demonizing the Jewish people and not fairly criticizing the actions of the Israeli government.


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel.  (Your post #207 in this thread.)  It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.
> 
> To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well prior to 1948 it was not Jewish land.......that the rest of the world wanted to solve the Jewish question,the Jews were offered lots of places in the world prior to taking over parts of Palestine,it was the Zionists that wanted only parts/all of Palestine(which Israel have expanded over the years) So you may not call it theft but others disagree.....Eloy was NOT repeat NOT DEMONIZING Jews at all but stating the facts,what he should have mentioned is the barbaric way towards the Palestinian,the inhumanity of the Zionists have treated and continued to treat the Palestinians......if the boot was on the other foot,no doubt you would be the first to squeal and therein lies your total Hypocricy......Anyway I will give you a scenario,if the Palestinians say with Russia and China decided to ensure the Palestinians get their land back(like Israel and America have done)....would you then think that OK,just doing the same as the Israel/America did ???????thought not.
Click to expand...

Since you hate the Zionists so much, why doesn't a "magnificent" man such as you rally the citizens to have your country cut ties with those "big, bad Zionists"   Meanwhile, it looks like those involved had a very good time.

Ozraeli – celebrating Australia-Israel friendship


----------



## Shusha

theliq said:


> Well prior to 1948 it was not Jewish land.......



And prior to 638 CE it was not Arab land.  

And prior to 132 CE it was not Roman land.  

And prior to 586 BCE it was not Babylonian land.

Who's land was it?  It was Jewish land.  

IF it became Babylonian land in 586 BCE, IF it became Roman land in 132 CE and IF it became Arab land in 638 CE, you give rights of ownership to conquerors.  And so, the land became Jewish again in 1948.

IF you don't believe conquest gives rise to ownership then return the land to its original owners -- the Jewish people.  


Either way -- the land IS most certainly Jewish land.  Whatever else it might be, due to long residence in the land -- it most certainly is Jewish land as well.


----------



## theliq

SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel.  (Your post #207 in this thread.)  It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.
> 
> To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.* It's true, that it was promised to us by God, but why should they care?"   Goldmann, Nahum: _Le Paradoxe Juif_ (The Jewish Paradox), p.121
> It is facts which demonize some Jews, not me when I quote the Zionist founder of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.quora.com/topic/Living-in-Israel
> Living in Israel
> Zionism
> Politics of Israel
> Palestine
> Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
> 
> 
> ​See this Quora comment by Ariella Ray on an answer that referenced this Ben Gurion quote:
> 
> ....it's important to realize that this was NOT said as any type of admission that Israel 'stole' land from Arabs; Ben-Gurion was speaking rhetorically to a friend about the prospect of peace and deliberately taking the Arab point of view. This is very clear in the book where the quote appears, but if you take the quote out of context, it's not obvious that Ben-Gurion is playing devil's advocate and this is not HIS view of the situation, but the Arab point of view.
> 
> Many, many other statements by B-G make it abundantly clear that Jews/Israelis were NOT to seize land without payment, and his great desire to live in peace with their neighbors.
> 
> Also regarding the quote - There is also some doubt as to whether B-G actually said this, even speaking rhetorically. The only source for the quote is a book written over 25 years later by the one person who B-G (purportedly) made the statement to. I'm not claiming that B-G didn't say this - I wasn't there, and there was no reason for the source of the quote, an ardent Zionist, to lie; I just want to make it clear that to use the quote as anything other than confirmation that B-G understood the Arab point of view is completely wrong.​
Click to expand...

when the first Zionist delegation visited  1898,they said of Palestine Ït is a Beautiful Bride but Married to another,The Palestinians


----------



## Shusha

theliq said:


> SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????



I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.  

No. Try to keep up.  I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.  

I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants.  I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you believe "Jews stole their land" you are not respecting the big picture which is:  the Jewish people originated on that land and that land was taken from us.  The land belongs to BOTH peoples for different reasons.
> 
> *And as long as you disregard that fundamental truth and the fundamental rights of BOTH peoples you are demonizing Jews for wanting the same, exact thing that the Palestinian people want.  *
> 
> Self-determination.  Return.  A homeland in the place of our ancestors.
> 
> As long as you criticize the Jewish people for wanting and trying to achieve those things, those exact same things that the Palestinian people want, you are demonizing the Jewish people and not fairly criticizing the actions of the Israeli government.
Click to expand...

Forgive me but I do not believe in a god who promises other peoples' land to Jews or anyone else.


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you believe "Jews stole their land" you are not respecting the big picture which is:  the Jewish people originated on that land and that land was taken from us.  The land belongs to BOTH peoples for different reasons.
> 
> *And as long as you disregard that fundamental truth and the fundamental rights of BOTH peoples you are demonizing Jews for wanting the same, exact thing that the Palestinian people want.  *
> 
> Self-determination.  Return.  A homeland in the place of our ancestors.
> 
> As long as you criticize the Jewish people for wanting and trying to achieve those things, those exact same things that the Palestinian people want, you are demonizing the Jewish people and not fairly criticizing the actions of the Israeli government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but I do not believe in a god who promises other peoples' land to Jews or anyone else.
Click to expand...


Neither do I. 

I have NEVER argued from the point of view of religion.


----------



## Eloy

Hossfly said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel.  (Your post #207 in this thread.)  It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.
> 
> To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.* It's true, that it was promised to us by God, but why should they care?"   Goldmann, Nahum: _Le Paradoxe Juif_ (The Jewish Paradox), p.121
> It is facts which demonize some Jews, not me when I quote the Zionist founder of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> https://www.quora.com/topic/Living-in-Israel
> Living in Israel
> Zionism
> Politics of Israel
> Palestine
> Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
> 
> 
> ​See this Quora comment by Ariella Ray on an answer that referenced this Ben Gurion quote:
> 
> ....it's important to realize that this was NOT said as any type of admission that Israel 'stole' land from Arabs; Ben-Gurion was speaking rhetorically to a friend about the prospect of peace and deliberately taking the Arab point of view. This is very clear in the book where the quote appears, but if you take the quote out of context, it's not obvious that Ben-Gurion is playing devil's advocate and this is not HIS view of the situation, but the Arab point of view.
> 
> Many, many other statements by B-G make it abundantly clear that Jews/Israelis were NOT to seize land without payment, and his great desire to live in peace with their neighbors.
> 
> Also regarding the quote - There is also some doubt as to whether B-G actually said this, even speaking rhetorically. The only source for the quote is a book written over 25 years later by the one person who B-G (purportedly) made the statement to. I'm not claiming that B-G didn't say this - I wasn't there, and there was no reason for the source of the quote, an ardent Zionist, to lie; I just want to make it clear that to use the quote as anything other than confirmation that B-G understood the Arab point of view is completely wrong.​
Click to expand...

I prefer to let Ben-Gurion's words speak for themselves. I can read English, you see.


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.
> 
> No. Try to keep up.  I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.
> 
> I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants.  I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements  that is exactly what your saying


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you believe "Jews stole their land" you are not respecting the big picture which is:  the Jewish people originated on that land and that land was taken from us.  The land belongs to BOTH peoples for different reasons.
> 
> *And as long as you disregard that fundamental truth and the fundamental rights of BOTH peoples you are demonizing Jews for wanting the same, exact thing that the Palestinian people want.  *
> 
> Self-determination.  Return.  A homeland in the place of our ancestors.
> 
> As long as you criticize the Jewish people for wanting and trying to achieve those things, those exact same things that the Palestinian people want, you are demonizing the Jewish people and not fairly criticizing the actions of the Israeli government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but I do not believe in a god who promises other peoples' land to Jews or anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither do I.
> 
> I have NEVER argued from the point of view of religion.
Click to expand...

Well, Ben-Gurion did believe the god of the Jews promised them the land of Palestine and this was his justification for establishing a Jewish state there.


----------



## Shusha

I don't give a rat's ass what Ben-Gurion believed.  I was discussing YOUR beliefs.  Specifically, your demoniziation of the Jewish people for wanting the exact same thing that the Palestinians want.  Care to address that, instead of throwing red herrings at us?


----------



## Shusha

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.
> 
> No. Try to keep up.  I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.
> 
> I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants.  I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements  that is exactly what your saying
Click to expand...


Look, I know this is a little hard for you to follow.  But try.  Please.  

The Jewish people have rights in the territory in question because they are the oldest, surviving culture which originated on that land and have lived on that land for 3000 years as a recognizable Jewish culture.  As such, they have the right to self-determination on that land.  Part of that self-determination is the return of the diaspora Jews.  

ALL those who came after -- the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Ottomans stole the land from the Jewish people and forcibly removed them from the land. 

It is hypocrisy to say that it was legit for the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Arabs to steal that land from the Jewish people while saying it is not legit for the Jewish people to return to their land.  

My argument is, and has always been, that the Jewish people have rights to the land.  My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.  

Now, you, and a number of your Team Palestine keep saying to me, when I press you, that Israel has a right to exist.  If you believe this to be true -- for the love of all that is sacred in this world -- stop arguing against Israel's right to exist on a thread entitled "Israel's right to exist".


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> I don't give a rat's ass what Ben-Gurion believed.  I was discussing YOUR beliefs.  Specifically, your demoniziation of the Jewish people for wanting the exact same thing that the Palestinians want.  Care to address that, instead of throwing red herrings at us?


I have never heard of Ben-Gurion being described as a red herring before. My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times. I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing. I have never demonized Jews and I do not do so because they want the same land as the Palestinians. I assume you mean they both want the same land. I do accept that the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution. The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries. So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs) and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed. The unmistakable problem is the occupation and blockading of the rest of Palestine, i.e. The Occupied Territories. The Jewish State of Israel (with a border along the 1967 cease fire line) is a member of the United Nations and recognized as fully sovereign. I hope this answers your question and thanks for asking.


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.
> 
> No. Try to keep up.  I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.
> 
> I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants.  I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements  that is exactly what your saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I know this is a little hard for you to follow.  But try.  Please.
> 
> The Jewish people have rights in the territory in question because they are the oldest, surviving culture which originated on that land and have lived on that land for 3000 years as a recognizable Jewish culture.  As such, they have the right to self-determination on that land.  Part of that self-determination is the return of the diaspora Jews.
> 
> ALL those who came after -- the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Ottomans stole the land from the Jewish people and forcibly removed them from the land.
> 
> It is hypocrisy to say that it was legit for the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Arabs to steal that land from the Jewish people while saying it is not legit for the Jewish people to return to their land.
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Jewish people have rights to the land.  My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.
> 
> Now, you, and a number of your Team Palestine keep saying to me, when I press you, that Israel has a right to exist.  If you believe this to be true -- for the love of all that is sacred in this world -- stop arguing against Israel's right to exist on a thread entitled "Israel's right to exist".
Click to expand...

So according to you  as  Native Americans  WE demand all of  North America Back because we first settled there........We according to you have the right to the Land and can kick out,murder etc., anyone there because......that is what the Jews did!!!!!!!!!!!!!Susha,....REALLY...steve


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You totally ignored the stated intention.  The Mandate for Palestine was unique, in that it had this "special intention" attached to it.
> *EXCERPT:* The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
> ...   ...   ...
> At first and in accordance with the terms of the Mandate, this role was entrusted to the Zionist Organisation; later, however, from 1929 onwards, that organisation was replaced by the "Jewish Agency for Palestine", which includes
> representatives not only of the Zionist Organisation but also of other Jewish bodies in various countries. In consultation with the Mandatory, this agency takes steps to secure the co-operation of all Jews willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> *SOURCE:* Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The INTENT was the establishment of a Jewish National Home as expressed in the Balfour Declaration over a century ago.  It was clearly Repeated in the San Remo Agreement, outlined in the Mandate, and in the recommendation of 1947 --- the Resolution _(no matter what you consider the status as used by the Palestinians)_.   The INTENT of the Allied Powers holding the rights and title is the important piece to this argument.
> 
> 
> 
> One is their intent to colonize Palestine. This cannot be denied. Everyone openly said it and it is well documented. It is a settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire.  When the pro-Palestinians use the term "colonial project," their intention is to convey that some Allied Power (in this case Britain) was attempting to extend the empire.  Nothing is further from the truth.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, in using this phrase - and attempting to imply that the combined Allied Powers or the Jewish People, or some combination, PLANNED in 1916 to subjugate the non-Jewish population, to either Jewish domination or Mandatory exploitation.  They imply that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights; in that the immigrant Jewish People and the British Mandatory have stripped the right to self-determination from the Arab Palestinian inhabitants; and prevented the Arab Palestinian inhabitants to freely pursue their economic, social, cultural development and political statement.  The "victim mentality."
> 
> The Arab Palestinian inhabitants were offered, numerous times by the Allied Powers and the Mandatory to participate in the processes to establish self-governing institutions.  However, the Arab Palestinian inhabitants, having consistently declining to participate and rejecting recommendations that would fulfill the original intent of the Mandate _(the establishment of a Jewish National Home)_, demanding that the Mandatory and the Council of the League of Nations relinquish the entirety of the region to the Arab Higher Committee and the Arab Palestinian inhabitants.  Recognizing that the Arab Palestinian inhabitants had no intention of attempting a good faith resolution, the Mandatory and the Jewish Agency moved on a more productive path which has resulted in the creation of the most highly developed country of the entire region; including every member of the Arab League.  (Ranked 18th on the 2015)
> View attachment 96409​I understand that, the entire Arab League, all 22 Nations, are at a disadvantage because they did not received Allied Powers Support in the form of American Aid, and so they attribute the successful growth in Human Development by Israel to this American intervention.  However every single Arab League Member actually received some sort of aid either from the US or other major world power.  And, the Palestinians are totally dependent on Donor Nation contributions.
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ME was divided into separate states with international borders defined by post war treaties. The Treaty of Lausanne released the title and rights to these states with the stipulation that the people become citizens of their respective states.
> 
> It is the people who are sovereigns within their defined territory. The colonial project bumps into this fact and that is why one hundred years later there is still no resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Again you are confusing things.  Sovereignty (or being sovereign) has more than one meaning.  Yes, there is the application of this term to that of the individual.  HOWEVER, as it applies to nations and states, it is all about "power and authority."  Don't try to confuse the participants to this discussion with some esoteric meaning.
> View attachment 96414​Israel successfully defended its bid for independence and sovereignty in the 1948/49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack on Yom Kipper by the Arab League.  Of the four (4) nation states immediately adjacent to Israel, two Arab States _*(Egypt and Jordan)*_ have made formal treaties (the war has been concluded and international boundaries have been established.  Syria is in chaos and unable to form a united government.  Syria actually lacks sovereignty over large expanses of the state.  Lebanon has lost sovereignty of a major section of Lebanon _*(the al-Bekka Valley)*_ to the Hezbollah.  Thus, it cannot speaks for that territory, lost to terrorist control.
> 
> In the early part of the 20th Century, Article 30 of the Lausanne Treaty, was achieved through the Citizenship and Nationality Instruction of the Palestine Order in Council, and later, the 1925 Citizenship act.   Pro-Palestinians attempt to churn the political waters in trying to imply that the Treaty of Lausanne had some relevance in this regard.  It does not.
> 
> Both the Jewish Immigrant and the inhabitants formerly under The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) _(later Arab Palestinians under Civil Administration of the Mandate)_ became citizens of the Government of Palestine (the British Mandatory).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between a "colonial project" where in the meaning and intent is to convey that it is merely the establishment of a colony; and that of a political venture by a world power to extend their domain and empire.​
> I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.
Click to expand...










 And again all you have is islamonazi propagandists spewing out islamonazi talking points based on LIES and BLOOD LIBELS.


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a rat's ass what Ben-Gurion believed.  I was discussing YOUR beliefs.  Specifically, your demoniziation of the Jewish people for wanting the exact same thing that the Palestinians want.  Care to address that, instead of throwing red herrings at us?
> 
> 
> 
> I have never heard of Ben-Gurion being described as a red herring before. My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times. I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing. I have never demonized Jews and I do not do so because they want the same land as the Palestinians. I assume you mean they both want the same land. I do accept that the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution. The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries. So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs) and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed. The unmistakable problem is the occupation and blockading of the rest of Palestine, i.e. The Occupied Territories. The Jewish State of Israel (with a border along the 1967 cease fire line) is a member of the United Nations and recognized as fully sovereign. I hope this answers your question and thanks for asking.
Click to expand...








 And yet you fail to produce once instance of this being said by any Zionist leader officially, showing that it is just another of the hate site mantra's with no basis in truth.
 The JEWS, not just the zionists, believe they have the right under international law enacted in 1923 to have a homeland and the means to defend it from attack. They want the international community to recognise this law in full and set up an armed task force to remove all the illegal immigrants and terrorists from Israeli lands.
The English promised nothing as it was the British, and it is about time you educated yourself on these matters. It would be like me saying that Washington granted the Germans surrender terms and leaving out the other 50 States as being irrelevent. Then you need to read the terms of the mandate to see that Britain was nothing more than a caretaker and had to follow the orders of the LoN in regards to the mandate. They could not take action without full approval of the LoN which included Washington as one of its members.  Then you need to be educated on the influx of illegal arab muslim migrants starting in 1917 when it looked like the Jews would get their lands back. The Jews have already got a nation with fully recognised borders under International law, and those are the only ones that should exist. The islamonazi terrorists should shot on sight if they refuse to go back to the land they came from and threatened with eviction from the UN if they try to cause trouble. We have had enough of the muslims trying to take over with the help of the neo marxists and neo nazi's


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The data is available from the Survey of Palestine, Vol. 1
> View attachment 96491
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 2  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Volume 1 page 212
> 
> 59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the pur- poses of permanent settlement is insignificant.
> 
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University









 Which has been proven to be false and made up by arab muslims in the pay of the group sent to report on palestine.  At the same time Winston Churchill was proclaiming on oath that the arab muslims were flooding into the mandate of palestine illegally


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
Click to expand...







The English promised nothing, it was the washigtonians that promised the arab muslims the whole of the world in return for oil.

 It was the LoN, you know the forerunner of the UN that granted land they owned legally under international laws of 1917 to 1923 to the Jews and arab muslims, the English had no say or Authority in the matter. Yes Britain was anti semitic and very anti Jew once the neo marxists rose to positions of power.   As for the British we have voted to leave the EU because of its racism and xenophobia towards the British and the forcing of migrants on our already over stretched facilities. 


 Try to get it right or is this the new mantra from the hate sites to blame the English, or is it your total stupidity to not understand that England is just a part of Britain and is like Washington in the USA.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand:
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> *A Population Boom *
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite clearly, the Arab-Islamist invaders had an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish Virtual Library fantasy and propaganda versus official census data.  You are a hoot Hollie.  Don't you realize that you are making a fool of yourself?
Click to expand...








You mean like this official census data




CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291 

"...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 *
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





 Shows that the Jews were in the majority in most of palestine from 1838 to 1948 according to the Ottoman census


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.
> 
> No. Try to keep up.  I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.
> 
> I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants.  I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements  that is exactly what your saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I know this is a little hard for you to follow.  But try.  Please.
> 
> The Jewish people have rights in the territory in question because they are the oldest, surviving culture which originated on that land and have lived on that land for 3000 years as a recognizable Jewish culture.  As such, they have the right to self-determination on that land.  Part of that self-determination is the return of the diaspora Jews.
> 
> ALL those who came after -- the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Ottomans stole the land from the Jewish people and forcibly removed them from the land.
> 
> It is hypocrisy to say that it was legit for the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Arabs to steal that land from the Jewish people while saying it is not legit for the Jewish people to return to their land.
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Jewish people have rights to the land.  My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.
> 
> Now, you, and a number of your Team Palestine keep saying to me, when I press you, that Israel has a right to exist.  If you believe this to be true -- for the love of all that is sacred in this world -- stop arguing against Israel's right to exist on a thread entitled "Israel's right to exist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So according to you  as  Native Americans  WE demand all of  North America Back because we first settled there........We according to you have the right to the Land and can kick out,murder etc., anyone there because......that is what the Jews did!!!!!!!!!!!!!Susha,....REALLY...steve
Click to expand...







 And where is your evidence of this murder then, you keep bringing it up yet never provide any concrete evidence. All you have is what you get from the hate sites as shown by your few links that go straight to them


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand:
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> *A Population Boom *
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite clearly, the Arab-Islamist invaders had an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish Virtual Library fantasy and propaganda versus official census data.  You are a hoot Hollie.  Don't you realize that you are making a fool of yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How predictable. Monty gets infuriated when his claims are refuted and has no recourse but to launch himself into one of his typical, saliva-slinging tirades.
> 
> What a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not claims at all.  They are official census data.  You are so silly, it is embarrassing.
Click to expand...








 No they are claims by a committee that this is what they believe the census data says, the reality is the actual census data does not match your cut and paste from a work of fiction


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> No, they are official survey data compiled by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 you idiot.









 And once again monte goes into immature spoilt brat mode because his claims have been disproven and destroyed every time he posts them. At this rate he will end up talking to himself because so few people will be on his not banned list.

The official ottoman census tells a different story and he cant bring himself to admit his version is flawed


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.
> 
> No. Try to keep up.  I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.
> 
> I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants.  I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements  that is exactly what your saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I know this is a little hard for you to follow.  But try.  Please.
> 
> The Jewish people have rights in the territory in question because they are the oldest, surviving culture which originated on that land and have lived on that land for 3000 years as a recognizable Jewish culture.  As such, they have the right to self-determination on that land.  Part of that self-determination is the return of the diaspora Jews.
> 
> ALL those who came after -- the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Ottomans stole the land from the Jewish people and forcibly removed them from the land.
> 
> It is hypocrisy to say that it was legit for the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Arabs to steal that land from the Jewish people while saying it is not legit for the Jewish people to return to their land.
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Jewish people have rights to the land.  My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.
> 
> Now, you, and a number of your Team Palestine keep saying to me, when I press you, that Israel has a right to exist.  If you believe this to be true -- for the love of all that is sacred in this world -- stop arguing against Israel's right to exist on a thread entitled "Israel's right to exist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So according to you  as  Native Americans  WE demand all of  North America Back because we first settled there........We according to you have the right to the Land and can kick out,murder etc., anyone there because......that is what the Jews did!!!!!!!!!!!!!Susha,....REALLY...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where is your evidence of this murder then, you keep bringing it up yet never provide any concrete evidence. All you have is what you get from the hate sites as shown by your few links that go straight to them
Click to expand...

Plenty  of EVIDENCE of how the Zionists Murdered Palestinians Pheo Go look it up steve


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ... The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. _*While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917.*_ By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people ...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice, the English were happy to promise land to the Jews for a home as long as it was not in England.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
Click to expand...







 So when did you last criticise Israel for an action that was not covered by international law and the Geneva conventions. When did you last accept that international laws also work in the Jews favour and support their actions defending against war crimes, acts of war, violence, terrorism and belligerence.
 The difference is when posters criticise America or the POTUS they do so with facts and not made up propaganda and libels. They dont get the simplest of facts wrong like blaming the English when they were but a small part of a much larger whole. They dont deliberately omit facts like illegal immigration, mass murders, enlarged death tolls and incursions across borders contrary to the Geneva conventions and the UN charter.  They dont forget that the arab muslims started the wars by firing illegal weapons in large numbers at Israeli children. To you these did not happen and it was Israel firing at arab muslims trying to make a living, when even your own links show they were engaged in terrorist activities.

The new anti semitism is anti Zionism and you haters believe you have found away to be clear of the law, well we anti nazi's are fighting back and you will find it wont work

 So feel free to criticise Israel all you want, but dont step over that mark that tuns your citicism into out and out nazi Jew hatred by using blood libels, propaganda and lies that you believe because of your brainwashing.


Start by ignoring the made up stories about targetting of civilians when the truth is the civilians are forced to act as human shields


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your great grandparents are rolling in their graves.
> 
> 
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your evidence to support your LIES that Zionists are terrorists. Not one piece of evidence as you know they all trace back to the hate sites you frequent.
> 
> How can Turks, pakistanis and afghani's be semitic ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only A Fool Would Lean Upon,Lean Upon His Own Misunderstandings....................Only theliq Brought The Truth,Brought The Truth,In Due Season
> 
> Plenty of sites to view ZIONIST TERRORISM...just type in Zionist Terrorism,if you have the desire because you can take your pick,buggered if I'm going to keep doing it for you,time and time again.
> 
> 
> As for the Turkic(Not Turks from Turkey,you moron) Tribes and others from Central Asia who converted to be Jews(who invariably also become Zionists) Can NEVER BE SEMITIC,but they are Synthetic Jews.........Where in my prose did I mention Turks,Pakistanis and Afghans?????Methinks you are loopy
> 
> PS..unlike YOU...I DON'T DO HATE SITES
Click to expand...









 You make the claim then it is up to you to produce the evidence. The reason you dont is because all your evidence goes back to the hate sites,

YOU DO HATE SITES ALL THE TIME AS PROVEN BY YOUR WORDS LIFTED VERBATIM FROM THEM


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> I don't give a rat's ass what Ben-Gurion believed.  I was discussing YOUR beliefs.  Specifically, your demoniziation of the Jewish people for wanting the exact same thing that the Palestinians want.  Care to address that, instead of throwing red herrings at us?


Shusha ,will you please refrain  from  PLAGIARIZING  (RED  herrings  IN THIS INSTANCE)


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> 
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your evidence to support your LIES that Zionists are terrorists. Not one piece of evidence as you know they all trace back to the hate sites you frequent.
> 
> How can Turks, pakistanis and afghani's be semitic ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only A Fool Would Lean Upon,Lean Upon His Own Misunderstandings....................Only theliq Brought The Truth,Brought The Truth,In Due Season
> 
> Plenty of sites to view ZIONIST TERRORISM...just type in Zionist Terrorism,if you have the desire because you can take your pick,buggered if I'm going to keep doing it for you,time and time again.
> 
> 
> As for the Turkic(Not Turks from Turkey,you moron) Tribes and others from Central Asia who converted to be Jews(who invariably also become Zionists) Can NEVER BE SEMITIC,but they are Synthetic Jews.........Where in my prose did I mention Turks,Pakistanis and Afghans?????Methinks you are loopy
> 
> PS..unlike YOU...I DON'T DO HATE SITES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make the claim then it is up to you to produce the evidence. The reason you dont is because all your evidence goes back to the hate sites,
> 
> YOU DO HATE SITES ALL THE TIME AS PROVEN BY YOUR WORDS LIFTED VERBATIM FROM THEM
Click to expand...

O Pheo IF ONLY THAT WERE TRUE.....I TOLD YOU I DON'T DO HATE SITES,I JUST REACT TO FACTS AND THE TRUTH...I AM MY OWN MAN AS YOU KNOW,STEVE........Zionist TERRORISM IS BAD,BAD,BAD....BY THE WAY ANTI ZIONISM IS NOT ANTI SEMITISM...AS YOU KNOW...I WANT YOU TO SEE ME AS YOUR CONSCIENCE PHEO,BECAUSE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BECOME....I DON'T HATE YOU...I CARE FOR YOU,AN ENEMY(IN YOUR MIND) CAN BECOME YOUR GREATEST FRIEND..........steve


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

Yes, yes, only you know the truth...  I've seen that syndrome before.



montelatici said:


> Had the clown  read some of Lord Kichener writings before posting his usual bullshit he would not have made the usual fool of himself.
> https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/portal/files/16903387/RichmondPhD.pdf
> 
> The U.S. saw it the same way, as stated in this congressional hearing:


*(COMMENT)*

Lord Kichener, who was killed some months died before the Balfour Declaration was even written and two years prior to the Mudros Armistice, was just one of many aristocrats that expressed opinions on the subject.  Just about every Britain understood that the Suez Canal _(a British Engineering investment and venture to expand trade and commerce)_ was of a strategic and vital interest to the Empire and central Europe; and had been so for more than half a century.  So, when the Middle East was spoke of, in those days its principle features were that of the Suez Canal and The Dardanelles giving entrance to the Sea of Marmara.  

Lord Kichener was a very senior Colonial Administrator.  It was not uncommon for such Political-Military Officers to link all foreign strategic interests in terms of elements within the Empire.   While at the time of Lord Kichener death the Middle East was just becoming an area of concern, the British Empire had control of Egypt; but the Ottoman Empire had control of the opposite bank of the Suez.  And in the eyes of the British Empire, the Ottoman influence of the Suez was danger; both politically and commercially.  

At the conclusion of Hostilities in the Great War, the British Empire's financial resources were spread across vast areas in the world.  The British saw an opportunity to better finance the repair and maintenance to the  infrastructure of the Palestine General Area Jewish Economic Investment. 

Using Jewish economic Power and engineering organization turned out to be a double-edged sword.  This brough a gradual increase in the Jewish Community's influence over the British Administration and an ever increasing friction between Jewish Financial Brokers and the British Military.  _(This is a discussion for another time.)_

Lord Kichener's observations were valid pre-war observations --- but not policy by any stretch of the imagination.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
Click to expand...








 AND IT IS NO SURPRISE THE NEO NAZI HATERS ON HERE TRY TO HIDE THEIR ANTI SEMITIC RACISM BEHIND ANTI ZIONISM BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO COWARDLY AND TOO IDIOTIC TO KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN BUSTED WIDE OPEN


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now how do you know that,  Eloy?  BTW, do you think the British  people these days are  happy with so many Muslims in their midst.  No doubt this never crosses your mind since there are no Jews involved.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You defend the indefensible Hoss...and shamefully Critisize others of whom you disagree.....this is not dialogue at all,just throwing red-herrings around to disguise the facts..............not good enough Hossie...steve
Click to expand...







 DO SHUT UP YOU POMPOUS ASS, YOU ARE JUST A RABID UNINTELLIGENT ANTI SEMITIC RACIST MORON THAT HAS BEEN BUSTED


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.
> 
> No. Try to keep up.  I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.
> 
> I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants.  I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements  that is exactly what your saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I know this is a little hard for you to follow.  But try.  Please.
> 
> The Jewish people have rights in the territory in question because they are the oldest, surviving culture which originated on that land and have lived on that land for 3000 years as a recognizable Jewish culture.  As such, they have the right to self-determination on that land.  Part of that self-determination is the return of the diaspora Jews.
> 
> ALL those who came after -- the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Ottomans stole the land from the Jewish people and forcibly removed them from the land.
> 
> It is hypocrisy to say that it was legit for the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Arabs to steal that land from the Jewish people while saying it is not legit for the Jewish people to return to their land.
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Jewish people have rights to the land.  My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.
> 
> Now, you, and a number of your Team Palestine keep saying to me, when I press you, that Israel has a right to exist.  If you believe this to be true -- for the love of all that is sacred in this world -- stop arguing against Israel's right to exist on a thread entitled "Israel's right to exist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So according to you  as  Native Americans  WE demand all of  North America Back because we first settled there........We according to you have the right to the Land and can kick out,murder etc., anyone there because......that is what the Jews did!!!!!!!!!!!!!Susha,....REALLY...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where is your evidence of this murder then, you keep bringing it up yet never provide any concrete evidence. All you have is what you get from the hate sites as shown by your few links that go straight to them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plenty  of EVIDENCE of how the Zionists Murdered Palestinians Pheo Go look it up steve
Click to expand...








 You make the claim you provide the evidence. Looks like it is another of your hate site lies that you cant find any evidence for, so you deflect, derail and manipulate to cover your tracks.

Once again you are caught lying and soon we will get the childish tantrums and foul language


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your evidence to support your LIES that Zionists are terrorists. Not one piece of evidence as you know they all trace back to the hate sites you frequent.
> 
> How can Turks, pakistanis and afghani's be semitic ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only A Fool Would Lean Upon,Lean Upon His Own Misunderstandings....................Only theliq Brought The Truth,Brought The Truth,In Due Season
> 
> Plenty of sites to view ZIONIST TERRORISM...just type in Zionist Terrorism,if you have the desire because you can take your pick,buggered if I'm going to keep doing it for you,time and time again.
> 
> 
> As for the Turkic(Not Turks from Turkey,you moron) Tribes and others from Central Asia who converted to be Jews(who invariably also become Zionists) Can NEVER BE SEMITIC,but they are Synthetic Jews.........Where in my prose did I mention Turks,Pakistanis and Afghans?????Methinks you are loopy
> 
> PS..unlike YOU...I DON'T DO HATE SITES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make the claim then it is up to you to produce the evidence. The reason you dont is because all your evidence goes back to the hate sites,
> 
> YOU DO HATE SITES ALL THE TIME AS PROVEN BY YOUR WORDS LIFTED VERBATIM FROM THEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> O Pheo IF ONLY THAT WERE TRUE.....I TOLD YOU I DON'T DO HATE SITES,I JUST REACT TO FACTS AND THE TRUTH...I AM MY OWN MAN AS YOU KNOW,STEVE........Zionist TERRORISM IS BAD,BAD,BAD....BY THE WAY ANTI ZIONISM IS NOT ANTI SEMITISM...AS YOU KNOW...I WANT YOU TO SEE ME AS YOUR CONSCIENCE PHEO,BECAUSE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BECOME....I DON'T HATE YOU...I CARE FOR YOU,AN ENEMY(IN YOUR MIND) CAN BECOME YOUR GREATEST FRIEND..........steve
Click to expand...





I have traced your very own words back to hate sites and posted the results on here. The words were verbatim as in no changes to those posted on the hate sites, making you a LIAR and a 3 time loser.   You are nothing to me other than a loud mouth uneducated lying POS racist nazi that does not have the guts to do what he tells others to do. The world would be a better place if you and your ilk were euthanised so we did not have to put up with your hatred and mental faillings


----------



## Phoenall

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Yes, yes, only you know the truth...  I've seen that syndrome before.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had the clown  read some of Lord Kichener writings before posting his usual bullshit he would not have made the usual fool of himself.
> https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/portal/files/16903387/RichmondPhD.pdf
> 
> The U.S. saw it the same way, as stated in this congressional hearing:
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Lord Kichener, who was killed some months died before the Balfour Declaration was even written and two years prior to the Mudros Armistice, was just one of many aristocrats that expressed opinions on the subject.  Just about every Britain understood that the Suez Canal _(a British Engineering investment and venture to expand trade and commerce)_ was of a strategic and vital interest to the Empire and central Europe; and had been so for more than half a century.  So, when the Middle East was spoke of, in those days its principle features were that of the Suez Canal and The Dardanelles giving entrance to the Sea of Marmara.
> 
> Lord Kichener was a very senior Colonial Administrator.  It was not uncommon for such Political-Military Officers to link all foreign strategic interests in terms of elements within the Empire.   While at the time of Lord Kichener death the Middle East was just becoming an area of concern, the British Empire had control of Egypt; but the Ottoman Empire had control of the opposite bank of the Suez.  And in the eyes of the British Empire, the Ottoman influence of the Suez was danger; both politically and commercially.
> 
> At the conclusion of Hostilities in the Great War, the British Empire's financial resources were spread across vast areas in the world.  The British saw an opportunity to better finance the repair and maintenance to the  infrastructure of the Palestine General Area Jewish Economic Investment.
> 
> Using Jewish economic Power and engineering organization turned out to be a double-edged sword.  This brough a gradual increase in the Jewish Community's influence over the British Administration and an ever increasing friction between Jewish Financial Brokers and the British Military.  _(This is a discussion for another time.)_
> 
> Lord Kichener's observations were valid pre-war observations --- but not policy by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...








 I wonder if monte understands what a thesis is, or if he thinks it is a legal proceeding set in stone. It is just one persons views and findings of a particular event, and nothing else. He will use any means at his didposal to try and make claims that do not exist and then claim in his usual childish manner that only he is right.

 As you say they were observations and not policy or factual


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are official survey data compiled by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes. I somehow missed your whining in reference to your so-called "official" data. "Offical".... because I say so.
> 
> Such an angry, Monty.
> 
> What a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not angry at all, just enjoying watching you try to present propaganda as fact while denying official census data.  You just don't get it.  Official census data as complied by the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry archived in the Berman Jewish Policy Archive, is fact.  Note, it is a Jewish archive you idiot.
Click to expand...







 And where is your actual official census data, not the abridged copy from your work of fiction you pass of as being real. The Anglo-American commission did not conduct any census, they just sent out arab muslims to gather details and then collated them for publication in a work of fiction. The actual ottoman census shows the real numbers, and this is ignored by you as it puts the Jews in the majority


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty obvious that these subhumans who try to deny the right of self-determination for Jewish people do not apply the same standards to any other group.
> 
> Israel is a tiny little sliver of land on the world stage, surrounded by an enormous expanse of land controlled by those who persecute them.
> 
> I can only hope that these subhumans who join in their persecution are reincarnated as cockroaches, because that is all they deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Moronic Prose,written and signed by a Zionist...now you see what I mean about these wretches.steve
Click to expand...







 No cold hard facts that hit home and show that anti zionism is the new anti semitism.

 How many times have you denied the Jews the rights under International laws they are allowed. The right to a homeland, the right to live in peace, the right to defend against attack, the right to protect themselves. And claimed that you only mean the Zionists which is another breach of the Jews rights as they have the right to follow what ever political ideology they want.


* Zionism                     a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*


Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are official survey data compiled by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes. I somehow missed your whining in reference to your so-called "official" data. "Offical".... because I say so.
> 
> Such an angry, Monty.
> 
> What a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not angry at all, just enjoying watching you try to present propaganda as fact while denying official census data.  You just don't get it.  Official census data as complied by the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry archived in the Berman Jewish Policy Archive, is fact.  Note, it is a Jewish archive you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my. You're infuriated. Your claim to "official" data is always a hoot when you are the one adding the "official'ness" slogan. Obviously you're unable to address the facts I gave you regarding the arab invasion of what you believe to be the "country of Pal'istan", so you are left to your usual retreat of stomping your feet like a petulant child. Note, I gave you a reference to a Jewish archive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another Zionist inspired crock of Shit...........you are not fit to lick Montes feet...........FULL STOP...theliq Viva Palestine,Viva Israel
Click to expand...








 *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*


Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites


----------



## Phoenall

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the English promised land which was not theirs to the Jews and as far away from England the better. Antisemitism among the English ruling class is endemic. History proves me right. As for Muslims, the English have voted to leave the European Union in large part due to their xenophobia and racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww4S4a3-J4c
Click to expand...








 Not even a peep when it is shown that Jordan a palestinian nation had in one month mass murdered 50,000 unarmed palestinians locked in concentration camps. No cries of apartheid or genocide when this took place, and when brought up is completely ignored because it puts the whole situation in a different light.


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite apparent, Eloy, that anti-Semitism is quite endemic among many posters on these various forums.  They are too interested in posting negatively about the Jews and Israel instead of concentrating on what is happening in other areas of the huge Middle East where hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions have been displaced.  As for England, do you really think the English like having "no go" areas in their country where even the police and fire department are afraid to go?  BYW, Eloy, could you prove to us that the English wanted the Jews as far away from them as possible?
> 
> 
> I certainly hope that Eloy  has sent in his contribution to one of the relief organizations helping the Muslims who have been displaced in the Middle East even though they haven't been displaced because of the Jews..  This is one of the worst calamities since World War II with so many displaced people, and yet the anti-Semites don't want to recognize this, but only want to concentrate on one tiny area of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.
Click to expand...








 It does when the other M.E. nations are the ones that are in breach of the law and not Israel. It is not Israel that fires illegal weapons from schools, hospitals, mosques and civilian areas  yet they are blamed for the deaths of the few civilians that are forced to act as human shields. It is not Israel that uses illegal chemical/biological agents against a purely civilian population   yet they are blamed for the deaths of a few extremists caught up in accidents with the weapons. Now you will trot out the usual excuses from the hate sites because you know you dont have a leg to stand on in regards to your hatred


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are official survey data compiled by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes. I somehow missed your whining in reference to your so-called "official" data. "Offical".... because I say so.
> 
> Such an angry, Monty.
> 
> What a hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not angry at all, just enjoying watching you try to present propaganda as fact while denying official census data.  You just don't get it.  Official census data as complied by the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry archived in the Berman Jewish Policy Archive, is fact.  Note, it is a Jewish archive you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my. You're infuriated. Your claim to "official" data is always a hoot when you are the one adding the "official'ness" slogan. Obviously you're unable to address the facts I gave you regarding the arab invasion of what you believe to be the "country of Pal'istan", so you are left to your usual retreat of stomping your feet like a petulant child. Note, I gave you a reference to a Jewish archive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another Zionist inspired crock of Shit...........you are not fit to lick Montes feet...........FULL STOP...theliq Viva Palestine,Viva Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
Click to expand...

And both were CRIMINALS......no hate just fact.....I AM THE MAGNIFICENT


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.
Click to expand...







 Then why wont you accept their rights under international laws to live in Israel free from attack. In fact why do you deny international laws that set out Israel's borders as set down in 1923 and demand that 30% of that land be given to proven illegal arab muslim immigrants.

 Now say you dont demonise the Jews when it is patently obvious that you do it every day


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The charge of antisemitism directed against posters by you and a couple of others is made against anyone who criticizes Israel. I see many posts which criticize the United States President and the US government made almost exclusively by Americans, I suspect. Yet these posters are not tarred with being anti-American. Criticizing the government and politicians is normal in western democracies but to criticize the state of Israel which boasts of being a democracy will incur the accusation of being antisemitic. It is called "the new antisemitism" in order to silence criticism. You and a couple of others need to understand that the criticism of a country's policies and its politicians is normal in a free society and a free message board such as this one.
> 
> 
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does when the other M.E. nations are the ones that are in breach of the law and not Israel. It is not Israel that fires illegal weapons from schools, hospitals, mosques and civilian areas  yet they are blamed for the deaths of the few civilians that are forced to act as human shields. It is not Israel that uses illegal chemical/biological agents against a purely civilian population   yet they are blamed for the deaths of a few extremists caught up in accidents with the weapons. Now you will trot out the usual excuses from the hate sites because you know you dont have a leg to stand on in regards to your hatred
Click to expand...

? 


Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty obvious that these subhumans who try to deny the right of self-determination for Jewish people do not apply the same standards to any other group.
> 
> Israel is a tiny little sliver of land on the world stage, surrounded by an enormous expanse of land controlled by those who persecute them.
> 
> I can only hope that these subhumans who join in their persecution are reincarnated as cockroaches, because that is all they deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> Classic Moronic Prose,written and signed by a Zionist...now you see what I mean about these wretches.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No cold hard facts that hit home and show that anti zionism is the new anti semitism.
> 
> How many times have you denied the Jews the rights under International laws they are allowed. The right to a homeland, the right to live in peace, the right to defend against attack, the right to protect themselves. And claimed that you only mean the Zionists which is another breach of the Jews rights as they have the right to follow what ever political ideology they want.
> 
> 
> * Zionism                     a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
Click to expand...

Jews are fine Zionism is Terrorism and SHIT.......I AM THE MAGNIFICENT


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yes. I somehow missed your whining in reference to your so-called "official" data. "Offical".... because I say so.
> 
> Such an angry, Monty.
> 
> What a hoot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not angry at all, just enjoying watching you try to present propaganda as fact while denying official census data.  You just don't get it.  Official census data as complied by the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry archived in the Berman Jewish Policy Archive, is fact.  Note, it is a Jewish archive you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, my. You're infuriated. Your claim to "official" data is always a hoot when you are the one adding the "official'ness" slogan. Obviously you're unable to address the facts I gave you regarding the arab invasion of what you believe to be the "country of Pal'istan", so you are left to your usual retreat of stomping your feet like a petulant child. Note, I gave you a reference to a Jewish archive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another Zionist inspired crock of Shit...........you are not fit to lick Montes feet...........FULL STOP...theliq Viva Palestine,Viva Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And both were CRIMINALS......no hate just fact.....I AM THE MAGNIFICENT
Click to expand...








 Full of hatred and lies as you make a claim that has no backing from any source other than the hate sites



 *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*


Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your evidence to support your LIES that Zionists are terrorists. Not one piece of evidence as you know they all trace back to the hate sites you frequent.
> 
> How can Turks, pakistanis and afghani's be semitic ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only A Fool Would Lean Upon,Lean Upon His Own Misunderstandings....................Only theliq Brought The Truth,Brought The Truth,In Due Season
> 
> Plenty of sites to view ZIONIST TERRORISM...just type in Zionist Terrorism,if you have the desire because you can take your pick,buggered if I'm going to keep doing it for you,time and time again.
> 
> 
> As for the Turkic(Not Turks from Turkey,you moron) Tribes and others from Central Asia who converted to be Jews(who invariably also become Zionists) Can NEVER BE SEMITIC,but they are Synthetic Jews.........Where in my prose did I mention Turks,Pakistanis and Afghans?????Methinks you are loopy
> 
> PS..unlike YOU...I DON'T DO HATE SITES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make the claim then it is up to you to produce the evidence. The reason you dont is because all your evidence goes back to the hate sites,
> 
> YOU DO HATE SITES ALL THE TIME AS PROVEN BY YOUR WORDS LIFTED VERBATIM FROM THEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> O Pheo IF ONLY THAT WERE TRUE.....I TOLD YOU I DON'T DO HATE SITES,I JUST REACT TO FACTS AND THE TRUTH...I AM MY OWN MAN AS YOU KNOW,STEVE........Zionist TERRORISM IS BAD,BAD,BAD....BY THE WAY ANTI ZIONISM IS NOT ANTI SEMITISM...AS YOU KNOW...I WANT YOU TO SEE ME AS YOUR CONSCIENCE PHEO,BECAUSE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BECOME....I DON'T HATE YOU...I CARE FOR YOU,AN ENEMY(IN YOUR MIND) CAN BECOME YOUR GREATEST FRIEND..........steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have traced your very own words back to hate sites and posted the results on here. The words were verbatim as in no changes to those posted on the hate sites, making you a LIAR and a 3 time loser.   You are nothing to me other than a loud mouth uneducated lying POS racist nazi that does not have the guts to do what he tells others to do. The world would be a better place if you and your ilk were euthanised so we did not have to put up with your hatred and mental faillings
Click to expand...

Well a Zionist Wannabee  would say that BUT IT's  ALL     SHIT OFF  A DUCKS  BACK


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does when the other M.E. nations are the ones that are in breach of the law and not Israel. It is not Israel that fires illegal weapons from schools, hospitals, mosques and civilian areas  yet they are blamed for the deaths of the few civilians that are forced to act as human shields. It is not Israel that uses illegal chemical/biological agents against a purely civilian population   yet they are blamed for the deaths of a few extremists caught up in accidents with the weapons. Now you will trot out the usual excuses from the hate sites because you know you dont have a leg to stand on in regards to your hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty obvious that these subhumans who try to deny the right of self-determination for Jewish people do not apply the same standards to any other group.
> 
> Israel is a tiny little sliver of land on the world stage, surrounded by an enormous expanse of land controlled by those who persecute them.
> 
> I can only hope that these subhumans who join in their persecution are reincarnated as cockroaches, because that is all they deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Classic Moronic Prose,written and signed by a Zionist...now you see what I mean about these wretches.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No cold hard facts that hit home and show that anti zionism is the new anti semitism.
> 
> How many times have you denied the Jews the rights under International laws they are allowed. The right to a homeland, the right to live in peace, the right to defend against attack, the right to protect themselves. And claimed that you only mean the Zionists which is another breach of the Jews rights as they have the right to follow what ever political ideology they want.
> 
> 
> * Zionism                     a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jews are fine Zionism is Terrorism and SHIT.......I AM THE MAGNIFICENT
Click to expand...









*Jews are Zionists and dont forget it. it is islam that is terrorism and worse than shit*



* Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.


Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites*


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not angry at all, just enjoying watching you try to present propaganda as fact while denying official census data.  You just don't get it.  Official census data as complied by the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry archived in the Berman Jewish Policy Archive, is fact.  Note, it is a Jewish archive you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my. You're infuriated. Your claim to "official" data is always a hoot when you are the one adding the "official'ness" slogan. Obviously you're unable to address the facts I gave you regarding the arab invasion of what you believe to be the "country of Pal'istan", so you are left to your usual retreat of stomping your feet like a petulant child. Note, I gave you a reference to a Jewish archive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another Zionist inspired crock of Shit...........you are not fit to lick Montes feet...........FULL STOP...theliq Viva Palestine,Viva Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And both were CRIMINALS......no hate just fact.....I AM THE MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full of hatred and lies as you make a claim that has no backing from any source other than the hate sites
> 
> 
> 
> *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
Click to expand...

Eloy and I are giving you the run around today and you are having a mental meltdown.....I suggest Hoss puts his DICK IN YOUR RIGHT EAR,HE MAY BE ABLE TO FCUK SOME SENSE INTO YOU BOY


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your evidence to support your LIES that Zionists are terrorists. Not one piece of evidence as you know they all trace back to the hate sites you frequent.
> 
> How can Turks, pakistanis and afghani's be semitic ?
> 
> 
> 
> Only A Fool Would Lean Upon,Lean Upon His Own Misunderstandings....................Only theliq Brought The Truth,Brought The Truth,In Due Season
> 
> Plenty of sites to view ZIONIST TERRORISM...just type in Zionist Terrorism,if you have the desire because you can take your pick,buggered if I'm going to keep doing it for you,time and time again.
> 
> 
> As for the Turkic(Not Turks from Turkey,you moron) Tribes and others from Central Asia who converted to be Jews(who invariably also become Zionists) Can NEVER BE SEMITIC,but they are Synthetic Jews.........Where in my prose did I mention Turks,Pakistanis and Afghans?????Methinks you are loopy
> 
> PS..unlike YOU...I DON'T DO HATE SITES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make the claim then it is up to you to produce the evidence. The reason you dont is because all your evidence goes back to the hate sites,
> 
> YOU DO HATE SITES ALL THE TIME AS PROVEN BY YOUR WORDS LIFTED VERBATIM FROM THEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> O Pheo IF ONLY THAT WERE TRUE.....I TOLD YOU I DON'T DO HATE SITES,I JUST REACT TO FACTS AND THE TRUTH...I AM MY OWN MAN AS YOU KNOW,STEVE........Zionist TERRORISM IS BAD,BAD,BAD....BY THE WAY ANTI ZIONISM IS NOT ANTI SEMITISM...AS YOU KNOW...I WANT YOU TO SEE ME AS YOUR CONSCIENCE PHEO,BECAUSE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BECOME....I DON'T HATE YOU...I CARE FOR YOU,AN ENEMY(IN YOUR MIND) CAN BECOME YOUR GREATEST FRIEND..........steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have traced your very own words back to hate sites and posted the results on here. The words were verbatim as in no changes to those posted on the hate sites, making you a LIAR and a 3 time loser.   You are nothing to me other than a loud mouth uneducated lying POS racist nazi that does not have the guts to do what he tells others to do. The world would be a better place if you and your ilk were euthanised so we did not have to put up with your hatred and mental faillings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well a Zionist Wannabee  would say that BUT IT's  ALL     SHIT OFF  A DUCKS  BACK
Click to expand...








 So you dont deny it now the evidence is about to be posted.


 No wannabee but a fully paid up Zionist in the true meaning of the word. Not your hate site definition that has been attacked on all fronts and shown to be from neo nazi's re-enacting their glory days of the 1930's



 *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*


Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my. You're infuriated. Your claim to "official" data is always a hoot when you are the one adding the "official'ness" slogan. Obviously you're unable to address the facts I gave you regarding the arab invasion of what you believe to be the "country of Pal'istan", so you are left to your usual retreat of stomping your feet like a petulant child. Note, I gave you a reference to a Jewish archive.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another Zionist inspired crock of Shit...........you are not fit to lick Montes feet...........FULL STOP...theliq Viva Palestine,Viva Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And both were CRIMINALS......no hate just fact.....I AM THE MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full of hatred and lies as you make a claim that has no backing from any source other than the hate sites
> 
> 
> 
> *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eloy and I are giving you the run around today and you are having a mental meltdown.....I suggest Hoss puts his DICK IN YOUR RIGHT EAR,HE MAY BE ABLE TO FCUK SOME SENSE INTO YOU BOY
Click to expand...








 What a self centred pompous ass you are. It is you having the mental breakdown as you cant stand the truth




Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.


Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it is really difficult for some people to criticize what is going on in Muslim countries because their main raison de etre  is to criticize Israel because it is a Jewish state.  The readers of this forum (unless they are anti-Semites themselves) can see right through a poster  who only wants to criticize Israel  and stays silent on the atrocities happening in Muslim countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who are "some people", I wonder.
Click to expand...








 Look in the mirror and you will see one of them


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yowsuh, boss. Criticism is normal and healthy but jew-hate just ain't kosher.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the Clods on here assume wrongly that criticism of Zionists is Anti-Semitic,it is not but it is a Critique of Zionist Terrorism Only,...nothing to do with Anti-Semitism..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it is really difficult for some people to criticize what is going on in Muslim countries because their main raison de etre  is to criticize Israel because it is a Jewish state.  The readers of this forum (unless they are anti-Semites themselves) can see right through a poster  who only wants to criticize Israel  and stays silent on the atrocities happening in Muslim countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well this is an Is/Pal thread but if you want a response on ISIS etc these Muslim ASSHOLES are beyond REDEMPTION Hoss Syria
Click to expand...







 How about the palestinian mass murder of innocents in one moth, care to equate that with the defense of Israel in numbers killed ?


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel.  (Your post #207 in this thread.)  It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.
> 
> To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.* It's true, that it was promised to us by God, but why should they care?"   Goldmann, Nahum: _Le Paradoxe Juif_ (The Jewish Paradox), p.121
> It is facts which demonize some Jews, not me when I quote the Zionist founder of Israel.
Click to expand...







And where is the supporting evidence for some work of fiction, is that why you haven't put a link up ?

 And the correct quote is   " they see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why should they accept that "


Just as the first nations view you the same way as you came and took their lands.  And you dont quote the Zionist founder of Israel you quote someone else all together hoping that we will not see through your smokescreen


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel.  (Your post #207 in this thread.)  It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.
> 
> To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well prior to 1948 it was not Jewish land.......that the rest of the world wanted to solve the Jewish question,the Jews were offered lots of places in the world prior to taking over parts of Palestine,it was the Zionists that wanted only parts/all of Palestine(which Israel have expanded over the years) So you may not call it theft but others disagree.....Eloy was NOT repeat NOT DEMONIZING Jews at all but stating the facts,what he should have mentioned is the barbaric way towards the Palestinian,the inhumanity of the Zionists have treated and continued to treat the Palestinians......if the boot was on the other foot,no doubt you would be the first to squeal and therein lies your total Hypocricy......Anyway I will give you a scenario,if the Palestinians say with Russia and China decided to ensure the Palestinians get their land back(like Israel and America have done)....would you then think that OK,just doing the same as the Israel/America did ???????thought not.
Click to expand...







 Read the LoN treaties that say it was, I have posted them often enough for the other idiots to read and understand. Would the arab muslims accept other lands in exchange for the lands they stole, or would they demand they be given what their god told them was theirs ?
Look at the real history and you will see that the Jews were treated a lot worse by arab muslims and Christians over the last 2,000 years. How they were beaten, murdered, children taken away as sex slaves, evicted from their homes and even attempts at wiping them out completely. So they have been treated  much worse than any other group of people. All the Jews have done to the arab muslims is defend against their terrorism, violence and war crimes that the UN should have clamped down on in 1947 when the arab muslims invaded with the intent of wiping out the Jews. 
Facts that you ignore because they destroy your whole reason for posting on here .
 Of course not as it was never arab muslim land in the first place, and they lost any rights to claim it when they sided with the Ottomans in 1914. They had to hand over ownership to the LoN in reparations, and the LoN handed over ownwership to the Jews. But since when hve Syrians, Egyptians and Iraqi's that migrated illegally to palestine had the right to claim the land ?


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you been keeping up?  Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.  You will find posters constantly criticizing Israel, but there is not a peep out of them as to what is happening in other Middle East countries where people are treated  terribly as well  as  Middle East countries where people are being murdered on an enormous scale.
> 
> 
> 
> Failure to mention other Middle East countries does not invalidate criticism of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess it is really difficult for some people to criticize what is going on in Muslim countries because their main raison de etre  is to criticize Israel because it is a Jewish state.  The readers of this forum (unless they are anti-Semites themselves) can see right through a poster  who only wants to criticize Israel  and stays silent on the atrocities happening in Muslim countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well this is an Is/Pal thread but if you want a response on ISIS etc these Muslim ASSHOLES are beyond REDEMPTION Hoss Syria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe Australia doesn't think the same way you do about those "big, bad Zionists" so let's show how they are getting together with Israel.
> 
> Launching a new chapter in Australia–Israel relations | The Strategist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until the last election Australia supported the Palestinians and Israel as I do.....it is only since a year ago approx., that things were reversed,so you got that wrong Hoss....The Jewish/Zionist Lobby here as in America are very powerful....that some ultra conservatives in our Conservative Government are lap dogs to the Zionists that does not represent the Australian people at all......you should note that this reversal was done on the quiet or the sly which is A Typical when Zionists are involved.....the Government only got in with the help of some right wing parties and do not have the balance of power at all in the senate,they need the help of minor parties in that house to get any legislation through,not much gets through and has not for about a year now......it is as they say a hung parliament...steve
Click to expand...








*Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*


Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.
> 
> No. Try to keep up.  I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.
> 
> I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants.  I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements  that is exactly what your saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I know this is a little hard for you to follow.  But try.  Please.
> 
> The Jewish people have rights in the territory in question because they are the oldest, surviving culture which originated on that land and have lived on that land for 3000 years as a recognizable Jewish culture.  As such, they have the right to self-determination on that land.  Part of that self-determination is the return of the diaspora Jews.
> 
> ALL those who came after -- the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Ottomans stole the land from the Jewish people and forcibly removed them from the land.
> 
> It is hypocrisy to say that it was legit for the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Arabs to steal that land from the Jewish people while saying it is not legit for the Jewish people to return to their land.
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Jewish people have rights to the land.  My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.
> 
> Now, you, and a number of your Team Palestine keep saying to me, when I press you, that Israel has a right to exist.  If you believe this to be true -- for the love of all that is sacred in this world -- stop arguing against Israel's right to exist on a thread entitled "Israel's right to exist".
Click to expand...

My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
Cool, then they should return to their homes.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????









 If they were strong enough to do so, and if they wanted another Russo-islamo war like they had in Afghanistan


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel.  (Your post #207 in this thread.)  It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.
> 
> To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.* It's true, that it was promised to us by God, but why should they care?"   Goldmann, Nahum: _Le Paradoxe Juif_ (The Jewish Paradox), p.121
> It is facts which demonize some Jews, not me when I quote the Zionist founder of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Living in Israel
> Zionism
> Politics of Israel
> Palestine
> Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
> 
> 
> ​See this Quora comment by Ariella Ray on an answer that referenced this Ben Gurion quote:
> 
> ....it's important to realize that this was NOT said as any type of admission that Israel 'stole' land from Arabs; Ben-Gurion was speaking rhetorically to a friend about the prospect of peace and deliberately taking the Arab point of view. This is very clear in the book where the quote appears, but if you take the quote out of context, it's not obvious that Ben-Gurion is playing devil's advocate and this is not HIS view of the situation, but the Arab point of view.
> 
> Many, many other statements by B-G make it abundantly clear that Jews/Israelis were NOT to seize land without payment, and his great desire to live in peace with their neighbors.
> 
> Also regarding the quote - There is also some doubt as to whether B-G actually said this, even speaking rhetorically. The only source for the quote is a book written over 25 years later by the one person who B-G (purportedly) made the statement to. I'm not claiming that B-G didn't say this - I wasn't there, and there was no reason for the source of the quote, an ardent Zionist, to lie; I just want to make it clear that to use the quote as anything other than confirmation that B-G understood the Arab point of view is completely wrong.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when the first Zionist delegation visited  1898,they said of Palestine Ït is a Beautiful Bride but Married to another,The Palestinians
Click to expand...







 And a complete crock of shit fabricated by the nazi's to demonise the Jews


""The Bride Is Beautiful, but She Is Married to Another Man": Historical Fabrication and an Anti-Zionist Myth" by Afsai, Shai - Shofar, Vol. 30, Issue 3, Summer 2012 | Online Research Library: Questia

 Although Married to Another Man has twenty-six pages of endnotes, Karmi provides no source for this tale of unnamed nineteenth-century Zionists, Viennese rabbis, Jewish explorers, and a lyrically-worded cable from Palestine. Nor is her book the first place she has told it. A similar description appears in her 2004 essay "Vanishing the Palestinians." 



 So easy to destroy your lies pulled from the hate sites isn't it


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you believe "Jews stole their land" you are not respecting the big picture which is:  the Jewish people originated on that land and that land was taken from us.  The land belongs to BOTH peoples for different reasons.
> 
> *And as long as you disregard that fundamental truth and the fundamental rights of BOTH peoples you are demonizing Jews for wanting the same, exact thing that the Palestinian people want.  *
> 
> Self-determination.  Return.  A homeland in the place of our ancestors.
> 
> As long as you criticize the Jewish people for wanting and trying to achieve those things, those exact same things that the Palestinian people want, you are demonizing the Jewish people and not fairly criticizing the actions of the Israeli government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but I do not believe in a god who promises other peoples' land to Jews or anyone else.
Click to expand...







 Here you go again with the hate site mantra that is never used by the Jews. Try reading the reply again and this time turn of your racist side of your brain


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that's Holy, no one objectively criticizes Israel or Israel's government on these threads.  They just demonize the Jewish people.  Look at the title of this thread.  We've spent 29 pages discussing whether or not the State for the Jewish people has a right to exist (have self-determination).  Its patently ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> I have made a few posts in this thread and not one of them demonized the Jewish people. Please stop generalizing and making false statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say that Jews have no connection to the land in question is NOT a valid criticism of Israel.  (Your post #207 in this thread.)  It most certainly is a demonization of the Jewish people as it implies a theft of land to which they have no connection.
> 
> To invalidate the rights of the Jewish people by claiming that the Jewish people stole land or has no right to exist is a demonization of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.* It's true, that it was promised to us by God, but why should they care?"   Goldmann, Nahum: _Le Paradoxe Juif_ (The Jewish Paradox), p.121
> It is facts which demonize some Jews, not me when I quote the Zionist founder of Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Living in Israel
> Zionism
> Politics of Israel
> Palestine
> Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
> 
> 
> ​See this Quora comment by Ariella Ray on an answer that referenced this Ben Gurion quote:
> 
> ....it's important to realize that this was NOT said as any type of admission that Israel 'stole' land from Arabs; Ben-Gurion was speaking rhetorically to a friend about the prospect of peace and deliberately taking the Arab point of view. This is very clear in the book where the quote appears, but if you take the quote out of context, it's not obvious that Ben-Gurion is playing devil's advocate and this is not HIS view of the situation, but the Arab point of view.
> 
> Many, many other statements by B-G make it abundantly clear that Jews/Israelis were NOT to seize land without payment, and his great desire to live in peace with their neighbors.
> 
> Also regarding the quote - There is also some doubt as to whether B-G actually said this, even speaking rhetorically. The only source for the quote is a book written over 25 years later by the one person who B-G (purportedly) made the statement to. I'm not claiming that B-G didn't say this - I wasn't there, and there was no reason for the source of the quote, an ardent Zionist, to lie; I just want to make it clear that to use the quote as anything other than confirmation that B-G understood the Arab point of view is completely wrong.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer to let Ben-Gurion's words speak for themselves. I can read English, you see.
Click to expand...






 Then you will have read that he never said those words, and it is only the hate sites that push them


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.
> 
> No. Try to keep up.  I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.
> 
> I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants.  I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements  that is exactly what your saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I know this is a little hard for you to follow.  But try.  Please.
> 
> The Jewish people have rights in the territory in question because they are the oldest, surviving culture which originated on that land and have lived on that land for 3000 years as a recognizable Jewish culture.  As such, they have the right to self-determination on that land.  Part of that self-determination is the return of the diaspora Jews.
> 
> ALL those who came after -- the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Ottomans stole the land from the Jewish people and forcibly removed them from the land.
> 
> It is hypocrisy to say that it was legit for the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Arabs to steal that land from the Jewish people while saying it is not legit for the Jewish people to return to their land.
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Jewish people have rights to the land.  My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.
> 
> Now, you, and a number of your Team Palestine keep saying to me, when I press you, that Israel has a right to exist.  If you believe this to be true -- for the love of all that is sacred in this world -- stop arguing against Israel's right to exist on a thread entitled "Israel's right to exist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.
Click to expand...







 Yes in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi arabia


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Ben-Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign a contract with Israel. It's normal: *We took their land.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you believe "Jews stole their land" you are not respecting the big picture which is:  the Jewish people originated on that land and that land was taken from us.  The land belongs to BOTH peoples for different reasons.
> 
> *And as long as you disregard that fundamental truth and the fundamental rights of BOTH peoples you are demonizing Jews for wanting the same, exact thing that the Palestinian people want.  *
> 
> Self-determination.  Return.  A homeland in the place of our ancestors.
> 
> As long as you criticize the Jewish people for wanting and trying to achieve those things, those exact same things that the Palestinian people want, you are demonizing the Jewish people and not fairly criticizing the actions of the Israeli government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but I do not believe in a god who promises other peoples' land to Jews or anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither do I.
> 
> I have NEVER argued from the point of view of religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Ben-Gurion did believe the god of the Jews promised them the land of Palestine and this was his justification for establishing a Jewish state there.
Click to expand...







 LINK ?


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.
> 
> No. Try to keep up.  I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.
> 
> I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants.  I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements  that is exactly what your saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I know this is a little hard for you to follow.  But try.  Please.
> 
> The Jewish people have rights in the territory in question because they are the oldest, surviving culture which originated on that land and have lived on that land for 3000 years as a recognizable Jewish culture.  As such, they have the right to self-determination on that land.  Part of that self-determination is the return of the diaspora Jews.
> 
> ALL those who came after -- the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Ottomans stole the land from the Jewish people and forcibly removed them from the land.
> 
> It is hypocrisy to say that it was legit for the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Arabs to steal that land from the Jewish people while saying it is not legit for the Jewish people to return to their land.
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Jewish people have rights to the land.  My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.
> 
> Now, you, and a number of your Team Palestine keep saying to me, when I press you, that Israel has a right to exist.  If you believe this to be true -- for the love of all that is sacred in this world -- stop arguing against Israel's right to exist on a thread entitled "Israel's right to exist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So according to you  as  Native Americans  WE demand all of  North America Back because we first settled there........We according to you have the right to the Land and can kick out,murder etc., anyone there because......that is what the Jews did!!!!!!!!!!!!!Susha,....REALLY...steve
Click to expand...







 No that is your interpretation of the situation, so you can give that right to the palestinians and wipe out the Jews


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO BY YOUR ANALOGY.....IT WOULD BE OK FOR THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE OVER ISRAEL?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume you are responding to me here.
> 
> No. Try to keep up.  I am most certainly not claiming that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives rise to rights over territory.
> 
> I am pointing out the moral failure of those who believe that conquest and invasion and ethnic cleansing gives superior rights to the conquerors, the invaders and the cleansers over the original inhabitants.  I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!By your obsequious statements  that is exactly what your saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I know this is a little hard for you to follow.  But try.  Please.
> 
> The Jewish people have rights in the territory in question because they are the oldest, surviving culture which originated on that land and have lived on that land for 3000 years as a recognizable Jewish culture.  As such, they have the right to self-determination on that land.  Part of that self-determination is the return of the diaspora Jews.
> 
> ALL those who came after -- the Babylonians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Ottomans stole the land from the Jewish people and forcibly removed them from the land.
> 
> It is hypocrisy to say that it was legit for the Babylonians, the Romans, and the Arabs to steal that land from the Jewish people while saying it is not legit for the Jewish people to return to their land.
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Jewish people have rights to the land.  My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.
> 
> Now, you, and a number of your Team Palestine keep saying to me, when I press you, that Israel has a right to exist.  If you believe this to be true -- for the love of all that is sacred in this world -- stop arguing against Israel's right to exist on a thread entitled "Israel's right to exist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.
Click to expand...

 
I totally agree the Palestinians should be able to return to their homes.  Problem is that no surrounding Arab country will grant them a right of return.  Do you think maybe Mecca would be a nice place for a Palestinian state?


----------



## montelatici

The Palestinians, many of them, still have the keys to their homes that are now inhabited by Jews that stole them.  They also have deeds to their homes and their land.  Why should Palestinians that have been dispossessed by the Jews want to go to Mecca anyway, a large proportion of the land-owning Palestinians who were dispossessed were Christian, they wouldn't be let into Mecca.

Why do you despise Christians so much MJB, what have Christians ever done to you?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> The Palestinians, many of them, still have the keys to their homes that are now inhabited by Jews that stole them.  They also have deeds to their homes and their land.  Why should Palestinians that have been dispossessed by the Jews want to go to Mecca anyway, a large proportion of the land-owning Palestinians who were dispossessed were Christian, they wouldn't be let into Mecca.
> 
> Why do you despise Christians so much MJB, what have Christians ever done to you?



Oh get serious.  Show us evidence of their "deeds" to the stolen land their homes were built on.


----------



## montelatici




----------



## montelatici

montelatici said:


> Palestinian family now in Chile.


----------



## montelatici




----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Palestinians, many of them, still have the keys to their homes that are now inhabited by Jews that stole them.  They also have deeds to their homes and their land.  Why should Palestinians that have been dispossessed by the Jews want to go to Mecca anyway, a large proportion of the land-owning Palestinians who were dispossessed were Christian, they wouldn't be let into Mecca.
> 
> Why do you despise Christians so much MJB, what have Christians ever done to you?








 Rusty keys bought from a Bagdad stall in the Souk that never fit any locks. Deeds produced by arafat that were never registered with any land registry. So how do fakes prove that they have a legal right to homes that they have never seen . Remember the arab muslim pointing to a window of a house in Israel and saying that was my bedroom when I was a child. The deeds showed the house was built 5 years after his family left Israel and the window was to the toilet. 
Most of the arab muslims have never set foot in palestine until just recently, and even then only for a visit. 

 You do realise that if you had your way Mecca would revert to being a Jewish city and the Christians would be made welcome. Not all Christians are evil, just the Catholics who sided with Hitler and the mufti in the final solution


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


>









 One of the many forgeries handed out by arafat when he was asked to prove they owned the land. Anything dated after 1948 is suspect as the palestinians passed laws stealing the land from the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


>








 Faked as it is for land stolen from the Jews in 1949


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faked as it is for land stolen from the Jews in 1949
Click to expand...


Don't mind Monte.  We need him here for laughs.


----------



## MJB12741

Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.









 Better to ask where are the deeds from before 1949 when the palestinians evicted the Jews and stole the land


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times.



I would challenge you to think about this in a different way.  Yes, there are some extremely religious Jews who believe in some sort of G-d-given right to the land, but even that is arguable for reasons of complex Jewish theology that I won't bother to get into here.  But for most Jewish people, and certainly for most Israelis, the primary reason for wanting a State is not based on religion or even on ancient history (although that certainly plays a role). It is based on the desire for a national self-determination, the same as the Kurdish people, the Catalan people, the Scots, the Tibetans, the Cypriots, the Serbs, the Croats, the French, the Spanish, the Americans.  It is no different, except in one way.  And that is the need for safety and security.  The Jewish people, quite unique in the world, need a place to be safe.  It is also based on the right of return to an ancestral homeland.  




> I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing.



How so?  Palestinians want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Jewish people want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Palestinian people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Jewish people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Palestinian people want an end to oppression, equality and dignity.  The Jewish people want the same.  

So how are they different?



> I have never demonized Jews ...



"Demonize" is a catch-all word to describe dialogue which is critical of the Jewish people or which denies to the Jewish people things which would normally not be denied to others.  Saying "Jews stole land" is not a criticism of Israel and her government -- it is demonizing the Jewish people.  



> the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution.



Well, in fact, the land was promised to the Jewish people in 1917 -- before there was a Final Solution.  So, your claim is patently false.  And the British did not offer the land to the Jews.  The British offered to assist in facilitating the re-constitution of the Jewish National Home.  The difference is the agency of the Jewish people.  



> The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries.



No, the problem is not the presence of Muslim Arabs.  There is plenty of room for both.  Just look how many millions of people live in Israel and "Palestine" and Gaza today!  Compared to the barely half million in 1900.  Look how many Arab Muslims live in Israel.  The problem is not the presence of either ethnic group. 



> So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs)



The Jewish people wanted a Jewish State, not a mere home among Arabs.  The Arab people wanted a Palestinian State, not a mere home among Jews.  Seems fair, don't you think?



> and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed



It was never the intent to displace or dispossess the Arab people.  (As is evident by the high percentage of Arab people living in Israel).  Any displacement or dispossession which occurred is a DIRECT result of Arab aggression against Jews.  



So, the point of going into all this with you is to point out that demonizing of the Jewish people moves us backwards rather than forward.  It is not valid criticism of Israel to make broad sweeping statements about stolen land and apartheid and occupation and oppression and the lack of rights of the Jewish people.

What discussion should be about are concrete, practical plans to move forward towards a solution to the problem.


----------



## Shusha

theliq said:


> So according to you  as  Native Americans  WE demand all of  North America Back because we first settled there........We according to you have the right to the Land and can kick out,murder etc., anyone there because......that is what the Jews did!!!!!!!!!!!!!Susha,....REALLY...steve



The First Nations peoples of the Americas ABSOLUTELY have the right to self-determination on their ancestral lands.  Without doubt.  But you can not unbreak the egg of the European invasion and colonization of the Americas.  

No one has the "right" to ethnically cleanse a place.  And certainly no one has a "right" to murder anyone, not even while justifying it by calling it "resistance".  

The answer, in the Americas, and in Israel/Palestine is to give BOTH groups self-determination in parts of the territory.  It is that simple.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.



There are practical considerations, of course, but I have always agreed that the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland.


----------



## Hossfly

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians, many of them, still have the keys to their homes that are now inhabited by Jews that stole them.  They also have deeds to their homes and their land.  Why should Palestinians that have been dispossessed by the Jews want to go to Mecca anyway, a large proportion of the land-owning Palestinians who were dispossessed were Christian, they wouldn't be let into Mecca.
> 
> Why do you despise Christians so much MJB, what have Christians ever done to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh get serious.  Show us evidence of their "deeds" to the stolen land their homes were built on.
Click to expand...

Isn't it strange , MJB, that those displaced in Europe by the Nazis and who owned their own  homes are not clamoring for the current  authorities to give them back their homes.  In fact, many people left Iran when the religious nuts came into power, and they had property which of course remained there.  Has anyone seen them whining about all the property they left behind?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.




It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel

Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.

"Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel
> 
> Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.
> 
> "Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
> read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
Click to expand...


So then, bottom line is no official Palestinian land deeds can be presented.  Is that correct?


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians, many of them, still have the keys to their homes that are now inhabited by Jews that stole them.  They also have deeds to their homes and their land.  Why should Palestinians that have been dispossessed by the Jews want to go to Mecca anyway, a large proportion of the land-owning Palestinians who were dispossessed were Christian, they wouldn't be let into Mecca.
> 
> Why do you despise Christians so much MJB, what have Christians ever done to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh get serious.  Show us evidence of their "deeds" to the stolen land their homes were built on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't it strange , MJB, that those displaced in Europe by the Nazis and who owned their own  homes are not clamoring for the current  authorities to give them back their homes.  In fact, many people left Iran when the religious nuts came into power, and they had property which of course remained there.  Has anyone seen them whining about all the property they left behind?
Click to expand...


Many injustices have been cast upon many peoples throughout history with land & homes lost..  Some accept it & move on to better themselves. Others wallow in it keeping themselves miserable for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel
> 
> Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.
> 
> "Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
> read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
Click to expand...


From the link:
"Even before 1917, Jewish and Zionist institutions had purchased large tracts of land in Palestine from absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon. These landlords had previously leased their property to local farmers, but were happy to sell it for the right price, without giving a thought to their tenant farmers. Nevertheless, Palestinians view these sales as more legitimate than those that took place during the British occupation that began in 1917."


But.... but.... but..... but... but how did _The Zionists_ ™ "steal" land they paid for?


Oh my, "...absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon"

But.... but.... but....  but we're told there were no invaders, land grabbers from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel
> 
> Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.
> 
> "Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
> read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the link:
> "Even before 1917, Jewish and Zionist institutions had purchased large tracts of land in Palestine from absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon. These landlords had previously leased their property to local farmers, but were happy to sell it for the right price, without giving a thought to their tenant farmers. Nevertheless, Palestinians view these sales as more legitimate than those that took place during the British occupation that began in 1917."
> 
> 
> But.... but.... but..... but... but how did _The Zionists_ ™ "steal" land they paid for?
> 
> 
> Oh my, "...absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon"
> 
> But.... but.... but....  but we're told there were no invaders, land grabbers from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
Click to expand...


Well then, it seems we can all agree on the land deeds for the Jews.  But still no evidence of Palestinian land deeds.


----------



## fanger

MJB12741 said:


> Many injustices have been cast upon many peoples throughout history with land & homes lost..  Some accept it & move on to better themselves. Others wallow in it keeping themselves miserable for the rest of their lives.


Israel?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel
> 
> Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.
> 
> "Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
> read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
Click to expand...








 And what about the fake entries after 1949 when the arab muslims passed laws disinheriting the Jews illegally as the land was acquired through violence and war.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel
> 
> Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.
> 
> "Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
> read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, bottom line is no official Palestinian land deeds can be presented.  Is that correct?
Click to expand...


Official deeds/land records have been presented.  The Israelis won't recognize them.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel
> 
> Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.
> 
> "Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
> read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, bottom line is no official Palestinian land deeds can be presented.  Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official deeds/land records have been presented.  The Israelis won't recognize them.
Click to expand...

The _official deeds_™ depict precisely the opposite of whine and moaning such that _The Zionists_™ Purchased land from the foreign Arab invaders / land grabbers. The article you posted actually refutes the false and bogus claims you have made. 

I suppose we should say _thanks_ for posting the _official documents™ _which thoroughly refute your claims... so..... thanks.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel
> 
> Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.
> 
> "Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
> read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the link:
> "Even before 1917, Jewish and Zionist institutions had purchased large tracts of land in Palestine from absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon. These landlords had previously leased their property to local farmers, but were happy to sell it for the right price, without giving a thought to their tenant farmers. Nevertheless, Palestinians view these sales as more legitimate than those that took place during the British occupation that began in 1917."
> 
> 
> But.... but.... but..... but... but how did _The Zionists_ ™ "steal" land they paid for?
> 
> 
> Oh my, "...absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon"
> 
> But.... but.... but....  but we're told there were no invaders, land grabbers from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
Click to expand...


The Zionist invaders did not buy very much land from these absentee landlords in the grand scheme of things, as the official cadastral map shows.


----------



## montelatici

As for the exact calculation:

From the Survey of Palestine Vol. 2  Page 566


A Survey of Palestine Volume 2  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> As for the exact calculation:
> 
> From the Survey of Palestine Vol. 2  Page 566
> 
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 2  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> View attachment 96697



However, as we know:

The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library

*A Population Boom *
As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947. 

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943. 

The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel
> 
> Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.
> 
> "Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
> read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From the link:
> "Even before 1917, Jewish and Zionist institutions had purchased large tracts of land in Palestine from absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon. These landlords had previously leased their property to local farmers, but were happy to sell it for the right price, without giving a thought to their tenant farmers. Nevertheless, Palestinians view these sales as more legitimate than those that took place during the British occupation that began in 1917."
> 
> 
> But.... but.... but..... but... but how did _The Zionists_ ™ "steal" land they paid for?
> 
> 
> Oh my, "...absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon"
> 
> But.... but.... but....  but we're told there were no invaders, land grabbers from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionist invaders did not buy very much land from these absentee landlords in the grand scheme of things, as the official cadastral map shows.
> 
> 
> View attachment 96696
Click to expand...

Well, yes, that's another cut and paste map that with pretty colors, makes an impression on people with your limitations.

Anyway, thanks again for the article you posted earlier, refuting your persistent whining about stolen land™ (land purchased by The Zionists™), and describing how Arab-Moslem land grabbers / invaders from Syria and Lebanon controlled the territory.


----------



## montelatici

Just facts.  What a hoot you are.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Just facts.  What a hoot you are.


Yes. Just the facts. Thanks for posting the article that officially refutes your argument. 

You're a hoot.


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you  as  Native Americans  WE demand all of  North America Back because we first settled there........We according to you have the right to the Land and can kick out,murder etc., anyone there because......that is what the Jews did!!!!!!!!!!!!!Susha,....REALLY...steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The First Nations peoples of the Americas ABSOLUTELY have the right to self-determination on their ancestral lands.  Without doubt.  But you can not unbreak the egg of the European invasion and colonization of the Americas.
> 
> No one has the "right" to ethnically cleanse a place.  And certainly no one has a "right" to murder anyone, not even while justifying it by calling it "resistance".
> 
> The answer, in the Americas, and in Israel/Palestine is to give BOTH groups self-determination in parts of the territory.  It is that simple.
Click to expand...

Trouble is  the Jews and Americans  NEVER WILL....so that blows your theory out of the water


----------



## theliq

YAWN


Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another Zionist inspired crock of Shit...........you are not fit to lick Montes feet...........FULL STOP...theliq Viva Palestine,Viva Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And both were CRIMINALS......no hate just fact.....I AM THE MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full of hatred and lies as you make a claim that has no backing from any source other than the hate sites
> 
> 
> 
> *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eloy and I are giving you the run around today and you are having a mental meltdown.....I suggest Hoss puts his DICK IN YOUR RIGHT EAR,HE MAY BE ABLE TO FCUK SOME SENSE INTO YOU BOY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a self centred pompous ass you are. It is you having the mental breakdown as you cant stand the truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
Click to expand...


YAWN


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your evidence to support your LIES that Zionists are terrorists. Not one piece of evidence as you know they all trace back to the hate sites you frequent.
> 
> How can Turks, pakistanis and afghani's be semitic ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only A Fool Would Lean Upon,Lean Upon His Own Misunderstandings....................Only theliq Brought The Truth,Brought The Truth,In Due Season
> 
> Plenty of sites to view ZIONIST TERRORISM...just type in Zionist Terrorism,if you have the desire because you can take your pick,buggered if I'm going to keep doing it for you,time and time again.
> 
> 
> As for the Turkic(Not Turks from Turkey,you moron) Tribes and others from Central Asia who converted to be Jews(who invariably also become Zionists) Can NEVER BE SEMITIC,but they are Synthetic Jews.........Where in my prose did I mention Turks,Pakistanis and Afghans?????Methinks you are loopy
> 
> PS..unlike YOU...I DON'T DO HATE SITES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make the claim then it is up to you to produce the evidence. The reason you dont is because all your evidence goes back to the hate sites,
> 
> YOU DO HATE SITES ALL THE TIME AS PROVEN BY YOUR WORDS LIFTED VERBATIM FROM THEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> O Pheo IF ONLY THAT WERE TRUE.....I TOLD YOU I DON'T DO HATE SITES,I JUST REACT TO FACTS AND THE TRUTH...I AM MY OWN MAN AS YOU KNOW,STEVE........Zionist TERRORISM IS BAD,BAD,BAD....BY THE WAY ANTI ZIONISM IS NOT ANTI SEMITISM...AS YOU KNOW...I WANT YOU TO SEE ME AS YOUR CONSCIENCE PHEO,BECAUSE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BECOME....I DON'T HATE YOU...I CARE FOR YOU,AN ENEMY(IN YOUR MIND) CAN BECOME YOUR GREATEST FRIEND..........steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have traced your very own words back to hate sites and posted the results on here. The words were verbatim as in no changes to those posted on the hate sites, making you a LIAR and a 3 time loser.   You are nothing to me other than a loud mouth uneducated lying POS racist nazi that does not have the guts to do what he tells others to do. The world would be a better place if you and your ilk were euthanised so we did not have to put up with your hatred and mental faillings
Click to expand...

Where  Bigmouth


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Yes, yes, only you know the truth...  I've seen that syndrome before.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had the clown  read some of Lord Kichener writings before posting his usual bullshit he would not have made the usual fool of himself.
> https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/portal/files/16903387/RichmondPhD.pdf
> 
> The U.S. saw it the same way, as stated in this congressional hearing:
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Lord Kichener, who was killed some months died before the Balfour Declaration was even written and two years prior to the Mudros Armistice, was just one of many aristocrats that expressed opinions on the subject.  Just about every Britain understood that the Suez Canal _(a British Engineering investment and venture to expand trade and commerce)_ was of a strategic and vital interest to the Empire and central Europe; and had been so for more than half a century.  So, when the Middle East was spoke of, in those days its principle features were that of the Suez Canal and The Dardanelles giving entrance to the Sea of Marmara.
> 
> Lord Kichener was a very senior Colonial Administrator.  It was not uncommon for such Political-Military Officers to link all foreign strategic interests in terms of elements within the Empire.   While at the time of Lord Kichener death the Middle East was just becoming an area of concern, the British Empire had control of Egypt; but the Ottoman Empire had control of the opposite bank of the Suez.  And in the eyes of the British Empire, the Ottoman influence of the Suez was danger; both politically and commercially.
> 
> At the conclusion of Hostilities in the Great War, the British Empire's financial resources were spread across vast areas in the world.  The British saw an opportunity to better finance the repair and maintenance to the  infrastructure of the Palestine General Area Jewish Economic Investment.
> 
> Using Jewish economic Power and engineering organization turned out to be a double-edged sword.  This brough a gradual increase in the Jewish Community's influence over the British Administration and an ever increasing friction between Jewish Financial Brokers and the British Military.  _(This is a discussion for another time.)_
> 
> Lord Kichener's observations were valid pre-war observations --- but not policy by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

And Kitchener was  hopeless,enjoyed the pleasures of Buggery when in Egypt,and was a homosexual....never married and was said never loved a woman.....There is a Theory sic that the Zionists had a part in his death....which I find absurd considering  he died at sea after the ship he was on hit a mine.
He had  Australian Breaker Morant Executed.After  this incident(and Galipoli) in every War since Australia had their own Commander in Chief...Thanks for your informative and  excellent post Rocco.....steve


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would challenge you to think about this in a different way.  Yes, there are some extremely religious Jews who believe in some sort of G-d-given right to the land, but even that is arguable for reasons of complex Jewish theology that I won't bother to get into here.  But for most Jewish people, and certainly for most Israelis, the primary reason for wanting a State is not based on religion or even on ancient history (although that certainly plays a role). It is based on the desire for a national self-determination, the same as the Kurdish people, the Catalan people, the Scots, the Tibetans, the Cypriots, the Serbs, the Croats, the French, the Spanish, the Americans.  It is no different, except in one way.  And that is the need for safety and security.  The Jewish people, quite unique in the world, need a place to be safe.  It is also based on the right of return to an ancestral homeland.
Click to expand...

You say that most Jewish people want a state of their own is because they desire (i) "national self-determination". They also want (ii) "safety and security". You also claim that the Jewish people are (iii) "unique", And you assert a (iv) "right of return" to their ancestral homeland.
i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.
ii) Are Jews in Israel safer and more secure than Jews in the USA? Seriously? If having a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Muslim countries while occupying Palestine and dealing with Arab native people with brutality is their idea of "safety and security then I would disagree.
iii) The Jews are no more unique than Catholics in Northern Ireland, Armenians in Turkey, or Roma in Spain. They have no claim on uniqueness than Basques in Spain and France or the Apache nation in the USA.
iv) The Holy Land is the mother of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. No group has a claim on having an exclusive right to live there.




Shusha said:


> I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  Palestinians want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Jewish people want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Palestinian people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Jewish people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Palestinian people want an end to oppression, equality and dignity.  The Jewish people want the same.
> 
> So how are they different?
Click to expand...

Palestinians do not claim a right to the land based on ancient history. Their homeland is where they were born and their claim is therefore stronger than Russian immigrants.



Shusha said:


> I have never demonized Jews ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Demonize" is a catch-all word to describe dialogue which is critical of the Jewish people or which denies to the Jewish people things which would normally not be denied to others.  Saying "Jews stole land" is not a criticism of Israel and her government -- it is demonizing the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.



Shusha said:


> the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in fact, the land was promised to the Jewish people in 1917 -- before there was a Final Solution.  So, your claim is patently false.  And the British did not offer the land to the Jews.  The British offered to assist in facilitating the re-constitution of the Jewish National Home.  The difference is the agency of the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

You are correct; the English wanted the Jews out of Europe before the Final Solution. But antisemitism and the Jewish Question was current in the beginning of the last century and even before that. The Zionists had their eye on Palestine which was in the hands of the English so it was a win-win when the English got the Jews out of Europe and let them have a "home" (not state) in Palestine. After the Final Solution, the destruction of the European Jews made a "home" for survivors seem sensible and it is no coincidence that Israel became a state in 1948 not 1928. The impact of the Final Solution should be noted.



Shusha said:


> The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem is not the presence of Muslim Arabs.  There is plenty of room for both.  Just look how many millions of people live in Israel and "Palestine" and Gaza today!  Compared to the barely half million in 1900.  Look how many Arab Muslims live in Israel.  The problem is not the presence of either ethnic group.
Click to expand...

It becomes a problem when the Zionists wanted a Jewish state rather than sharing the land with the native inhabitants. The influx of European Jews after the Final Solution inspired with the Zionist vision of a Jewish state was a huge problem. The history of Palestine could have been different.



Shusha said:


> So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people wanted a Jewish State, not a mere home among Arabs.  The Arab people wanted a Palestinian State, not a mere home among Jews.  Seems fair, don't you think?
Click to expand...

No; the Palestinian Arabs did not want to be dispossessed and displaced.



Shusha said:


> and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was never the intent to displace or dispossess the Arab people.  (As is evident by the high percentage of Arab people living in Israel).  Any displacement or dispossession which occurred is a DIRECT result of Arab aggression against Jews.
Click to expand...

You are ill-informed on the creation of the Jewish state.  



Shusha said:


> So, the point of going into all this with you is to point out that demonizing of the Jewish people moves us backwards rather than forward.  It is not valid criticism of Israel to make broad sweeping statements about stolen land and apartheid and occupation and oppression and the lack of rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> What discussion should be about are concrete, practical plans to move forward towards a solution to the problem.


Forgive me but the occupation of Palestinian land by the Israelis is the root cause of the current problem today.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are practical considerations, of course, but I have always agreed that the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland.
Click to expand...

These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?

Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia


----------



## theliq

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would challenge you to think about this in a different way.  Yes, there are some extremely religious Jews who believe in some sort of G-d-given right to the land, but even that is arguable for reasons of complex Jewish theology that I won't bother to get into here.  But for most Jewish people, and certainly for most Israelis, the primary reason for wanting a State is not based on religion or even on ancient history (although that certainly plays a role). It is based on the desire for a national self-determination, the same as the Kurdish people, the Catalan people, the Scots, the Tibetans, the Cypriots, the Serbs, the Croats, the French, the Spanish, the Americans.  It is no different, except in one way.  And that is the need for safety and security.  The Jewish people, quite unique in the world, need a place to be safe.  It is also based on the right of return to an ancestral homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that most Jewish people want a state of their own is because they desire (i) "national self-determination". They also want (ii) "safety and security". You also claim that the Jewish people are (iii) "unique", And you assert a (iv) "right of return" to their ancestral homeland.
> i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.
> ii) Are Jews in Israel safer and more secure than Jews in the USA? Seriously? If having a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Muslim countries while occupying Palestine and dealing with Arab native people with brutality is their idea of "safety and security then I would disagree.
> iii) The Jews are no more unique than Catholics in Northern Ireland, Armenians in Turkey, or Roma in Spain. They have no claim on uniqueness than Basques in Spain and France or the Apache nation in the USA.
> iv) The Holy Land is the mother of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. No group has a claim on having an exclusive right to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  Palestinians want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Jewish people want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Palestinian people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Jewish people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Palestinian people want an end to oppression, equality and dignity.  The Jewish people want the same.
> 
> So how are they different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians do not claim a right to the land based on ancient history. Their homeland is where they were born and their claim is therefore stronger than Russian immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never demonized Jews ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Demonize" is a catch-all word to describe dialogue which is critical of the Jewish people or which denies to the Jewish people things which would normally not be denied to others.  Saying "Jews stole land" is not a criticism of Israel and her government -- it is demonizing the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in fact, the land was promised to the Jewish people in 1917 -- before there was a Final Solution.  So, your claim is patently false.  And the British did not offer the land to the Jews.  The British offered to assist in facilitating the re-constitution of the Jewish National Home.  The difference is the agency of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct; the English wanted the Jews out of Europe before the Final Solution. But antisemitism and the Jewish Question was current in the beginning of the last century and even before that. The Zionists had their eye on Palestine which was in the hands of the English so it was a win-win when the English got the Jews out of Europe and let them have a "home" (not state) in Palestine. After the Final Solution, the destruction of the European Jews made a "home" for survivors seem sensible and it is no coincidence that Israel became a state in 1948 not 1928. The impact of the Final Solution should be noted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem is not the presence of Muslim Arabs.  There is plenty of room for both.  Just look how many millions of people live in Israel and "Palestine" and Gaza today!  Compared to the barely half million in 1900.  Look how many Arab Muslims live in Israel.  The problem is not the presence of either ethnic group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It becomes a problem when the Zionists wanted a Jewish state rather than sharing the land with the native inhabitants. The influx of European Jews after the Final Solution inspired with the Zionist vision of a Jewish state was a huge problem. The history of Palestine could have been different.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish people wanted a Jewish State, not a mere home among Arabs.  The Arab people wanted a Palestinian State, not a mere home among Jews.  Seems fair, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No; the Palestinian Arabs did not want to be dispossessed and displaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was never the intent to displace or dispossess the Arab people.  (As is evident by the high percentage of Arab people living in Israel).  Any displacement or dispossession which occurred is a DIRECT result of Arab aggression against Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ill-informed on the creation of the Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the point of going into all this with you is to point out that demonizing of the Jewish people moves us backwards rather than forward.  It is not valid criticism of Israel to make broad sweeping statements about stolen land and apartheid and occupation and oppression and the lack of rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> What discussion should be about are concrete, practical plans to move forward towards a solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but the occupation of Palestinian land by the Israelis is the root cause of the current problem today.
Click to expand...

Outstanding.... Informative,Accurate Post, Eloy


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would challenge you to think about this in a different way.  Yes, there are some extremely religious Jews who believe in some sort of G-d-given right to the land, but even that is arguable for reasons of complex Jewish theology that I won't bother to get into here.  But for most Jewish people, and certainly for most Israelis, the primary reason for wanting a State is not based on religion or even on ancient history (although that certainly plays a role). It is based on the desire for a national self-determination, the same as the Kurdish people, the Catalan people, the Scots, the Tibetans, the Cypriots, the Serbs, the Croats, the French, the Spanish, the Americans.  It is no different, except in one way.  And that is the need for safety and security.  The Jewish people, quite unique in the world, need a place to be safe.  It is also based on the right of return to an ancestral homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that most Jewish people want a state of their own is because they desire (i) "national self-determination". They also want (ii) "safety and security". You also claim that the Jewish people are (iii) "unique", And you assert a (iv) "right of return" to their ancestral homeland.
> i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.
> ii) Are Jews in Israel safer and more secure than Jews in the USA? Seriously? If having a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Muslim countries while occupying Palestine and dealing with Arab native people with brutality is their idea of "safety and security then I would disagree.
> iii) The Jews are no more unique than Catholics in Northern Ireland, Armenians in Turkey, or Roma in Spain. They have no claim on uniqueness than Basques in Spain and France or the Apache nation in the USA.
> iv) The Holy Land is the mother of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. No group has a claim on having an exclusive right to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  Palestinians want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Jewish people want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Palestinian people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Jewish people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Palestinian people want an end to oppression, equality and dignity.  The Jewish people want the same.
> 
> So how are they different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians do not claim a right to the land based on ancient history. Their homeland is where they were born and their claim is therefore stronger than Russian immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never demonized Jews ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Demonize" is a catch-all word to describe dialogue which is critical of the Jewish people or which denies to the Jewish people things which would normally not be denied to others.  Saying "Jews stole land" is not a criticism of Israel and her government -- it is demonizing the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in fact, the land was promised to the Jewish people in 1917 -- before there was a Final Solution.  So, your claim is patently false.  And the British did not offer the land to the Jews.  The British offered to assist in facilitating the re-constitution of the Jewish National Home.  The difference is the agency of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct; the English wanted the Jews out of Europe before the Final Solution. But antisemitism and the Jewish Question was current in the beginning of the last century and even before that. The Zionists had their eye on Palestine which was in the hands of the English so it was a win-win when the English got the Jews out of Europe and let them have a "home" (not state) in Palestine. After the Final Solution, the destruction of the European Jews made a "home" for survivors seem sensible and it is no coincidence that Israel became a state in 1948 not 1928. The impact of the Final Solution should be noted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem is not the presence of Muslim Arabs.  There is plenty of room for both.  Just look how many millions of people live in Israel and "Palestine" and Gaza today!  Compared to the barely half million in 1900.  Look how many Arab Muslims live in Israel.  The problem is not the presence of either ethnic group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It becomes a problem when the Zionists wanted a Jewish state rather than sharing the land with the native inhabitants. The influx of European Jews after the Final Solution inspired with the Zionist vision of a Jewish state was a huge problem. The history of Palestine could have been different.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish people wanted a Jewish State, not a mere home among Arabs.  The Arab people wanted a Palestinian State, not a mere home among Jews.  Seems fair, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No; the Palestinian Arabs did not want to be dispossessed and displaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was never the intent to displace or dispossess the Arab people.  (As is evident by the high percentage of Arab people living in Israel).  Any displacement or dispossession which occurred is a DIRECT result of Arab aggression against Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ill-informed on the creation of the Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the point of going into all this with you is to point out that demonizing of the Jewish people moves us backwards rather than forward.  It is not valid criticism of Israel to make broad sweeping statements about stolen land and apartheid and occupation and oppression and the lack of rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> What discussion should be about are concrete, practical plans to move forward towards a solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but the occupation of Palestinian land by the Israelis is the root cause of the current problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outstanding.... Informative,Accurate Post, Eloy
Click to expand...




​


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would challenge you to think about this in a different way.  Yes, there are some extremely religious Jews who believe in some sort of G-d-given right to the land, but even that is arguable for reasons of complex Jewish theology that I won't bother to get into here.  But for most Jewish people, and certainly for most Israelis, the primary reason for wanting a State is not based on religion or even on ancient history (although that certainly plays a role). It is based on the desire for a national self-determination, the same as the Kurdish people, the Catalan people, the Scots, the Tibetans, the Cypriots, the Serbs, the Croats, the French, the Spanish, the Americans.  It is no different, except in one way.  And that is the need for safety and security.  The Jewish people, quite unique in the world, need a place to be safe.  It is also based on the right of return to an ancestral homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that most Jewish people want a state of their own is because they desire (i) "national self-determination". They also want (ii) "safety and security". You also claim that the Jewish people are (iii) "unique", And you assert a (iv) "right of return" to their ancestral homeland.
> i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.
> ii) Are Jews in Israel safer and more secure than Jews in the USA? Seriously? If having a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Muslim countries while occupying Palestine and dealing with Arab native people with brutality is their idea of "safety and security then I would disagree.
> iii) The Jews are no more unique than Catholics in Northern Ireland, Armenians in Turkey, or Roma in Spain. They have no claim on uniqueness than Basques in Spain and France or the Apache nation in the USA.
> iv) The Holy Land is the mother of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. No group has a claim on having an exclusive right to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  Palestinians want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Jewish people want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Palestinian people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Jewish people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Palestinian people want an end to oppression, equality and dignity.  The Jewish people want the same.
> 
> So how are they different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians do not claim a right to the land based on ancient history. Their homeland is where they were born and their claim is therefore stronger than Russian immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never demonized Jews ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Demonize" is a catch-all word to describe dialogue which is critical of the Jewish people or which denies to the Jewish people things which would normally not be denied to others.  Saying "Jews stole land" is not a criticism of Israel and her government -- it is demonizing the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in fact, the land was promised to the Jewish people in 1917 -- before there was a Final Solution.  So, your claim is patently false.  And the British did not offer the land to the Jews.  The British offered to assist in facilitating the re-constitution of the Jewish National Home.  The difference is the agency of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct; the English wanted the Jews out of Europe before the Final Solution. But antisemitism and the Jewish Question was current in the beginning of the last century and even before that. The Zionists had their eye on Palestine which was in the hands of the English so it was a win-win when the English got the Jews out of Europe and let them have a "home" (not state) in Palestine. After the Final Solution, the destruction of the European Jews made a "home" for survivors seem sensible and it is no coincidence that Israel became a state in 1948 not 1928. The impact of the Final Solution should be noted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem is not the presence of Muslim Arabs.  There is plenty of room for both.  Just look how many millions of people live in Israel and "Palestine" and Gaza today!  Compared to the barely half million in 1900.  Look how many Arab Muslims live in Israel.  The problem is not the presence of either ethnic group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It becomes a problem when the Zionists wanted a Jewish state rather than sharing the land with the native inhabitants. The influx of European Jews after the Final Solution inspired with the Zionist vision of a Jewish state was a huge problem. The history of Palestine could have been different.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish people wanted a Jewish State, not a mere home among Arabs.  The Arab people wanted a Palestinian State, not a mere home among Jews.  Seems fair, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No; the Palestinian Arabs did not want to be dispossessed and displaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was never the intent to displace or dispossess the Arab people.  (As is evident by the high percentage of Arab people living in Israel).  Any displacement or dispossession which occurred is a DIRECT result of Arab aggression against Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ill-informed on the creation of the Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the point of going into all this with you is to point out that demonizing of the Jewish people moves us backwards rather than forward.  It is not valid criticism of Israel to make broad sweeping statements about stolen land and apartheid and occupation and oppression and the lack of rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> What discussion should be about are concrete, practical plans to move forward towards a solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but the occupation of Palestinian land by the Israelis is the root cause of the current problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outstanding.... Informative,Accurate Post, Eloy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel
> 
> Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.
> 
> "Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
> read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, bottom line is no official Palestinian land deeds can be presented.  Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official deeds/land records have been presented.  The Israelis won't recognize them.
Click to expand...








 Niether does the UN as they are all dated after the land theft of 1949, why do you think this is ?


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel
> 
> Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.
> 
> "Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
> read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, bottom line is no official Palestinian land deeds can be presented.  Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official deeds/land records have been presented.  The Israelis won't recognize them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Niether does the UN as they are all dated after the land theft of 1949, why do you think this is ?
Click to expand...

URAJOKE


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> As for the exact calculation:
> 
> From the Survey of Palestine Vol. 2  Page 566
> 
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 2  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> View attachment 96697









 And the previous page that shows the Jews owned most of the land is no longer used by you, why is this monte


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the official LAND REGISTER of Palestinian deeds?  Let's ask Monte.  What fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel
> 
> Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.
> 
> "Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
> read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, bottom line is no official Palestinian land deeds can be presented.  Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official deeds/land records have been presented.  The Israelis won't recognize them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Niether does the UN as they are all dated after the land theft of 1949, why do you think this is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> URAJOKE
Click to expand...







 So you dont believe the UN now when it says that the arab muslims stole the land from the Jews. Up until 1949 the land registry was ran by the British and that shows the land was Jewish. The ottomans had no land registry as such, just a two tier system with the land being owned outright or leased. The majority of the arab muslims leased the land as they could not afford to buy it


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Just facts.  What a hoot you are.









You ignore the same facts when they say you are a LIAR dont you, and this is happening far more often now as we search your links for the truth. THis is what happens when you manipulate links hoping to get away with LIES


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you  as  Native Americans  WE demand all of  North America Back because we first settled there........We according to you have the right to the Land and can kick out,murder etc., anyone there because......that is what the Jews did!!!!!!!!!!!!!Susha,....REALLY...steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The First Nations peoples of the Americas ABSOLUTELY have the right to self-determination on their ancestral lands.  Without doubt.  But you can not unbreak the egg of the European invasion and colonization of the Americas.
> 
> No one has the "right" to ethnically cleanse a place.  And certainly no one has a "right" to murder anyone, not even while justifying it by calling it "resistance".
> 
> The answer, in the Americas, and in Israel/Palestine is to give BOTH groups self-determination in parts of the territory.  It is that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trouble is  the Jews and Americans  NEVER WILL....so that blows your theory out of the water
Click to expand...







 Well the evidence already says you are a LIAR as the palestinians already have self determination in parts of palestine. And you have yet to prove that Israel has stopped this from ever happening. I will leave you to find the relevant articles showing palestinians have free determination


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> YAWN
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
> 
> 
> 
> And both were CRIMINALS......no hate just fact.....I AM THE MAGNIFICENT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full of hatred and lies as you make a claim that has no backing from any source other than the hate sites
> 
> 
> 
> *Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.*
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eloy and I are giving you the run around today and you are having a mental meltdown.....I suggest Hoss puts his DICK IN YOUR RIGHT EAR,HE MAY BE ABLE TO FCUK SOME SENSE INTO YOU BOY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a self centred pompous ass you are. It is you having the mental breakdown as you cant stand the truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
> 
> 
> Just so you will understand what zionism means to all but the hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YAWN
Click to expand...








 Does the truth always bore you ?


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for your evidence to support your LIES that Zionists are terrorists. Not one piece of evidence as you know they all trace back to the hate sites you frequent.
> 
> How can Turks, pakistanis and afghani's be semitic ?
> 
> 
> 
> Only A Fool Would Lean Upon,Lean Upon His Own Misunderstandings....................Only theliq Brought The Truth,Brought The Truth,In Due Season
> 
> Plenty of sites to view ZIONIST TERRORISM...just type in Zionist Terrorism,if you have the desire because you can take your pick,buggered if I'm going to keep doing it for you,time and time again.
> 
> 
> As for the Turkic(Not Turks from Turkey,you moron) Tribes and others from Central Asia who converted to be Jews(who invariably also become Zionists) Can NEVER BE SEMITIC,but they are Synthetic Jews.........Where in my prose did I mention Turks,Pakistanis and Afghans?????Methinks you are loopy
> 
> PS..unlike YOU...I DON'T DO HATE SITES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make the claim then it is up to you to produce the evidence. The reason you dont is because all your evidence goes back to the hate sites,
> 
> YOU DO HATE SITES ALL THE TIME AS PROVEN BY YOUR WORDS LIFTED VERBATIM FROM THEM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> O Pheo IF ONLY THAT WERE TRUE.....I TOLD YOU I DON'T DO HATE SITES,I JUST REACT TO FACTS AND THE TRUTH...I AM MY OWN MAN AS YOU KNOW,STEVE........Zionist TERRORISM IS BAD,BAD,BAD....BY THE WAY ANTI ZIONISM IS NOT ANTI SEMITISM...AS YOU KNOW...I WANT YOU TO SEE ME AS YOUR CONSCIENCE PHEO,BECAUSE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BECOME....I DON'T HATE YOU...I CARE FOR YOU,AN ENEMY(IN YOUR MIND) CAN BECOME YOUR GREATEST FRIEND..........steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have traced your very own words back to hate sites and posted the results on here. The words were verbatim as in no changes to those posted on the hate sites, making you a LIAR and a 3 time loser.   You are nothing to me other than a loud mouth uneducated lying POS racist nazi that does not have the guts to do what he tells others to do. The world would be a better place if you and your ilk were euthanised so we did not have to put up with your hatred and mental faillings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where  Bigmouth
Click to expand...








In many of your anti semitic/anti zionist posts that include cut and paste reports. Very simple to put the cut and paste into google to fing its source


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are practical considerations, of course, but I have always agreed that the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Good question.  It is because no surrounding Arab country will allow the Palestinians a right of return.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are practical considerations, of course, but I have always agreed that the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  It is because no surrounding Arab country will allow the Palestinians a right of return.
Click to expand...


How can they return to a place their ancestors have never been.  Palestinians are from Palestine, you haven't quite grasped that simple concept?


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.



Wow.  Well done.  In a conversation about valid criticism of Israel vs. antisemitism, you bring up the old antisemitic canard of "dual loyalty" and follow it up with an allusion to pre-Holocaust Nazi pogroms.  Well.  Freaking.  Done.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia



The primary one would be the risk of violence, of course.


----------



## montelatici

Well, you can't have it both ways. A religion is a religion and a nationality is a nationality.


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.



Please, do tell.  The "Zionists" are those who believe the Jewish people, just like ALL peoples, have the right to a national self-determination.  You know, ALL peoples, like the Catalans, the Basques, the Tibetans, the First Nations peoples and the Palestinians.  The Jews, I guess, are those who believe that the Jewish people do not have rights like other people do.  Does that sound about right?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary one would be the risk of violence, of course.
Click to expand...

From a bunch of farmers who have not attacked anyone for centuries?


----------



## montelatici

But, these other people are not asking a world power to expel native people in a place on another continent to solve their "Self-Determination" problem.  

And, there is no Jewish "people".  They are a genetically mixed group of many nationalities, ethnic groups and races that happen to have a common religion.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are practical considerations, of course, but I have always agreed that the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  It is because no surrounding Arab country will allow the Palestinians a right of return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can they return to a place their ancestors have never been.  Palestinians are from Palestine, you haven't quite grasped that simple concept?
Click to expand...


HUH?  The Jews are native Palestinians.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are practical considerations, of course, but I have always agreed that the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  It is because no surrounding Arab country will allow the Palestinians a right of return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can they return to a place their ancestors have never been.  Palestinians are from Palestine, you haven't quite grasped that simple concept?
Click to expand...


Well actually, we know from official Ottoman records that the so-called "Pal'istanians" were largely Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / Iand grabbers.

Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary one would be the risk of violence, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From a bunch of farmers who have not attacked anyone for centuries?
Click to expand...

Really? So the islamic terrorists from Hamas and Fatah are just a bunch of farmers?


----------



## montelatici

The piece just confirms that native Palestinian Christian and Muslim farmers were working the land and thus the native people of Palestine.  Nothing about invaders.  The invaders were the Jews that bought the land from non-natives and expelled the native people.

The actual ownership of the land prior to the Jewish invasion is depicted in the UN map above.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> View attachment 96808 The piece just confirms that native Palestinian Christian and Muslim farmers were working the land and thus the native people of Palestine.  Nothing about invaders.  The invaders were the Jews that bought the land from non-natives and expelled the native people.
> 
> The actual ownership of the land prior to the Jewish invasion is depicted in the UN map above.


And that community predates the Ottoman Empire. They had been there for a long time.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> View attachment 96808 The piece just confirms that native Palestinian Christian and Muslim farmers were working the land and thus the native people of Palestine.  Nothing about invaders.  The invaders were the Jews that bought the land from non-natives and expelled the native people.
> 
> The actual ownership of the land prior to the Jewish invasion is depicted in the UN map above.


Your phony map is just one of several you cut and paste. The pretty colors appeal to those with your limitations but you shouldn't expect others to buy into your profound ignorance.

We have the official Ottoman records to refute your silly cutting and pasting of irrelevant pictorials.


Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority


----------



## montelatici

Nothing phony about the map.  It's in the official UN archives. You can see it right on the UN's site. Looks like more than 90% of the land was owned by the native Christians and Muslims in 1945.

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/A73996728BA8B94785256D560060CD1A

And, thanks for linking the Haaretz article that confirms that the land was farmed by Palestinians before the Jews began invading. 

You are a hoot Hollie.


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would challenge you to think about this in a different way.  Yes, there are some extremely religious Jews who believe in some sort of G-d-given right to the land, but even that is arguable for reasons of complex Jewish theology that I won't bother to get into here.  But for most Jewish people, and certainly for most Israelis, the primary reason for wanting a State is not based on religion or even on ancient history (although that certainly plays a role). It is based on the desire for a national self-determination, the same as the Kurdish people, the Catalan people, the Scots, the Tibetans, the Cypriots, the Serbs, the Croats, the French, the Spanish, the Americans.  It is no different, except in one way.  And that is the need for safety and security.  The Jewish people, quite unique in the world, need a place to be safe.  It is also based on the right of return to an ancestral homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that most Jewish people want a state of their own is because they desire (i) "national self-determination". They also want (ii) "safety and security". You also claim that the Jewish people are (iii) "unique", And you assert a (iv) "right of return" to their ancestral homeland.
> i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.
> ii) Are Jews in Israel safer and more secure than Jews in the USA? Seriously? If having a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Muslim countries while occupying Palestine and dealing with Arab native people with brutality is their idea of "safety and security then I would disagree.
> iii) The Jews are no more unique than Catholics in Northern Ireland, Armenians in Turkey, or Roma in Spain. They have no claim on uniqueness than Basques in Spain and France or the Apache nation in the USA.
> iv) The Holy Land is the mother of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. No group has a claim on having an exclusive right to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  Palestinians want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Jewish people want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Palestinian people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Jewish people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Palestinian people want an end to oppression, equality and dignity.  The Jewish people want the same.
> 
> So how are they different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians do not claim a right to the land based on ancient history. Their homeland is where they were born and their claim is therefore stronger than Russian immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never demonized Jews ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Demonize" is a catch-all word to describe dialogue which is critical of the Jewish people or which denies to the Jewish people things which would normally not be denied to others.  Saying "Jews stole land" is not a criticism of Israel and her government -- it is demonizing the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in fact, the land was promised to the Jewish people in 1917 -- before there was a Final Solution.  So, your claim is patently false.  And the British did not offer the land to the Jews.  The British offered to assist in facilitating the re-constitution of the Jewish National Home.  The difference is the agency of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct; the English wanted the Jews out of Europe before the Final Solution. But antisemitism and the Jewish Question was current in the beginning of the last century and even before that. The Zionists had their eye on Palestine which was in the hands of the English so it was a win-win when the English got the Jews out of Europe and let them have a "home" (not state) in Palestine. After the Final Solution, the destruction of the European Jews made a "home" for survivors seem sensible and it is no coincidence that Israel became a state in 1948 not 1928. The impact of the Final Solution should be noted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem is not the presence of Muslim Arabs.  There is plenty of room for both.  Just look how many millions of people live in Israel and "Palestine" and Gaza today!  Compared to the barely half million in 1900.  Look how many Arab Muslims live in Israel.  The problem is not the presence of either ethnic group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It becomes a problem when the Zionists wanted a Jewish state rather than sharing the land with the native inhabitants. The influx of European Jews after the Final Solution inspired with the Zionist vision of a Jewish state was a huge problem. The history of Palestine could have been different.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish people wanted a Jewish State, not a mere home among Arabs.  The Arab people wanted a Palestinian State, not a mere home among Jews.  Seems fair, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No; the Palestinian Arabs did not want to be dispossessed and displaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was never the intent to displace or dispossess the Arab people.  (As is evident by the high percentage of Arab people living in Israel).  Any displacement or dispossession which occurred is a DIRECT result of Arab aggression against Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ill-informed on the creation of the Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the point of going into all this with you is to point out that demonizing of the Jewish people moves us backwards rather than forward.  It is not valid criticism of Israel to make broad sweeping statements about stolen land and apartheid and occupation and oppression and the lack of rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> What discussion should be about are concrete, practical plans to move forward towards a solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but the occupation of Palestinian land by the Israelis is the root cause of the current problem today.
Click to expand...








 All you have is islamonazi propaganda and blood libels. Over the last 100 years or so the Jews have been forced out of every nation they have called home by scum like yourself. The latest is France that is allowing nazism to raise its ugly head again. In the 1930's your people mantra to the Jews was " GO BACK TO PALESTINE WHERE YOU CAME FROM"  now it is " GO BACK TO EUROPE WHERE YOU CAME FROM "    Will you ever make your minds up and settle on one course.


 Most palestinians were born outside of palestine so how does this work, how can they have a greater claim when they were not even born on the land. And you cant claim they were evicted as you disallow that being used for the Jews.

How were the Syrians, Egyptians, Iraqi's and Saudis dispossessed when their homes were still there ?


And you are only going on the LIES posted on the hate sites that say Israel was created to steal the arab lands. Even though there is no evidence of them having owned the lands since 1099

The arab muslims flooded into the land illegally from 1917, so much so that Winston Churchill stated on oath that the arab muslims migrated illegally in such numbers that even world Jewry could not match them


Then you deny the history of the land and the inhabitants as the problem goes all the way back to the 7C when mo'mad started the genocide of the Jews when he wiped out the 3 tribes that owned Medina and gave the command to the muslims to " KILL THE JEWS " and that is what they have done for the last 1400 years. They even have it as part of their charter and in the letter of independence to the UN


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 96808 The piece just confirms that native Palestinian Christian and Muslim farmers were working the land and thus the native people of Palestine.  Nothing about invaders.  The invaders were the Jews that bought the land from non-natives and expelled the native people.
> 
> The actual ownership of the land prior to the Jewish invasion is depicted in the UN map above.
> 
> 
> 
> And that community predates the Ottoman Empire. They had been there for a long time.
Click to expand...




montelatici said:


> Nothing phony about the map.  It's in the official UN archives. You can see it right on the UN's site. Looks like more than 90% of the land was owned by the native Christians and Muslims in 1945.
> 
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/A73996728BA8B94785256D560060CD1A
> 
> And, thanks for linking the Haaretz article that confirms that the land was farmed by Palestinians before the Jews began invading.
> 
> You are a hoot Hollie.


I linked the article so you could educate yourself regarding your profound ignorance about your invention of the "country of Pal'istan". As we know, the people you falsely as Pal'istanians were largely Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters.

It's a hoot watching you stumble along from post to post with the same silly cutting and pasting.


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, do tell.  The "Zionists" are those who believe the Jewish people, just like ALL peoples, have the right to a national self-determination.  You know, ALL peoples, like the Catalans, the Basques, the Tibetans, the First Nations peoples and the Palestinians.  The Jews, I guess, are those who believe that the Jewish people do not have rights like other people do.  Does that sound about right?
Click to expand...

Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this and not only Jews are Zionists either. Even some antisemites are Zionists so long as  their country and preferably their continent is free of Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are practical considerations, of course, but I have always agreed that the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
Click to expand...








Very simple they are persona non gratis due to the fact they took up arms against Israel when the arab league invaded the mandate of palestine. This is covered by IHL and the Geneva conventions, and any people that take up arms lose all rights to claim the land as theirs.

Once again you deny the Jews their rights under International laws because you are so biased and have so much hate.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would challenge you to think about this in a different way.  Yes, there are some extremely religious Jews who believe in some sort of G-d-given right to the land, but even that is arguable for reasons of complex Jewish theology that I won't bother to get into here.  But for most Jewish people, and certainly for most Israelis, the primary reason for wanting a State is not based on religion or even on ancient history (although that certainly plays a role). It is based on the desire for a national self-determination, the same as the Kurdish people, the Catalan people, the Scots, the Tibetans, the Cypriots, the Serbs, the Croats, the French, the Spanish, the Americans.  It is no different, except in one way.  And that is the need for safety and security.  The Jewish people, quite unique in the world, need a place to be safe.  It is also based on the right of return to an ancestral homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that most Jewish people want a state of their own is because they desire (i) "national self-determination". They also want (ii) "safety and security". You also claim that the Jewish people are (iii) "unique", And you assert a (iv) "right of return" to their ancestral homeland.
> i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.
> ii) Are Jews in Israel safer and more secure than Jews in the USA? Seriously? If having a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Muslim countries while occupying Palestine and dealing with Arab native people with brutality is their idea of "safety and security then I would disagree.
> iii) The Jews are no more unique than Catholics in Northern Ireland, Armenians in Turkey, or Roma in Spain. They have no claim on uniqueness than Basques in Spain and France or the Apache nation in the USA.
> iv) The Holy Land is the mother of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. No group has a claim on having an exclusive right to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  Palestinians want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Jewish people want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Palestinian people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Jewish people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Palestinian people want an end to oppression, equality and dignity.  The Jewish people want the same.
> 
> So how are they different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians do not claim a right to the land based on ancient history. Their homeland is where they were born and their claim is therefore stronger than Russian immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never demonized Jews ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Demonize" is a catch-all word to describe dialogue which is critical of the Jewish people or which denies to the Jewish people things which would normally not be denied to others.  Saying "Jews stole land" is not a criticism of Israel and her government -- it is demonizing the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in fact, the land was promised to the Jewish people in 1917 -- before there was a Final Solution.  So, your claim is patently false.  And the British did not offer the land to the Jews.  The British offered to assist in facilitating the re-constitution of the Jewish National Home.  The difference is the agency of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct; the English wanted the Jews out of Europe before the Final Solution. But antisemitism and the Jewish Question was current in the beginning of the last century and even before that. The Zionists had their eye on Palestine which was in the hands of the English so it was a win-win when the English got the Jews out of Europe and let them have a "home" (not state) in Palestine. After the Final Solution, the destruction of the European Jews made a "home" for survivors seem sensible and it is no coincidence that Israel became a state in 1948 not 1928. The impact of the Final Solution should be noted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem is not the presence of Muslim Arabs.  There is plenty of room for both.  Just look how many millions of people live in Israel and "Palestine" and Gaza today!  Compared to the barely half million in 1900.  Look how many Arab Muslims live in Israel.  The problem is not the presence of either ethnic group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It becomes a problem when the Zionists wanted a Jewish state rather than sharing the land with the native inhabitants. The influx of European Jews after the Final Solution inspired with the Zionist vision of a Jewish state was a huge problem. The history of Palestine could have been different.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish people wanted a Jewish State, not a mere home among Arabs.  The Arab people wanted a Palestinian State, not a mere home among Jews.  Seems fair, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No; the Palestinian Arabs did not want to be dispossessed and displaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was never the intent to displace or dispossess the Arab people.  (As is evident by the high percentage of Arab people living in Israel).  Any displacement or dispossession which occurred is a DIRECT result of Arab aggression against Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ill-informed on the creation of the Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the point of going into all this with you is to point out that demonizing of the Jewish people moves us backwards rather than forward.  It is not valid criticism of Israel to make broad sweeping statements about stolen land and apartheid and occupation and oppression and the lack of rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> What discussion should be about are concrete, practical plans to move forward towards a solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but the occupation of Palestinian land by the Israelis is the root cause of the current problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outstanding.... Informative,Accurate Post, Eloy
Click to expand...





That accurate that it became headline news in the Billy Liar tabloid paper, right alongside Elvis found on Mars flipping macey d's and the London bus giving tours onto the dark side of the moon.

In other words it was on a par with your lies AND blood libels lifted straight from the hate sites


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 96808 The piece just confirms that native Palestinian Christian and Muslim farmers were working the land and thus the native people of Palestine.  Nothing about invaders.  The invaders were the Jews that bought the land from non-natives and expelled the native people.
> 
> The actual ownership of the land prior to the Jewish invasion is depicted in the UN map above.
> 
> 
> 
> And that community predates the Ottoman Empire. They had been there for a long time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing phony about the map.  It's in the official UN archives. You can see it right on the UN's site. Looks like more than 90% of the land was owned by the native Christians and Muslims in 1945.
> 
> Palestine: Land ownership by sub-district (1945) - Map (1 August 1950)
> 
> And, thanks for linking the Haaretz article that confirms that the land was farmed by Palestinians before the Jews began invading.
> 
> You are a hoot Hollie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I linked the article so you could educate yourself regarding your profound ignorance about your invention of the "country of Pal'istan". As we know, the people you falsely as Pal'istanians were largely Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters.
> 
> It's a hoot watching you stumble along from post to post with the same silly cutting and pasting.
Click to expand...


Why Israel still allows the squatters to remain after thanking Israel with hate & rocket missiles, I do not understand.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Nothing phony about the map.  It's in the official UN archives. You can see it right on the UN's site. Looks like more than 90% of the land was owned by the native Christians and Muslims in 1945.
> 
> Palestine: Land ownership by sub-district (1945) - Map (1 August 1950)
> 
> And, thanks for linking the Haaretz article that confirms that the land was farmed by Palestinians before the Jews began invading.
> 
> You are a hoot Hollie.








Here we go again with claims that everything that is in the UN archives is official and so must be true, that is until it shows that the arab muslims have no claims to the land and were mostly illegal immigrants


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, do tell.  The "Zionists" are those who believe the Jewish people, just like ALL peoples, have the right to a national self-determination.  You know, ALL peoples, like the Catalans, the Basques, the Tibetans, the First Nations peoples and the Palestinians.  The Jews, I guess, are those who believe that the Jewish people do not have rights like other people do.  Does that sound about right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this and not only Jews are Zionists either. Even some antisemites are Zionists so long as  their country and preferably their continent is free of Jews.
Click to expand...








 BULLSHIT


I know of no Zionist that demands a country exclusively for the Jews, that is actually the islamonazi stance when they demand a juden frie palestine. Only complete morons mix up the two, and these are mostly preachers of hate


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, do tell.  The "Zionists" are those who believe the Jewish people, just like ALL peoples, have the right to a national self-determination.  You know, ALL peoples, like the Catalans, the Basques, the Tibetans, the First Nations peoples and the Palestinians.  The Jews, I guess, are those who believe that the Jewish people do not have rights like other people do.  Does that sound about right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this and not only Jews are Zionists either. Even some antisemites are Zionists so long as  their country and preferably their continent is free of Jews.
Click to expand...







Have you read the definition I post to the moron who claims he is from Oz, no mention of the hate site mantra you post here


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would challenge you to think about this in a different way.  Yes, there are some extremely religious Jews who believe in some sort of G-d-given right to the land, but even that is arguable for reasons of complex Jewish theology that I won't bother to get into here.  But for most Jewish people, and certainly for most Israelis, the primary reason for wanting a State is not based on religion or even on ancient history (although that certainly plays a role). It is based on the desire for a national self-determination, the same as the Kurdish people, the Catalan people, the Scots, the Tibetans, the Cypriots, the Serbs, the Croats, the French, the Spanish, the Americans.  It is no different, except in one way.  And that is the need for safety and security.  The Jewish people, quite unique in the world, need a place to be safe.  It is also based on the right of return to an ancestral homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that most Jewish people want a state of their own is because they desire (i) "national self-determination". They also want (ii) "safety and security". You also claim that the Jewish people are (iii) "unique", And you assert a (iv) "right of return" to their ancestral homeland.
> i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.
> ii) Are Jews in Israel safer and more secure than Jews in the USA? Seriously? If having a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Muslim countries while occupying Palestine and dealing with Arab native people with brutality is their idea of "safety and security then I would disagree.
> iii) The Jews are no more unique than Catholics in Northern Ireland, Armenians in Turkey, or Roma in Spain. They have no claim on uniqueness than Basques in Spain and France or the Apache nation in the USA.
> iv) The Holy Land is the mother of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. No group has a claim on having an exclusive right to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  Palestinians want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Jewish people want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Palestinian people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Jewish people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Palestinian people want an end to oppression, equality and dignity.  The Jewish people want the same.
> 
> So how are they different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians do not claim a right to the land based on ancient history. Their homeland is where they were born and their claim is therefore stronger than Russian immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never demonized Jews ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Demonize" is a catch-all word to describe dialogue which is critical of the Jewish people or which denies to the Jewish people things which would normally not be denied to others.  Saying "Jews stole land" is not a criticism of Israel and her government -- it is demonizing the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in fact, the land was promised to the Jewish people in 1917 -- before there was a Final Solution.  So, your claim is patently false.  And the British did not offer the land to the Jews.  The British offered to assist in facilitating the re-constitution of the Jewish National Home.  The difference is the agency of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct; the English wanted the Jews out of Europe before the Final Solution. But antisemitism and the Jewish Question was current in the beginning of the last century and even before that. The Zionists had their eye on Palestine which was in the hands of the English so it was a win-win when the English got the Jews out of Europe and let them have a "home" (not state) in Palestine. After the Final Solution, the destruction of the European Jews made a "home" for survivors seem sensible and it is no coincidence that Israel became a state in 1948 not 1928. The impact of the Final Solution should be noted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem is not the presence of Muslim Arabs.  There is plenty of room for both.  Just look how many millions of people live in Israel and "Palestine" and Gaza today!  Compared to the barely half million in 1900.  Look how many Arab Muslims live in Israel.  The problem is not the presence of either ethnic group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It becomes a problem when the Zionists wanted a Jewish state rather than sharing the land with the native inhabitants. The influx of European Jews after the Final Solution inspired with the Zionist vision of a Jewish state was a huge problem. The history of Palestine could have been different.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish people wanted a Jewish State, not a mere home among Arabs.  The Arab people wanted a Palestinian State, not a mere home among Jews.  Seems fair, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No; the Palestinian Arabs did not want to be dispossessed and displaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was never the intent to displace or dispossess the Arab people.  (As is evident by the high percentage of Arab people living in Israel).  Any displacement or dispossession which occurred is a DIRECT result of Arab aggression against Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ill-informed on the creation of the Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the point of going into all this with you is to point out that demonizing of the Jewish people moves us backwards rather than forward.  It is not valid criticism of Israel to make broad sweeping statements about stolen land and apartheid and occupation and oppression and the lack of rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> What discussion should be about are concrete, practical plans to move forward towards a solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but the occupation of Palestinian land by the Israelis is the root cause of the current problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outstanding.... Informative,Accurate Post, Eloy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve
Click to expand...







 No he makes you and the rest of team palestine look completely idiotic and like morons


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are practical considerations, of course, but I have always agreed that the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.  It is because no surrounding Arab country will allow the Palestinians a right of return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can they return to a place their ancestors have never been.  Palestinians are from Palestine, you haven't quite grasped that simple concept?
Click to expand...







And it seems that you believe that all arab muslims are from palestine. The truth is the majority of so called palestinians have never even seen palestine. Have you yet grasped that not all palestinians tell the truth, and the majority are LIARS and illegal immigrants


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Well, you can't have it both ways. A religion is a religion and a nationality is a nationality.







And in some cases they are the same thing


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary one would be the risk of violence, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From a bunch of farmers who have not attacked anyone for centuries?
Click to expand...







 Apart from the Jews, Christians, Egyptians, Syrians and themselves many times since they were invented in 627 C.E.

 Unless you have a valid link that says they are a bunch of farmers ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> But, these other people are not asking a world power to expel native people in a place on another continent to solve their "Self-Determination" problem.
> 
> And, there is no Jewish "people".  They are a genetically mixed group of many nationalities, ethnic groups and races that happen to have a common religion.








 According to the islamocatholic morons who believe the Jews killed God


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> View attachment 96808 The piece just confirms that native Palestinian Christian and Muslim farmers were working the land and thus the native people of Palestine.  Nothing about invaders.  The invaders were the Jews that bought the land from non-natives and expelled the native people.
> 
> The actual ownership of the land prior to the Jewish invasion is depicted in the UN map above.










Did you read the legend on your map,    According to palestinian sources


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Nothing phony about the map.  It's in the official UN archives. You can see it right on the UN's site. Looks like more than 90% of the land was owned by the native Christians and Muslims in 1945.
> 
> Palestine: Land ownership by sub-district (1945) - Map (1 August 1950)
> 
> And, thanks for linking the Haaretz article that confirms that the land was farmed by Palestinians before the Jews began invading.
> 
> You are a hoot Hollie.








 So who where the Jews that were already there, you know the ones the Ottomans invited to migrate and close colonise alongside the Jews already there ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are practical considerations, of course, but I have always agreed that the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple they are persona non gratis due to the fact they took up arms against Israel when the arab league invaded the mandate of palestine. This is covered by IHL and the Geneva conventions, and any people that take up arms lose all rights to claim the land as theirs.
> 
> Once again you deny the Jews their rights under International laws because you are so biased and have so much hate.
Click to expand...

Load of Israeli crap.

They were attacked while in their own village before the 1948 war. They were not attacking anybody.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing phony about the map.  It's in the official UN archives. You can see it right on the UN's site. Looks like more than 90% of the land was owned by the native Christians and Muslims in 1945.
> 
> Palestine: Land ownership by sub-district (1945) - Map (1 August 1950)
> 
> And, thanks for linking the Haaretz article that confirms that the land was farmed by Palestinians before the Jews began invading.
> 
> You are a hoot Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who where the Jews that were already there, you know the ones the Ottomans invited to migrate and close colonise alongside the Jews already there ?
Click to expand...

Those who had Turkish citizenship became Palestinian citizens with the rest of the Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary one would be the risk of violence, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From a bunch of farmers who have not attacked anyone for centuries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the Jews, Christians, Egyptians, Syrians and themselves many times since they were invented in 627 C.E.
> 
> Unless you have a valid link that says they are a bunch of farmers ?
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> My belief is that Zionists think they have a right to make a state in Palestine because their god promised it to them millennia ago and because Jews had their kingdom there in Roman times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would challenge you to think about this in a different way.  Yes, there are some extremely religious Jews who believe in some sort of G-d-given right to the land, but even that is arguable for reasons of complex Jewish theology that I won't bother to get into here.  But for most Jewish people, and certainly for most Israelis, the primary reason for wanting a State is not based on religion or even on ancient history (although that certainly plays a role). It is based on the desire for a national self-determination, the same as the Kurdish people, the Catalan people, the Scots, the Tibetans, the Cypriots, the Serbs, the Croats, the French, the Spanish, the Americans.  It is no different, except in one way.  And that is the need for safety and security.  The Jewish people, quite unique in the world, need a place to be safe.  It is also based on the right of return to an ancestral homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that most Jewish people want a state of their own is because they desire (i) "national self-determination". They also want (ii) "safety and security". You also claim that the Jewish people are (iii) "unique", And you assert a (iv) "right of return" to their ancestral homeland.
> i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.
> ii) Are Jews in Israel safer and more secure than Jews in the USA? Seriously? If having a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Muslim countries while occupying Palestine and dealing with Arab native people with brutality is their idea of "safety and security then I would disagree.
> iii) The Jews are no more unique than Catholics in Northern Ireland, Armenians in Turkey, or Roma in Spain. They have no claim on uniqueness than Basques in Spain and France or the Apache nation in the USA.
> iv) The Holy Land is the mother of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. No group has a claim on having an exclusive right to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree with you that Jews and Palestinians want the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?  Palestinians want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Jewish people want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Palestinian people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Jewish people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Palestinian people want an end to oppression, equality and dignity.  The Jewish people want the same.
> 
> So how are they different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians do not claim a right to the land based on ancient history. Their homeland is where they were born and their claim is therefore stronger than Russian immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never demonized Jews ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Demonize" is a catch-all word to describe dialogue which is critical of the Jewish people or which denies to the Jewish people things which would normally not be denied to others.  Saying "Jews stole land" is not a criticism of Israel and her government -- it is demonizing the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the English promised a home for Jews in some place other than England and since they had the mandate over Palestine they offered it to the Jews, primarily Europeans from central and Eastern Europe who had survived the Final Solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, in fact, the land was promised to the Jewish people in 1917 -- before there was a Final Solution.  So, your claim is patently false.  And the British did not offer the land to the Jews.  The British offered to assist in facilitating the re-constitution of the Jewish National Home.  The difference is the agency of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct; the English wanted the Jews out of Europe before the Final Solution. But antisemitism and the Jewish Question was current in the beginning of the last century and even before that. The Zionists had their eye on Palestine which was in the hands of the English so it was a win-win when the English got the Jews out of Europe and let them have a "home" (not state) in Palestine. After the Final Solution, the destruction of the European Jews made a "home" for survivors seem sensible and it is no coincidence that Israel became a state in 1948 not 1928. The impact of the Final Solution should be noted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was that Muslim Arabs with smaller numbers of other groups such as Christians, Jews, and Druze, were already there and had been so for centuries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem is not the presence of Muslim Arabs.  There is plenty of room for both.  Just look how many millions of people live in Israel and "Palestine" and Gaza today!  Compared to the barely half million in 1900.  Look how many Arab Muslims live in Israel.  The problem is not the presence of either ethnic group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It becomes a problem when the Zionists wanted a Jewish state rather than sharing the land with the native inhabitants. The influx of European Jews after the Final Solution inspired with the Zionist vision of a Jewish state was a huge problem. The history of Palestine could have been different.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, Zionists wanted a Jewish state (not a mere home among Arabs)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jewish people wanted a Jewish State, not a mere home among Arabs.  The Arab people wanted a Palestinian State, not a mere home among Jews.  Seems fair, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No; the Palestinian Arabs did not want to be dispossessed and displaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Arabs did not want to be displaced and dispossessed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was never the intent to displace or dispossess the Arab people.  (As is evident by the high percentage of Arab people living in Israel).  Any displacement or dispossession which occurred is a DIRECT result of Arab aggression against Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ill-informed on the creation of the Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the point of going into all this with you is to point out that demonizing of the Jewish people moves us backwards rather than forward.  It is not valid criticism of Israel to make broad sweeping statements about stolen land and apartheid and occupation and oppression and the lack of rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> What discussion should be about are concrete, practical plans to move forward towards a solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but the occupation of Palestinian land by the Israelis is the root cause of the current problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outstanding.... Informative,Accurate Post, Eloy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve
Click to expand...

He might be good to someone with your mind set, but any reasonable posters being on these forums for years and years realizes that it is not the Palestinians he really cares about.  This is his big chance to demonize the Israelis (Jews) while other innocent people are dying in the thousands in the Middle East for whom he could care less.,


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would challenge you to think about this in a different way.  Yes, there are some extremely religious Jews who believe in some sort of G-d-given right to the land, but even that is arguable for reasons of complex Jewish theology that I won't bother to get into here.  But for most Jewish people, and certainly for most Israelis, the primary reason for wanting a State is not based on religion or even on ancient history (although that certainly plays a role). It is based on the desire for a national self-determination, the same as the Kurdish people, the Catalan people, the Scots, the Tibetans, the Cypriots, the Serbs, the Croats, the French, the Spanish, the Americans.  It is no different, except in one way.  And that is the need for safety and security.  The Jewish people, quite unique in the world, need a place to be safe.  It is also based on the right of return to an ancestral homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> You say that most Jewish people want a state of their own is because they desire (i) "national self-determination". They also want (ii) "safety and security". You also claim that the Jewish people are (iii) "unique", And you assert a (iv) "right of return" to their ancestral homeland.
> i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.
> ii) Are Jews in Israel safer and more secure than Jews in the USA? Seriously? If having a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Muslim countries while occupying Palestine and dealing with Arab native people with brutality is their idea of "safety and security then I would disagree.
> iii) The Jews are no more unique than Catholics in Northern Ireland, Armenians in Turkey, or Roma in Spain. They have no claim on uniqueness than Basques in Spain and France or the Apache nation in the USA.
> iv) The Holy Land is the mother of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. No group has a claim on having an exclusive right to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?  Palestinians want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Jewish people want national self-determination in what they consider their ancient homeland.  The Palestinian people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Jewish people want to return to a land from which they were expelled.  The Palestinian people want an end to oppression, equality and dignity.  The Jewish people want the same.
> 
> So how are they different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians do not claim a right to the land based on ancient history. Their homeland is where they were born and their claim is therefore stronger than Russian immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Demonize" is a catch-all word to describe dialogue which is critical of the Jewish people or which denies to the Jewish people things which would normally not be denied to others.  Saying "Jews stole land" is not a criticism of Israel and her government -- it is demonizing the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in fact, the land was promised to the Jewish people in 1917 -- before there was a Final Solution.  So, your claim is patently false.  And the British did not offer the land to the Jews.  The British offered to assist in facilitating the re-constitution of the Jewish National Home.  The difference is the agency of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct; the English wanted the Jews out of Europe before the Final Solution. But antisemitism and the Jewish Question was current in the beginning of the last century and even before that. The Zionists had their eye on Palestine which was in the hands of the English so it was a win-win when the English got the Jews out of Europe and let them have a "home" (not state) in Palestine. After the Final Solution, the destruction of the European Jews made a "home" for survivors seem sensible and it is no coincidence that Israel became a state in 1948 not 1928. The impact of the Final Solution should be noted.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem is not the presence of Muslim Arabs.  There is plenty of room for both.  Just look how many millions of people live in Israel and "Palestine" and Gaza today!  Compared to the barely half million in 1900.  Look how many Arab Muslims live in Israel.  The problem is not the presence of either ethnic group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It becomes a problem when the Zionists wanted a Jewish state rather than sharing the land with the native inhabitants. The influx of European Jews after the Final Solution inspired with the Zionist vision of a Jewish state was a huge problem. The history of Palestine could have been different.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people wanted a Jewish State, not a mere home among Arabs.  The Arab people wanted a Palestinian State, not a mere home among Jews.  Seems fair, don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No; the Palestinian Arabs did not want to be dispossessed and displaced.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never the intent to displace or dispossess the Arab people.  (As is evident by the high percentage of Arab people living in Israel).  Any displacement or dispossession which occurred is a DIRECT result of Arab aggression against Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are ill-informed on the creation of the Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the point of going into all this with you is to point out that demonizing of the Jewish people moves us backwards rather than forward.  It is not valid criticism of Israel to make broad sweeping statements about stolen land and apartheid and occupation and oppression and the lack of rights of the Jewish people.
> 
> What discussion should be about are concrete, practical plans to move forward towards a solution to the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but the occupation of Palestinian land by the Israelis is the root cause of the current problem today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Outstanding.... Informative,Accurate Post, Eloy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He might be good to someone with your mind set, but any reasonable posters being on these forums for years and years realizes that it is not the Palestinians he really cares about.  This is his big chance to demonize the Israelis (Jews) while other innocent people are dying in the thousands in the Middle East for whom he could care less.,
Click to expand...



My cat could make this bozo look like a fool.


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this ....



Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.  

So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Load of Israeli crap.
> 
> They were attacked while in their own village before the 1948 war. They were not attacking anybody.



Actually, the village was taken on 12 May 1948 as part of the war.  Specifically, that village was taken to prevent the invading Egyptian army from getting a foothold in the area.  

So, what is Egypt doing to make it up to these people?


----------



## montelatici

Egypt was part of the force that intervened to try to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Zionists.  The British were well aware of this.  You have been fed Zionist propaganda all your life, you can't accept the truth.

"Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, *Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist *stance and declare* armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'"*

"The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, *reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.*

"After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision ...It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."

British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
Click to expand...

Wishing Zionism to mean benign Jews who consider Palestinians as equals does not make it so.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that most Jewish people want a state of their own is because they desire (i) "national self-determination". They also want (ii) "safety and security". You also claim that the Jewish people are (iii) "unique", And you assert a (iv) "right of return" to their ancestral homeland.
> i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.
> ii) Are Jews in Israel safer and more secure than Jews in the USA? Seriously? If having a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Muslim countries while occupying Palestine and dealing with Arab native people with brutality is their idea of "safety and security then I would disagree.
> iii) The Jews are no more unique than Catholics in Northern Ireland, Armenians in Turkey, or Roma in Spain. They have no claim on uniqueness than Basques in Spain and France or the Apache nation in the USA.
> iv) The Holy Land is the mother of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. No group has a claim on having an exclusive right to live there.
> 
> 
> Palestinians do not claim a right to the land based on ancient history. Their homeland is where they were born and their claim is therefore stronger than Russian immigrants.
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> You are correct; the English wanted the Jews out of Europe before the Final Solution. But antisemitism and the Jewish Question was current in the beginning of the last century and even before that. The Zionists had their eye on Palestine which was in the hands of the English so it was a win-win when the English got the Jews out of Europe and let them have a "home" (not state) in Palestine. After the Final Solution, the destruction of the European Jews made a "home" for survivors seem sensible and it is no coincidence that Israel became a state in 1948 not 1928. The impact of the Final Solution should be noted.
> 
> It becomes a problem when the Zionists wanted a Jewish state rather than sharing the land with the native inhabitants. The influx of European Jews after the Final Solution inspired with the Zionist vision of a Jewish state was a huge problem. The history of Palestine could have been different.
> 
> No; the Palestinian Arabs did not want to be dispossessed and displaced.
> 
> You are ill-informed on the creation of the Jewish state.
> 
> Forgive me but the occupation of Palestinian land by the Israelis is the root cause of the current problem today.
> 
> 
> 
> Outstanding.... Informative,Accurate Post, Eloy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He might be good to someone with your mind set, but any reasonable posters being on these forums for years and years realizes that it is not the Palestinians he really cares about.  This is his big chance to demonize the Israelis (Jews) while other innocent people are dying in the thousands in the Middle East for whom he could care less.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My cat could make this bozo look like a fool.
Click to expand...

A braying donkey would appear smart like Einstein compared to a bozo (one of your favorite words since you vocabulary appears quite limited) like you.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outstanding.... Informative,Accurate Post, Eloy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He might be good to someone with your mind set, but any reasonable posters being on these forums for years and years realizes that it is not the Palestinians he really cares about.  This is his big chance to demonize the Israelis (Jews) while other innocent people are dying in the thousands in the Middle East for whom he could care less.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My cat could make this bozo look like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A braying donkey would appear smart like Einstein compared to a bozo (one of your favorite words since you vocabulary appears quite limited) like you.
Click to expand...


Oh come on, you know you are a moron.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that most Jewish people want a state of their own is because they desire (i) "national self-determination". They also want (ii) "safety and security". You also claim that the Jewish people are (iii) "unique", And you assert a (iv) "right of return" to their ancestral homeland.
> i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.
> ii) Are Jews in Israel safer and more secure than Jews in the USA? Seriously? If having a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Muslim countries while occupying Palestine and dealing with Arab native people with brutality is their idea of "safety and security then I would disagree.
> iii) The Jews are no more unique than Catholics in Northern Ireland, Armenians in Turkey, or Roma in Spain. They have no claim on uniqueness than Basques in Spain and France or the Apache nation in the USA.
> iv) The Holy Land is the mother of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. No group has a claim on having an exclusive right to live there.
> 
> 
> Palestinians do not claim a right to the land based on ancient history. Their homeland is where they were born and their claim is therefore stronger than Russian immigrants.
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> You are correct; the English wanted the Jews out of Europe before the Final Solution. But antisemitism and the Jewish Question was current in the beginning of the last century and even before that. The Zionists had their eye on Palestine which was in the hands of the English so it was a win-win when the English got the Jews out of Europe and let them have a "home" (not state) in Palestine. After the Final Solution, the destruction of the European Jews made a "home" for survivors seem sensible and it is no coincidence that Israel became a state in 1948 not 1928. The impact of the Final Solution should be noted.
> 
> It becomes a problem when the Zionists wanted a Jewish state rather than sharing the land with the native inhabitants. The influx of European Jews after the Final Solution inspired with the Zionist vision of a Jewish state was a huge problem. The history of Palestine could have been different.
> 
> No; the Palestinian Arabs did not want to be dispossessed and displaced.
> 
> You are ill-informed on the creation of the Jewish state.
> 
> Forgive me but the occupation of Palestinian land by the Israelis is the root cause of the current problem today.
> 
> 
> 
> Outstanding.... Informative,Accurate Post, Eloy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He might be good to someone with your mind set, but any reasonable posters being on these forums for years and years realizes that it is not the Palestinians he really cares about.  This is his big chance to demonize the Israelis (Jews) while other innocent people are dying in the thousands in the Middle East for whom he could care less.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My cat could make this bozo look like a fool.
Click to expand...


My cat wants to meet your cat.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He might be good to someone with your mind set, but any reasonable posters being on these forums for years and years realizes that it is not the Palestinians he really cares about.  This is his big chance to demonize the Israelis (Jews) while other innocent people are dying in the thousands in the Middle East for whom he could care less.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My cat could make this bozo look like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A braying donkey would appear smart like Einstein compared to a bozo (one of your favorite words since you vocabulary appears quite limited) like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on, you know you are a moron.
Click to expand...





​


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He might be good to someone with your mind set, but any reasonable posters being on these forums for years and years realizes that it is not the Palestinians he really cares about.  This is his big chance to demonize the Israelis (Jews) while other innocent people are dying in the thousands in the Middle East for whom he could care less.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My cat could make this bozo look like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A braying donkey would appear smart like Einstein compared to a bozo (one of your favorite words since you vocabulary appears quite limited) like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on, you know you are a moron.
Click to expand...

Look in the mirror and you will see a moron.  Strange how everyone who doesn't think like Monte is a bozo, a moron, idiot or some such.  Maybe he gets up every morning, pulls on his Depends  to start his long day posting, has his coffee,and then rubs his hands in glee knowing that he is going to be able to call people names such as the above.


----------



## there4eyeM

"
*Israel's Legal Right To Exist"...*
*...is, as with all 'rights', dependent upon what fellow humans accept, the majority being the rule.*


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the time period.  For transactions executed prior to British rule the most complete set of records are in Istanbul. The British National Archives hold records for the Mandate period, but I am not sure that the British are allowing access for fear of upsetting Israel
> 
> Turkey transferred their records to the Palestinians a few years ago and are being digitized from what I understand, and many claims have been made to recover the stolen homes and land in Israel but, of course, Israel isn't going to give back the land it stole.
> 
> "Turkey Transfers Ottoman Land Records to Palestinian Authority
> read more: Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, bottom line is no official Palestinian land deeds can be presented.  Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Official deeds/land records have been presented.  The Israelis won't recognize them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Niether does the UN as they are all dated after the land theft of 1949, why do you think this is ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> URAJOKE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn to be normal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you dont believe the UN now when it says that the arab muslims stole the land from the Jews. Up until 1949 the land registry was ran by the British and that shows the land was Jewish. The ottomans had no land registry as such, just a two tier system with the land being owned outright or leased. The majority of the arab muslims leased the land as they could not afford to buy it
Click to expand...


Learn to be normal


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve
> 
> 
> 
> He might be good to someone with your mind set, but any reasonable posters being on these forums for years and years realizes that it is not the Palestinians he really cares about.  This is his big chance to demonize the Israelis (Jews) while other innocent people are dying in the thousands in the Middle East for whom he could care less.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My cat could make this bozo look like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A braying donkey would appear smart like Einstein compared to a bozo (one of your favorite words since you vocabulary appears quite limited) like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on, you know you are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look in the mirror and you will see a moron.  Strange how everyone who doesn't think like Monte is a bozo, a moron, idiot or some such.  Maybe he gets up every morning, pulls on his Depends  to start his long day posting, has his coffee,and then rubs his hands in glee knowing that he is going to be able to call people names such as the above.
Click to expand...

Monte is a good bloke......anyhow he does  not spend  the whole day MASTURBATING LIKE YOU WANKERS...You Hoss like others on your side, just  Plagiarize  my content...In your case above>>>>"Look in the Mirror" and "Moron"

You Guys are just not Original like me....but just Versionists.....Much like your Synthetic Jewishness....Ya  HOPELESS REALLY, YOU REALLY ARE.

I AM THE MAGNIFICENT>>>>>>>>AS ALWAYS http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_7Kx2FIFQY


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve
> 
> 
> 
> He might be good to someone with your mind set, but any reasonable posters being on these forums for years and years realizes that it is not the Palestinians he really cares about.  This is his big chance to demonize the Israelis (Jews) while other innocent people are dying in the thousands in the Middle East for whom he could care less.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My cat could make this bozo look like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A braying donkey would appear smart like Einstein compared to a bozo (one of your favorite words since you vocabulary appears quite limited) like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come on, you know you are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

WANK ON


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Outstanding.... Informative,Accurate Post, Eloy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He might be good to someone with your mind set, but any reasonable posters being on these forums for years and years realizes that it is not the Palestinians he really cares about.  This is his big chance to demonize the Israelis (Jews) while other innocent people are dying in the thousands in the Middle East for whom he could care less.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My cat could make this bozo look like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My cat wants to meet your cat.
> 
> View attachment 96885
Click to expand...

WANK ON AND ON.....


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
Click to expand...

WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment


----------



## Shusha

translation:  I am not demonizing Jews, you filthy Jew!


Good to see the high quality of discussion and the valid criticism of Israel.  /sarcasm


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are practical considerations, of course, but I have always agreed that the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple they are persona non gratis due to the fact they took up arms against Israel when the arab league invaded the mandate of palestine. This is covered by IHL and the Geneva conventions, and any people that take up arms lose all rights to claim the land as theirs.
> 
> Once again you deny the Jews their rights under International laws because you are so biased and have so much hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Load of Israeli crap.
> 
> They were attacked while in their own village before the 1948 war. They were not attacking anybody.
Click to expand...







 Is that all you have hearsay and maybe's    The facts show the only arab muslims forcibly removed by the Jews were those that took up arms against Israel. The rest left willingly and of their own accord TO ANOTHER PART OF PALESTINE. They never left their "homeland" just their tents they pitched around wadi's and wells as the went looking for farm work.

*Once again you deny the Jews their rights under International laws because you are so biased and have so much hate.*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing phony about the map.  It's in the official UN archives. You can see it right on the UN's site. Looks like more than 90% of the land was owned by the native Christians and Muslims in 1945.
> 
> Palestine: Land ownership by sub-district (1945) - Map (1 August 1950)
> 
> And, thanks for linking the Haaretz article that confirms that the land was farmed by Palestinians before the Jews began invading.
> 
> You are a hoot Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who where the Jews that were already there, you know the ones the Ottomans invited to migrate and close colonise alongside the Jews already there ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who had Turkish citizenship became Palestinian citizens with the rest of the Palestinians.
Click to expand...








 Not according to the treaty you like to throw in here when this comes up. It says they will become citizens of the nation that take control, which was mandatory Britain. No treaty says that all factions have to agree collectively to set up a nation, which means that each individual faction could set up its own nation. Can you explain why the arab muslims thought that their very late submision would be accepted by the UN


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary one would be the risk of violence, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From a bunch of farmers who have not attacked anyone for centuries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the Jews, Christians, Egyptians, Syrians and themselves many times since they were invented in 627 C.E.
> 
> Unless you have a valid link that says they are a bunch of farmers ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Click to expand...








 Yes the recorded attacks on the Jews since 635 C.E. that shows the arab muslims were armed and violent


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that most Jewish people want a state of their own is because they desire (i) "national self-determination". They also want (ii) "safety and security". You also claim that the Jewish people are (iii) "unique", And you assert a (iv) "right of return" to their ancestral homeland.
> i) Jews are citizens of very many countries and so their nations have a claim on their aspiration for the self determination of these nations. Do you really want Polish Jews do not identify with the culture of Poland? Are Scottish Jews not really Scottish? Do you realize what message this gives to countries where Jews a citizens? Why would any Germans accept Jewish politicians, judges, teachers, and so forth, if their loyalty is to another nation? So be it.
> ii) Are Jews in Israel safer and more secure than Jews in the USA? Seriously? If having a Jewish state in the middle of Arab Muslim countries while occupying Palestine and dealing with Arab native people with brutality is their idea of "safety and security then I would disagree.
> iii) The Jews are no more unique than Catholics in Northern Ireland, Armenians in Turkey, or Roma in Spain. They have no claim on uniqueness than Basques in Spain and France or the Apache nation in the USA.
> iv) The Holy Land is the mother of three religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. No group has a claim on having an exclusive right to live there.
> 
> 
> Palestinians do not claim a right to the land based on ancient history. Their homeland is where they were born and their claim is therefore stronger than Russian immigrants.
> 
> Please, learn the distinction between Zionists and Jews.
> 
> You are correct; the English wanted the Jews out of Europe before the Final Solution. But antisemitism and the Jewish Question was current in the beginning of the last century and even before that. The Zionists had their eye on Palestine which was in the hands of the English so it was a win-win when the English got the Jews out of Europe and let them have a "home" (not state) in Palestine. After the Final Solution, the destruction of the European Jews made a "home" for survivors seem sensible and it is no coincidence that Israel became a state in 1948 not 1928. The impact of the Final Solution should be noted.
> 
> It becomes a problem when the Zionists wanted a Jewish state rather than sharing the land with the native inhabitants. The influx of European Jews after the Final Solution inspired with the Zionist vision of a Jewish state was a huge problem. The history of Palestine could have been different.
> 
> No; the Palestinian Arabs did not want to be dispossessed and displaced.
> 
> You are ill-informed on the creation of the Jewish state.
> 
> Forgive me but the occupation of Palestinian land by the Israelis is the root cause of the current problem today.
> 
> 
> 
> Outstanding.... Informative,Accurate Post, Eloy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's good Hoss.....Eloy makes you Zionnuts look Fcuking Stupid.........steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He might be good to someone with your mind set, but any reasonable posters being on these forums for years and years realizes that it is not the Palestinians he really cares about.  This is his big chance to demonize the Israelis (Jews) while other innocent people are dying in the thousands in the Middle East for whom he could care less.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My cat could make this bozo look like a fool.
Click to expand...






No freddy he makes you look like a complete moron when he laughs in your face


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Egypt was part of the force that intervened to try to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Zionists.  The British were well aware of this.  You have been fed Zionist propaganda all your life, you can't accept the truth.
> 
> "Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, *Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist *stance and declare* armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'"*
> 
> "The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, *reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.*
> 
> "After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision ...It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."
> 
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*








So how does this show that the arab league didnt  invaded the mandate of palestine with the stated intent of mass murdering the Jews and stealing the land that was granted under international laws to the Jews. 



And your only source is the anti semitic failing rag the grauniad, that has never reported the truth in the last 5 years


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wishing Zionism to mean benign Jews who consider Palestinians as equals does not make it so.
Click to expand...








 Who says, apart from the hate sites that you get your information from.   You are falling foul of the laws in many countries by using Zionist and Zionism in the context you do. In Europe you would be arrested for holocaust denial, and then find that no lawyer would defend you in court


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
Click to expand...








 You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.

ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
Click to expand...


Still hittin' on one too many amber fluids, eh drongo?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument is, and has always been, that the Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims due to their extreme length of residence in the land (you can't unbreak that egg) ALSO have rights to the land.​
> Cool, then they should return to their homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are practical considerations, of course, but I have always agreed that the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple they are persona non gratis due to the fact they took up arms against Israel when the arab league invaded the mandate of palestine. This is covered by IHL and the Geneva conventions, and any people that take up arms lose all rights to claim the land as theirs.
> 
> Once again you deny the Jews their rights under International laws because you are so biased and have so much hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Load of Israeli crap.
> 
> They were attacked while in their own village before the 1948 war. They were not attacking anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all you have hearsay and maybe's    The facts show the only arab muslims forcibly removed by the Jews were those that took up arms against Israel. The rest left willingly and of their own accord TO ANOTHER PART OF PALESTINE. They never left their "homeland" just their tents they pitched around wadi's and wells as the went looking for farm work.
> 
> *Once again you deny the Jews their rights under International laws because you are so biased and have so much hate.*
Click to expand...

You are just shoveling shit. Pure speculation.


----------



## Eloy

After the U.S. election and before a new president is sworn-in, watch for some shock and awe meted-out to the Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).


----------



## Hossfly

Eloy said:


> After the U.S. election and before a new president is sworn-in, watch for some shock and awe meted-out to the Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).


Shock and Awe plus Extreme Torture by the IDF.




​

​
Leading Helpless Old Men To The Gallows




​
IDF Soldier Stealing Old Woman's Last Food




​
IDF Soldiers Preparing Palestinian For Waterboarding




​
IDF Soldiers Administering Lethal Injection To Palestinian


----------



## Hossfly

Eloy said:


> After the U.S. election and before a new president is sworn-in, watch for some shock and awe meted-out to the Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).


Does your crystal ball say that the radicals in Gaza are going to start  shooting rockets into Israel, and the IDF will retaliate?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are practical considerations, of course, but I have always agreed that the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians have the right to return to their homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple they are persona non gratis due to the fact they took up arms against Israel when the arab league invaded the mandate of palestine. This is covered by IHL and the Geneva conventions, and any people that take up arms lose all rights to claim the land as theirs.
> 
> Once again you deny the Jews their rights under International laws because you are so biased and have so much hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Load of Israeli crap.
> 
> They were attacked while in their own village before the 1948 war. They were not attacking anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all you have hearsay and maybe's    The facts show the only arab muslims forcibly removed by the Jews were those that took up arms against Israel. The rest left willingly and of their own accord TO ANOTHER PART OF PALESTINE. They never left their "homeland" just their tents they pitched around wadi's and wells as the went looking for farm work.
> 
> *Once again you deny the Jews their rights under International laws because you are so biased and have so much hate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just shoveling shit. Pure speculation.
Click to expand...









No absolute facts that you have failed to prove are not valid. According to official documents how many arab muslims were forcibly removed by the Jews in 1948/1949 compared to Jews forcibly removed by arab muslims ?


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> After the U.S. election and before a new president is sworn-in, watch for some shock and awe meted-out to the Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).








And in the lead up to the US elections watch how many illegal weapons are fired into Israel from gaza, deemed to be acts of war and war crimes by the Interntional community. These are answerable by force so that will be the reason that Israel will have taken action against the illegal weapons. The hamas terrorists hide the launchers in schools, hospitals, mosques and civilian areas even though 50% of gaza is open land with no civilian structures.


----------



## Hollie

Eloy said:


> After the U.S. election and before a new president is sworn-in, watch for some shock and awe meted-out to the Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).



Since you brought it up, the most recent Hudna is probably due to end soon with resumption of dead Pal'istanians being paraded through the streets.

It's been a while since Abu bin al-Khaled Mashal (but you can call him _Al ) _
or one of the other affiliates of _Islamic terrorism Intl., Inc._, provoked Israel into a shooting war and laughed all the way to the welfare collection office as their minions took one for the cause.... 'cause Abu's bank account needs more UNRWA welfare money.


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the U.S. election and before a new president is sworn-in, watch for some shock and awe meted-out to the Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).
> 
> 
> 
> Shock and Awe plus Extreme Torture by the IDF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​Leading Helpless Old Men To The Gallows
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​IDF Soldier Stealing Old Woman's Last Food
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​IDF Soldiers Preparing Palestinian For Waterboarding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​IDF Soldiers Administering Lethal Injection To Palestinian
Click to expand...


Can you imagine the disaster to the Palestinians if Israel ever granted them self determination without Israel to provide for them any longer?


----------



## montelatici

More like Nazi stormtroopers, watch that IDF piece of shit push over the one legged man in a wheelchair


*Israeli police officer knocks disabled Palestinian man out of his wheelchair*

*Israeli police officer knocks disabled Palestinian man out of his wheelchair*


----------



## Eloy

Hossfly said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the U.S. election and before a new president is sworn-in, watch for some shock and awe meted-out to the Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).
> 
> 
> 
> Does your crystal ball say that the radicals in Gaza are going to start  shooting rockets into Israel, and the IDF will retaliate?
Click to expand...

I also predict that this is what the Israelis will say is happening. We have seen it all before for the passed half century.


----------



## Hollie

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the U.S. election and before a new president is sworn-in, watch for some shock and awe meted-out to the Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).
> 
> 
> 
> Does your crystal ball say that the radicals in Gaza are going to start  shooting rockets into Israel, and the IDF will retaliate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also predict that this is what the Israelis will say is happening. We have seen it all before for the passed half century.
Click to expand...

What's the over / under on your various predictions?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> More like Nazi stormtroopers, watch that IDF piece of shit push over the one legged man in a wheelchair
> 
> 
> *Israeli police officer knocks disabled Palestinian man out of his wheelchair*
> 
> *Israeli police officer knocks disabled Palestinian man out of his wheelchair*



Is this the one where Shirley Temper makes a guest appearance?


----------



## montelatici

No it's the Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper. I told you to scram.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> No it's the Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper. I told you to scram.


So, where's Shirley? 

"Shirley" you recall she seemed to appear... like magic... when the cameras were rolling. 

Scoot, now. Scoot.


----------



## Hossfly

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the U.S. election and before a new president is sworn-in, watch for some shock and awe meted-out to the Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).
> 
> 
> 
> Does your crystal ball say that the radicals in Gaza are going to start  shooting rockets into Israel, and the IDF will retaliate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also predict that this is what the Israelis will say is happening. We have seen it all before for the passed half century.
Click to expand...


And I predict that the pro-Palis like yourself will use their same old lies that you have used in the past several decades that the IDF started it first.   It's almost against your religion to admit that the Gazans start up and the IDF retaliates.  Even if the group responsible told you face to face that they initiated it, you would tell them that wasn't so and that the IDF has to be blamed.   Maybe next you will be telling us that it really is the IDF killing Egyptian policemen in the Sinai.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's the Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper. I told you to scram.
> 
> 
> 
> So, where's Shirley?
> 
> "Shirley" you recall she seemed to appear... like magic... when the cameras were rolling.
> 
> Scoot, now. Scoot.
Click to expand...


Scram Miss propagandist. Just scram.  You are just making a fool of yourself.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's the Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper. I told you to scram.
> 
> 
> 
> So, where's Shirley?
> 
> "Shirley" you recall she seemed to appear... like magic... when the cameras were rolling.
> 
> Scoot, now. Scoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scram Miss propagandist. Just scram.  You are just making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...




​


----------



## montelatici

Ahh, when your bullshit is debunked, you do the old "I don't give a damn" thing.  You don't realize that it's a sign that you have realized that you are a moron that is full of shit.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's the Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper. I told you to scram.
> 
> 
> 
> So, where's Shirley?
> 
> "Shirley" you recall she seemed to appear... like magic... when the cameras were rolling.
> 
> Scoot, now. Scoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scram Miss propagandist. Just scram.  You are just making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

I see you're getting angry and frustrated. Just remember that when you spam threads with cutting and pasting, you have to assume that not everyone is going to accept your propaganda as true. 

Because you're reduced to lashing out when your tender sensibilities are offended, you should reconsider the volume of cut and paste material you dump into threads, especially when you're unable to defend it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing phony about the map.  It's in the official UN archives. You can see it right on the UN's site. Looks like more than 90% of the land was owned by the native Christians and Muslims in 1945.
> 
> Palestine: Land ownership by sub-district (1945) - Map (1 August 1950)
> 
> And, thanks for linking the Haaretz article that confirms that the land was farmed by Palestinians before the Jews began invading.
> 
> You are a hoot Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who where the Jews that were already there, you know the ones the Ottomans invited to migrate and close colonise alongside the Jews already there ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who had Turkish citizenship became Palestinian citizens with the rest of the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the treaty you like to throw in here when this comes up. It says they will become citizens of the nation that take control, which was mandatory Britain. No treaty says that all factions have to agree collectively to set up a nation, which means that each individual faction could set up its own nation. Can you explain why the arab muslims thought that their very late submision would be accepted by the UN
Click to expand...

Not according to the treaty you like to throw in here when this comes up. It says they will become citizens of the nation that take control, which was mandatory Britain.​
No it didn't.

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary one would be the risk of violence, of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From a bunch of farmers who have not attacked anyone for centuries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the Jews, Christians, Egyptians, Syrians and themselves many times since they were invented in 627 C.E.
> 
> Unless you have a valid link that says they are a bunch of farmers ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the recorded attacks on the Jews since 635 C.E. that shows the arab muslims were armed and violent
Click to expand...

And Najd was involved how?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are now refugees in Gaza. Do you have a good explanation why they cannot go back to their homes?
> 
> Najd, Gaza - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple they are persona non gratis due to the fact they took up arms against Israel when the arab league invaded the mandate of palestine. This is covered by IHL and the Geneva conventions, and any people that take up arms lose all rights to claim the land as theirs.
> 
> Once again you deny the Jews their rights under International laws because you are so biased and have so much hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Load of Israeli crap.
> 
> They were attacked while in their own village before the 1948 war. They were not attacking anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all you have hearsay and maybe's    The facts show the only arab muslims forcibly removed by the Jews were those that took up arms against Israel. The rest left willingly and of their own accord TO ANOTHER PART OF PALESTINE. They never left their "homeland" just their tents they pitched around wadi's and wells as the went looking for farm work.
> 
> *Once again you deny the Jews their rights under International laws because you are so biased and have so much hate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just shoveling shit. Pure speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No absolute facts that you have failed to prove are not valid. According to official documents how many arab muslims were forcibly removed by the Jews in 1948/1949 compared to Jews forcibly removed by arab muslims ?
Click to expand...

Two separate and unrelated incidents.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.
> 
> ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT
Click to expand...

Not Anti Jew(real Jews) but Zionists are a complete curse.......just because you Guys are unable to emancipate your minds from Zionism...that is not my fault...Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism you fools....Zionists all 11 million of you are a mere drop in the Ocean......but you have Lying Mouths,just admit what you are and Stop trying to make out your Normal,which we know you are not.


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still hittin' on one too many amber fluids, eh drongo?
Click to expand...

You still on that train MJB.....I told you that you are unoriginal,I'm right as usual


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.
> 
> ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Anti Jew(real Jews) but Zionists are a complete curse.......just because you Guys are unable to emancipate your minds from Zionism...that is not my fault...Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism you fools....Zionists all 11 million of you are a mere drop in the Ocean......but you have Lying Mouths,just admit what you are and Stop trying to make out your Normal,which we know you are not.
Click to expand...

More from the lying scum who claimed he was a Jew and then admitted he wasn't?
What an ass you are.
You're probably Muslim.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt was part of the force that intervened to try to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Zionists.  The British were well aware of this.  You have been fed Zionist propaganda all your life, you can't accept the truth.
> 
> "Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, *Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist *stance and declare* armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'"*
> 
> "The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, *reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.*
> 
> "After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision ...It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."
> 
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does this show that the arab league didnt  invaded the mandate of palestine with the stated intent of mass murdering the Jews and stealing the land that was granted under international laws to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> And your only source is the anti semitic failing rag the grauniad, that has never reported the truth in the last 5 years
Click to expand...

WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt was part of the force that intervened to try to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Zionists.  The British were well aware of this.  You have been fed Zionist propaganda all your life, you can't accept the truth.
> 
> "Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, *Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist *stance and declare* armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'"*
> 
> "The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, *reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.*
> 
> "After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision ...It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."
> 
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does this show that the arab league didnt  invaded the mandate of palestine with the stated intent of mass murdering the Jews and stealing the land that was granted under international laws to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> And your only source is the anti semitic failing rag the grauniad, that has never reported the truth in the last 5 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring
Click to expand...

You're a lying sack of shit.


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.
> 
> ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Anti Jew(real Jews) but Zionists are a complete curse.......just because you Guys are unable to emancipate your minds from Zionism...that is not my fault...Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism you fools....Zionists all 11 million of you are a mere drop in the Ocean......but you have Lying Mouths,just admit what you are and Stop trying to make out your Normal,which we know you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More from the lying scum who claimed he was a Jew and then admitted he wasn't?
> What an ass you are.
> You're probably Muslim.
Click to expand...

You do not understand English very well.....what I said was to someone was "For all I know I could be more Jewish than You if I delved deep enough in my ancestory".......That is so far removed from what you are espousing........If I was I would never entertain Filthy Zionism like most of you.

Hope that is clear enough for you,if not get a brain transplant.

Zionists HATE EVERYONE because their manifest is HATE,and the way you call for Palestinians to be driven in to the sea,is Hypocricy......Anyhow Zionism is a Mental Disorder.I feel Sorry for You


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
> 
> 
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.
> 
> ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Anti Jew(real Jews) but Zionists are a complete curse.......just because you Guys are unable to emancipate your minds from Zionism...that is not my fault...Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism you fools....Zionists all 11 million of you are a mere drop in the Ocean......but you have Lying Mouths,just admit what you are and Stop trying to make out your Normal,which we know you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More from the lying scum who claimed he was a Jew and then admitted he wasn't?
> What an ass you are.
> You're probably Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not understand English very well.....what I said was to someone was "For all I know I could be more Jewish than You if I delved deep enough in my ancestory".......That is so far removed from what you are espousing........If I was I would never entertain Filthy Zionism like most of you.
> 
> Hope that is clear enough for you,if not get a brain transplant.
> 
> Zionists HATE EVERYONE because their manifest is HATE,and the way you call for Palestinians to be driven in to the sea,is Hypocricy......Anyhow Zionism is a Mental Disorder.I feel Sorry for You
Click to expand...

Tell it to this Zionut, Steve. He'll swallow you whole.  Hasn't eaten for days.



​


----------



## Indeependent

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
> 
> 
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.
> 
> ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Anti Jew(real Jews) but Zionists are a complete curse.......just because you Guys are unable to emancipate your minds from Zionism...that is not my fault...Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism you fools....Zionists all 11 million of you are a mere drop in the Ocean......but you have Lying Mouths,just admit what you are and Stop trying to make out your Normal,which we know you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More from the lying scum who claimed he was a Jew and then admitted he wasn't?
> What an ass you are.
> You're probably Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not understand English very well.....what I said was to someone was "For all I know I could be more Jewish than You if I delved deep enough in my ancestory".......That is so far removed from what you are espousing........If I was I would never entertain Filthy Zionism like most of you.
> 
> Hope that is clear enough for you,if not get a brain transplant.
> 
> Zionists HATE EVERYONE because their manifest is HATE,and the way you call for Palestinians to be driven in to the sea,is Hypocricy......Anyhow Zionism is a Mental Disorder.I feel Sorry for You
Click to expand...

Too late; that was NOT what you posted.
You stated EXPLICILTY you had NO Jewish blood in you.
You're not only a liar, you're probably a drunk ass liar who can't keep a track of his bullshit.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.
> 
> ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Anti Jew(real Jews) but Zionists are a complete curse.......just because you Guys are unable to emancipate your minds from Zionism...that is not my fault...Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism you fools....Zionists all 11 million of you are a mere drop in the Ocean......but you have Lying Mouths,just admit what you are and Stop trying to make out your Normal,which we know you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More from the lying scum who claimed he was a Jew and then admitted he wasn't?
> What an ass you are.
> You're probably Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not understand English very well.....what I said was to someone was "For all I know I could be more Jewish than You if I delved deep enough in my ancestory".......That is so far removed from what you are espousing........If I was I would never entertain Filthy Zionism like most of you.
> 
> Hope that is clear enough for you,if not get a brain transplant.
> 
> Zionists HATE EVERYONE because their manifest is HATE,and the way you call for Palestinians to be driven in to the sea,is Hypocricy......Anyhow Zionism is a Mental Disorder.I feel Sorry for You
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell it to this Zionut, Steve. He'll swallow you whole.  Hasn't eaten for days.
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

Trouble for the Zionut....this little pink fella,would eat the Zionut alive,including all the Shit,they espouse..........nice thought though Hoss,I think you are on a Winner there...LOL...steve


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.
> 
> ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Anti Jew(real Jews) but Zionists are a complete curse.......just because you Guys are unable to emancipate your minds from Zionism...that is not my fault...Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism you fools....Zionists all 11 million of you are a mere drop in the Ocean......but you have Lying Mouths,just admit what you are and Stop trying to make out your Normal,which we know you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More from the lying scum who claimed he was a Jew and then admitted he wasn't?
> What an ass you are.
> You're probably Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not understand English very well.....what I said was to someone was "For all I know I could be more Jewish than You if I delved deep enough in my ancestory".......That is so far removed from what you are espousing........If I was I would never entertain Filthy Zionism like most of you.
> 
> Hope that is clear enough for you,if not get a brain transplant.
> 
> Zionists HATE EVERYONE because their manifest is HATE,and the way you call for Palestinians to be driven in to the sea,is Hypocricy......Anyhow Zionism is a Mental Disorder.I feel Sorry for You
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too late; that was NOT what you posted.
> You stated EXPLICILTY you had NO Jewish blood in you.
> You're not only a liar, you're probably a drunk ass liar who can't keep a track of his bullshit.
Click to expand...

I don't....but during the particular thread,I was metaphorically stating that if this was the truth etc,.

I have you booked in for Surgery  NEXT THURSDAY......Got the Worlds Best Surgeon to do the operation,yes he's Palestinian but BRILLIANT......LOL


----------



## theliq

Indeependent said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt was part of the force that intervened to try to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Zionists.  The British were well aware of this.  You have been fed Zionist propaganda all your life, you can't accept the truth.
> 
> "Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, *Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist *stance and declare* armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'"*
> 
> "The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, *reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.*
> 
> "After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision ...It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."
> 
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does this show that the arab league didnt  invaded the mandate of palestine with the stated intent of mass murdering the Jews and stealing the land that was granted under international laws to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> And your only source is the anti semitic failing rag the grauniad, that has never reported the truth in the last 5 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a lying sack of shit.
Click to expand...

Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc.  We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.
Click to expand...

Settler colonialism is not new.


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist*​
> I have heard that talking point a gazillion times.
> 
> Never seen anything proving it ti be true.


Still nothing, huh?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> More like Nazi stormtroopers, watch that IDF piece of shit push over the one legged man in a wheelchair
> 
> 
> *Israeli police officer knocks disabled Palestinian man out of his wheelchair*
> 
> *Israeli police officer knocks disabled Palestinian man out of his wheelchair*









 He was told to turn round and  leave the area, then the camera took pictures of the ground while the pallywood actors got into position . The man in the wheelchair applied his brakes so his chair would fall over if touched, and watch his hands as he helps it on its way. As the actors rush to help the disabled man you can hear gunshots coming from the arab muslim ranks, leading to the IDF becoming more aggressive.


 Want to try again freddy boy as this is just pallywood productions at its best.


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the U.S. election and before a new president is sworn-in, watch for some shock and awe meted-out to the Palestinians in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).
> 
> 
> 
> Does your crystal ball say that the radicals in Gaza are going to start  shooting rockets into Israel, and the IDF will retaliate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I also predict that this is what the Israelis will say is happening. We have seen it all before for the passed half century.
Click to expand...








 And how will they fake the video evidence from Goole Earth that will show the weapons being fired in real time.

 Yes we have seen it where the arab muslims start the violence and then whine when the IDF respond and 1000 arab muslims are killed. They started in 1929 when the mufti ordered the mass murder of Jews in Hebron, then in 1931 when he started a civil war and then invaded the mandate of palestine with the intent of wiping out the Jews and stealing all the land owned by the Jews. Since 1949 the violence has been constant and hit a head in 2005 with over 2000 illegal weapons fired at Israel that instigated reprisals by Israel that resulted in many arab muslim terrorists being killed.


 Want to produce your islamonazi evidence that proves this is wrong ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc.  We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is not new.
Click to expand...







 Correct it has been practised by the arab muslims in the M.E. since 1917, with millions of illegal immigrants flooding into the area. This was to counter the legal migration of Jews invited by the LoN to close colonise the land and make it habitable.

Still waiting for the evidence of palestine being a nation prior to 1988, cant you get the link produced yet ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist*​
> I have heard that talking point a gazillion times.
> 
> Never seen anything proving it ti be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing, huh?
Click to expand...








 Correct you still have nothing to prove your claims


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> No it's the Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper. I told you to scram.








And who are you apart from a two bit islamocatholic whore that thinks he is a wonder child that knows everything. You cant even tell your self to scram you are that far down the pecking order


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's the Daily Telegraph, a British newspaper. I told you to scram.
> 
> 
> 
> So, where's Shirley?
> 
> "Shirley" you recall she seemed to appear... like magic... when the cameras were rolling.
> 
> Scoot, now. Scoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scram Miss propagandist. Just scram.  You are just making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...








 Look in the mirror freddy boy, that is the person most ridiculed on here and the one most likely to make a fool of themselves


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Ahh, when your bullshit is debunked, you do the old "I don't give a damn" thing.  You don't realize that it's a sign that you have realized that you are a moron that is full of shit.










 Is this like your blame everyone else replies when you are backed into a corner and need a way out


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing phony about the map.  It's in the official UN archives. You can see it right on the UN's site. Looks like more than 90% of the land was owned by the native Christians and Muslims in 1945.
> 
> Palestine: Land ownership by sub-district (1945) - Map (1 August 1950)
> 
> And, thanks for linking the Haaretz article that confirms that the land was farmed by Palestinians before the Jews began invading.
> 
> You are a hoot Hollie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who where the Jews that were already there, you know the ones the Ottomans invited to migrate and close colonise alongside the Jews already there ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who had Turkish citizenship became Palestinian citizens with the rest of the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the treaty you like to throw in here when this comes up. It says they will become citizens of the nation that take control, which was mandatory Britain. No treaty says that all factions have to agree collectively to set up a nation, which means that each individual faction could set up its own nation. Can you explain why the arab muslims thought that their very late submision would be accepted by the UN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the treaty you like to throw in here when this comes up. It says they will become citizens of the nation that take control, which was mandatory Britain.​
> No it didn't.
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...







 Yes it did and you have had it linked many times in the past. When are you going to provide links to your claims


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The primary one would be the risk of violence, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> From a bunch of farmers who have not attacked anyone for centuries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from the Jews, Christians, Egyptians, Syrians and themselves many times since they were invented in 627 C.E.
> 
> Unless you have a valid link that says they are a bunch of farmers ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the recorded attacks on the Jews since 635 C.E. that shows the arab muslims were armed and violent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And Najd was involved how?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...






Read my post, it was one of the villages that took up arms against the Jews


When will you provide links ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple they are persona non gratis due to the fact they took up arms against Israel when the arab league invaded the mandate of palestine. This is covered by IHL and the Geneva conventions, and any people that take up arms lose all rights to claim the land as theirs.
> 
> Once again you deny the Jews their rights under International laws because you are so biased and have so much hate.
> 
> 
> 
> Load of Israeli crap.
> 
> They were attacked while in their own village before the 1948 war. They were not attacking anybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all you have hearsay and maybe's    The facts show the only arab muslims forcibly removed by the Jews were those that took up arms against Israel. The rest left willingly and of their own accord TO ANOTHER PART OF PALESTINE. They never left their "homeland" just their tents they pitched around wadi's and wells as the went looking for farm work.
> 
> *Once again you deny the Jews their rights under International laws because you are so biased and have so much hate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just shoveling shit. Pure speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No absolute facts that you have failed to prove are not valid. According to official documents how many arab muslims were forcibly removed by the Jews in 1948/1949 compared to Jews forcibly removed by arab muslims ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two separate and unrelated incidents.
Click to expand...







WRONG they are one and the same as it shows the so called palestinians were the aggressors


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionists are people who demand a country exclusively for Jews. Not all Jews believe this ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.
> 
> ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Anti Jew(real Jews) but Zionists are a complete curse.......just because you Guys are unable to emancipate your minds from Zionism...that is not my fault...Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism you fools....Zionists all 11 million of you are a mere drop in the Ocean......but you have Lying Mouths,just admit what you are and Stop trying to make out your Normal,which we know you are not.
Click to expand...







BULLSHIT    you are a neo nazi that practises anti zionism because you believe it is legal. ALL BECAUSE THE HATE SITES SAY SO


This might help


Zionism | nationalistic movement

*Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt was part of the force that intervened to try to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Zionists.  The British were well aware of this.  You have been fed Zionist propaganda all your life, you can't accept the truth.
> 
> "Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, *Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist *stance and declare* armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'"*
> 
> "The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, *reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.*
> 
> "After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision ...It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."
> 
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does this show that the arab league didnt  invaded the mandate of palestine with the stated intent of mass murdering the Jews and stealing the land that was granted under international laws to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> And your only source is the anti semitic failing rag the grauniad, that has never reported the truth in the last 5 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring
Click to expand...








 Go away you pompous cretin, while you rot your brain with the hate sites you will never be my equal. I am your superior in every way and dont forget it. I have seen a video of you, and how you blubbered like a baby when proven to be a coward and a liar.

 Should I POST IT ON HERE FOR ALL TO SEE ?


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I can't say as I've ever seen a single Jew believe this.  It is certainly not practiced, witness the large Arab population of Israel.
> 
> So, essentially "Zionist" is a term you throw about as another demonization of Jews.  You are on fire today.
> 
> 
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.
> 
> ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Anti Jew(real Jews) but Zionists are a complete curse.......just because you Guys are unable to emancipate your minds from Zionism...that is not my fault...Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism you fools....Zionists all 11 million of you are a mere drop in the Ocean......but you have Lying Mouths,just admit what you are and Stop trying to make out your Normal,which we know you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More from the lying scum who claimed he was a Jew and then admitted he wasn't?
> What an ass you are.
> You're probably Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not understand English very well.....what I said was to someone was "For all I know I could be more Jewish than You if I delved deep enough in my ancestory".......That is so far removed from what you are espousing........If I was I would never entertain Filthy Zionism like most of you.
> 
> Hope that is clear enough for you,if not get a brain transplant.
> 
> Zionists HATE EVERYONE because their manifest is HATE,and the way you call for Palestinians to be driven in to the sea,is Hypocricy......Anyhow Zionism is a Mental Disorder.I feel Sorry for You
Click to expand...

 




Here you go 




Zionism | nationalistic movement

*Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt was part of the force that intervened to try to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Zionists.  The British were well aware of this.  You have been fed Zionist propaganda all your life, you can't accept the truth.
> 
> "Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, *Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist *stance and declare* armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'"*
> 
> "The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, *reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.*
> 
> "After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision ...It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."
> 
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does this show that the arab league didnt  invaded the mandate of palestine with the stated intent of mass murdering the Jews and stealing the land that was granted under international laws to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> And your only source is the anti semitic failing rag the grauniad, that has never reported the truth in the last 5 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a lying sack of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it
Click to expand...










Zionism | nationalistic movement

*Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt was part of the force that intervened to try to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Zionists.  The British were well aware of this.  You have been fed Zionist propaganda all your life, you can't accept the truth.
> 
> "Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, *Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist *stance and declare* armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'"*
> 
> "The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, *reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.*
> 
> "After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision ...It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."
> 
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does this show that the arab league didnt  invaded the mandate of palestine with the stated intent of mass murdering the Jews and stealing the land that was granted under international laws to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> And your only source is the anti semitic failing rag the grauniad, that has never reported the truth in the last 5 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a lying sack of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
Click to expand...


Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.


----------



## RoccoR

MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,

Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.

The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:


*Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
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.

Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":

(a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
(b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​
_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​


MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So how does this show that the arab league didnt  invaded the mandate of palestine with the stated intent of mass murdering the Jews and stealing the land that was granted under international laws to the Jews.
> And your only source is the anti semitic failing rag the grauniad, that has never reported the truth in the last 5 years
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a lying sack of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."

The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense. 

The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.   

•  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
•  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring
> 
> 
> 
> You're a lying sack of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.

Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.

BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a lying sack of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
Click to expand...


"_They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack_."_™_

_Funny. _Good one_.
_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "_They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack_."_™_
> 
> _Funny. _Good one_._
Click to expand...

Indeed, that is what history says.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc.  We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is not new.
Click to expand...


Clearly.  It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs.  Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places.  The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  Certainly no one talks about while *reversing the indigenous and the colonizers*, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  

Respectfully, 
a filthy Jew


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "_They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack_."_™_
> 
> _Funny. _Good one_._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, that is what history says.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that has become another of the slogans you cut and paste into various threads after another of the Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers wrote it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc.  We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is not new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly.  It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs.  Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places.  The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  Certainly no one talks about while *reversing the indigenous and the colonizers*, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.
> 
> Respectfully,
> a filthy Jew
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is just an attempt to obscure the real intention of the fully pre-planned act of aggression.



P F Tinmore said:


> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab League confederates departed the frontier of their countries and entered territory formerly under the Mandate and territory declared sovereign and independence.




While the Arab League Armies say they were there to "defend" Palestinian Arabs, the fact is that two of the Arab coalition capture territory for themselves.  The Jordanians took the West Bank and the Egyptians took the Gaza Strip.   No matter what excuse you come-up with, the end-state evidence is conclusive.  The Arab League wanted to carve-up the former territory under mandate; eliminating Israel in the process of expanding there territory.  However, Lebanon and Syria failed in their advance, and had a net lost as a result of pursuit.  The Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) essentially was agreed upon as the Armistice Line _(with minor adjustments)_.  

It does not matter if the Arab League recognizes the Jewish State of Israel.  Nothing impairs the inherent right of the Jewish State of Israel to self-defense if an armed attack by the Arab League occurs as it did.   The initiation to a war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.  The organized effort on the part of the anti-Semitic Arab League to present themselves and the defenseless Hostile Arab Palestinians as victims needing protection from the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a lying sack of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
Click to expand...








 They entered the mandate of palestine with the intention of wiping out palestinians and stealing palestinian lands. Isnt that correct, and they made this very clear in the lead up to the invasion. The arab armies had no right to invade the mandate of palestine, and as soon as Israel declared independence the UN should have issued a declaration of war against the arab league unless they turned tail and went home.
 Remember the 300,000 figure was plucked out of thin air and included the population of Jordan because the reality was less than 50,000 were actually evicted, and they were all armed terrorists hiding in villages after the Jews had beaten the arab league forces back. The rest were willing evacuee's who left of their own free will when the arab league asked them to as they could not guarantee their safety.

 Nothing stopping you from bringing up Zionists, Jews, Germans and the nazi's, you just need to make sure they are used in the correct context and not as you usually use them


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "_They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack_."_™_
> 
> _Funny. _Good one_._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, that is what history says.
Click to expand...






 Only islamonazi propaganda versions.

        The reality is this




* 

Excerpts of Direct Quotes of the Law drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League

*
• “All Jewish citizens…will be considered as members of the Jewish minority of the State of Palestine and will have to register [“within 7 days”] with the authorities of the region wherein they reside, giving their names, the exact number of members in their families, their addresses, the names of their banks and the amounts of their deposits in these banks…”2

• “Bank accounts of Jews will be frozen. These funds will be utilized in part or in full to finance the movement of resistance to Zionist ambitions in Palestine.”3

• “Only Jews who are subjects of foreign countries will be considered ‘neutrals.’ These will be compelled either to return to their countries, with a minimum of delay, or be considered Arabs and obliged to accept active service in the Arab army.”4

• “Every Jew whose activities reveal that he is an active Zionist will be considered as a political prisoner and will be interned in places specifically designated for that purpose by police authorities or by the Government. His financial resources, instead of being frozen, will be confiscated.”5

• “Any Jew who will be able to prove that his activities are anti-Zionist will be free to act as he likes, provided that he declares his readiness to join the Arab armies.”6

• “The foregoing…does not mean that those Jews will not be submitted to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this law.”7


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc.  We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is not new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly.  It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs.  Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places.  The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  Certainly no one talks about while *reversing the indigenous and the colonizers*, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.
> 
> Respectfully,
> a filthy Jew
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.
Click to expand...








 WRONG AGAIN you are manipulating to demonise the Jews when no such international law exists to this day.  The arab muslims have been practising settler colonisation all over the world in places like the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen etc


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.



You are on very shaky ground here both morally and legally.

There is no moral high ground to saying the laws changed at the exact moment the Jewish people did something.  In fact, that rather supports my point that laws are changed and redefined when the Jewish people are involved.  

Your legal ground is not better.  There is no law which prohibits voluntary migration of people of an ethnic group into a territory. And the Jewish people, obviously, are returnees, not colonist foreigners.   

But, sigh, we've been over this before, no need to re-hash it here.  I've made my point.

Sincerely,
the filthy Jew


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They entered the mandate of palestine with the intention of wiping out palestinians and stealing palestinian lands. Isnt that correct, and they made this very clear in the lead up to the invasion. The arab armies had no right to invade the mandate of palestine, and as soon as Israel declared independence the UN should have issued a declaration of war against the arab league unless they turned tail and went home.
> Remember the 300,000 figure was plucked out of thin air and included the population of Jordan because the reality was less than 50,000 were actually evicted, and they were all armed terrorists hiding in villages after the Jews had beaten the arab league forces back. The rest were willing evacuee's who left of their own free will when the arab league asked them to as they could not guarantee their safety.
> 
> Nothing stopping you from bringing up Zionists, Jews, Germans and the nazi's, you just need to make sure they are used in the correct context and not as you usually use them
Click to expand...

Do you have links to that line of crap?

I didn't think so.


----------



## theliq

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a lying sack of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
Click to expand...

Excellent,truthful and accurate post Tinnie...you know why they don't get it...........it is because they try to legitimize Zionist Terrorism by saying Jews...then they call us Anti-Semites.....   the problem is for them no matter how they try to  legitimize the Filth of Zionist TERRORISM....these Synthetic Jew LOL /Zionists do not and never had the  Cultural beliefs of Real Jewish people.....They were created,repeat CREATED by an ATHIEST JEW(Synthetic JEW),Illegal's to Palestine,whose only intention was to bring Barbarity and Murder to the Palestinian  people......to take the Palestinians Land.

That these Zionists all of whom were converted to Judiasm (Synthetics) never had any idea of Palestine,no roots or understanding of the Israelites other than what they were told/here say by there Zionist Controllers......The original MODERN TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD.

Their whole being is built on a LIE,they perpetuate this LIE today,they mindlessly believe in this LIE and think by protecting this LIE they can use their enormous HATRED to try to demean and control others exposing the LIE

Creatures like Pheo,not a Jew according to him......then he tries to say that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.......I've heard this type of trash talk before,when the Nazis not only said that all Germans were Nazis but Arrogantly said they would rule the world......This type of Delusional Thinking is a Mental Disorder.......often created through GUILT etc,.

As an Organization the Zionists are openly Shameful,deliberately Aggressive and Delusional.............and a Danger to Mankind.steve


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are on very shaky ground here both morally and legally.
> 
> There is no moral high ground to saying the laws changed at the exact moment the Jewish people did something.  In fact, that rather supports my point that laws are changed and redefined when the Jewish people are involved.
> 
> Your legal ground is not better.  There is no law which prohibits voluntary migration of people of an ethnic group into a territory. And the Jewish people, obviously, are returnees, not colonist foreigners.
> 
> But, sigh, we've been over this before, no need to re-hash it here.  I've made my point.
> 
> Sincerely,
> the filthy Jew
Click to expand...

at last,a signature of honesty..BUT  Shusha you incorrectly put in the word JEW when it should have been ZIONIST,I think you did this because you wanted to imply that I  was being Anti-Semitic.....Naughty Shusha,but I understand why because you typically behave like a Zionist,you have no morality because shamelessly you LIED...............Jews  are Great People.....THE REAL ONES


----------



## theliq

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc.  We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is not new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly.  It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs.  Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places.  The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  Certainly no one talks about while *reversing the indigenous and the colonizers*, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.
> 
> Respectfully,
> a filthy Jew
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.
Click to expand...

CIVILIZED being the operative word here......nice post  Tinnie,steve


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> WELL YOU ARE AN IDIOT ZIONIST......YOU CAN TRY TO DENY YOUR GUILT.....YOUR FILTH BUT WE KNOW BETTER ABOUT Zionist filTH,zionist DOES NOT MEAN DEMONIZING JEWS YOU FOOL,GOOD JEWS IN ISRAEL DETEST ZIONISTS.....so you fcuked on that erroneous comment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.
> 
> ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not Anti Jew(real Jews) but Zionists are a complete curse.......just because you Guys are unable to emancipate your minds from Zionism...that is not my fault...Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism you fools....Zionists all 11 million of you are a mere drop in the Ocean......but you have Lying Mouths,just admit what you are and Stop trying to make out your Normal,which we know you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More from the lying scum who claimed he was a Jew and then admitted he wasn't?
> What an ass you are.
> You're probably Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not understand English very well.....what I said was to someone was "For all I know I could be more Jewish than You if I delved deep enough in my ancestory".......That is so far removed from what you are espousing........If I was I would never entertain Filthy Zionism like most of you.
> 
> Hope that is clear enough for you,if not get a brain transplant.
> 
> Zionists HATE EVERYONE because their manifest is HATE,and the way you call for Palestinians to be driven in to the sea,is Hypocricy......Anyhow Zionism is a Mental Disorder.I feel Sorry for You
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
Click to expand...

I note the word PALESTINE............the REST OF THE POST IS UNMITIGATED ZIONIST TERRORIST<>BULLSHIT


----------



## Shusha

theliq said:


> at last,a signature of honesty..BUT  Shusha you incorrectly put in the word JEW when it should have been ZIONIST,I think you did this because you wanted to imply that I  was being Anti-Semitic.....Naughty Shusha,but I understand why because you typically behave like a Zionist,you have no morality because shamelessly you LIED...............Jews  are Great People.....THE REAL ONES



Steve, as you have repeatedly informed me -- you and I AGREE.  We both believe that there should be two States for two peoples -- one (more) for the Arab Palestinian people -- Palestine -- and one for the Jewish people -- Israel.  Since we believe in the same thing we are either both Zionists or neither Zionists.  

If you believe that the Jewish people should have their own self-determination then you are, in fact, a Zionist.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt was part of the force that intervened to try to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Zionists.  The British were well aware of this.  You have been fed Zionist propaganda all your life, you can't accept the truth.
> 
> "Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, *Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist *stance and declare* armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'"*
> 
> "The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, *reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.*
> 
> "After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision ...It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."
> 
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does this show that the arab league didnt  invaded the mandate of palestine with the stated intent of mass murdering the Jews and stealing the land that was granted under international laws to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> And your only source is the anti semitic failing rag the grauniad, that has never reported the truth in the last 5 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go away you pompous cretin, while you rot your brain with the hate sites you will never be my equal. I am your superior in every way and dont forget it. I have seen a video of you, and how you blubbered like a baby when proven to be a coward and a liar.
> 
> Should I POST IT ON HERE FOR ALL TO SEE ?
Click to expand...

POST IT...unlike you,I am open,honest and have nothing to hide............................Do you really think I could be threatened,intimidated or cowerd by a TWO BIT  PEICE OF ZIONIST SHITHEAD LIKE YOU...... You are merely exposing your cowardly  RUNTness for all to see.............t


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> at last,a signature of honesty..BUT  Shusha you incorrectly put in the word JEW when it should have been ZIONIST,I think you did this because you wanted to imply that I  was being Anti-Semitic.....Naughty Shusha,but I understand why because you typically behave like a Zionist,you have no morality because shamelessly you LIED...............Jews  are Great People.....THE REAL ONES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve, as you have repeatedly informed me -- you and I AGREE.  We both believe that there should be two States for two peoples -- one (more) for the Arab Palestinian people -- Palestine -- and one for the Jewish people -- Israel.  Since we believe in the same thing we are either both Zionists or neither Zionists.
> 
> If you believe that the Jewish people should have their own self-determination then you are, in fact, a Zionist.
Click to expand...

I find your Logic inane,because I am  pragmatic over this schism,that somehow makes me a Zionist!!!!!!for fuck sake Shusha what is wrong with you???


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said settler colonialism that is very different than regular colonialism.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc.  We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Settler colonialism is not new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly.  It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs.  Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places.  The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  Certainly no one talks about while *reversing the indigenous and the colonizers*, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.
> 
> Respectfully,
> a filthy Jew
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN you are manipulating to demonise the Jews when no such international law exists to this day.  The arab muslims have been practising settler colonisation all over the world in places like the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen etc
Click to expand...

when no such international law exists to this day.​
That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, per se, is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.


----------



## Shusha

theliq said:


> I find your Logic inane,because I am  pragmatic over this schism,that somehow makes me a Zionist!!!!!!for fuck sake Shusha what is wrong with you???



What is wrong with me is people like you who somehow think its okay to demonize Jews for vague reasons that they are filthy and evil while being unable to accurately define Zionism.  

If you define Zionism, as Eloy did, as the desire for an exclusive Jewish State cleansed of Arab Palestinian Muslims and Christians -- then I am not a Zionist.  So if you call me filthy, it is not because of what I believe but because I am a Jew.  

So tell define Zionism for me so you can be sure I am a Zionist and not just a Jew.


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent,truthful and accurate post Tinnie...you know why they don't get it...........it is because they try to legitimize Zionist Terrorism by saying Jews...then they call us Anti-Semites.....   the problem is for them no matter how they try to  legitimize the Filth of Zionist TERRORISM....these Synthetic Jew LOL /Zionists do not and never had the  Cultural beliefs of Real Jewish people.....They were created,repeat CREATED by an ATHIEST JEW(Synthetic JEW),Illegal's to Palestine,whose only intention was to bring Barbarity and Murder to the Palestinian  people......to take the Palestinians Land.
> 
> That these Zionists all of whom were converted to Judiasm (Synthetics) never had any idea of Palestine,no roots or understanding of the Israelites other than what they were told/here say by there Zionist Controllers......The original MODERN TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD.
> 
> Their whole being is built on a LIE,they perpetuate this LIE today,they mindlessly believe in this LIE and think by protecting this LIE they can use their enormous HATRED to try to demean and control others exposing the LIE
> 
> Creatures like Pheo,not a Jew according to him......then he tries to say that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.......I've heard this type of trash talk before,when the Nazis not only said that all Germans were Nazis but Arrogantly said they would rule the world......This type of Delusional Thinking is a Mental Disorder.......often created through GUILT etc,.
> 
> As an Organization the Zionists are openly Shameful,deliberately Aggressive and Delusional.............and a Danger to Mankind.steve
Click to expand...



Calm down, Steve.  You sound like a raging lunatic.  Are you under psychiatric care?   You certainly sound like you are, but are not being given the correct medication to help you.  Now join these so-called by you "fake Jews" next Friday night and you might enjoy yourself.


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your Logic inane,because I am  pragmatic over this schism,that somehow makes me a Zionist!!!!!!for fuck sake Shusha what is wrong with you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with me is people like you who somehow think its okay to demonize Jews for vague reasons that they are filthy and evil while being unable to accurately define Zionism.
> 
> If you define Zionism, as Eloy did, as the desire for an exclusive Jewish State cleansed of Arab Palestinian Muslims and Christians -- then I am not a Zionist.  So if you call me filthy, it is not because of what I believe but because I am a Jew.
> 
> So tell define Zionism for me so you can be sure I am a Zionist and not just a Jew.
Click to expand...


I don't Demonize Jews just Zionists because of what they have done,their outright shamefulness of their denial of what they have done  and over the past few  years  their ridiculous claim  that Judaism  is  Zionism


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent,truthful and accurate post Tinnie...you know why they don't get it...........it is because they try to legitimize Zionist Terrorism by saying Jews...then they call us Anti-Semites.....   the problem is for them no matter how they try to  legitimize the Filth of Zionist TERRORISM....these Synthetic Jew LOL /Zionists do not and never had the  Cultural beliefs of Real Jewish people.....They were created,repeat CREATED by an ATHIEST JEW(Synthetic JEW),Illegal's to Palestine,whose only intention was to bring Barbarity and Murder to the Palestinian  people......to take the Palestinians Land.
> 
> That these Zionists all of whom were converted to Judiasm (Synthetics) never had any idea of Palestine,no roots or understanding of the Israelites other than what they were told/here say by there Zionist Controllers......The original MODERN TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD.
> 
> Their whole being is built on a LIE,they perpetuate this LIE today,they mindlessly believe in this LIE and think by protecting this LIE they can use their enormous HATRED to try to demean and control others exposing the LIE
> 
> Creatures like Pheo,not a Jew according to him......then he tries to say that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.......I've heard this type of trash talk before,when the Nazis not only said that all Germans were Nazis but Arrogantly said they would rule the world......This type of Delusional Thinking is a Mental Disorder.......often created through GUILT etc,.
> 
> As an Organization the Zionists are openly Shameful,deliberately Aggressive and Delusional.............and a Danger to Mankind.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Steve.  You sound like a raging lunatic.  Are you under psychiatric care?   You certainly sound like you are, but are not being given the correct medication to help you.  Now join these so-called by you "fake Jews" next Friday night and you might enjoy yourself.
Click to expand...

You joining in Hoss ???? LOL steve...ps not Loony just Normal.......I can't help that you are a Zionut...I tell folk I don't like Synthetic "Fake Jews" I'm wrong because I love you man..steve,shit if I was over there I would have a few Jars with you,but don't try to convert me,...I hate plastic,LOL...see ya Hoss.


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent,truthful and accurate post Tinnie...you know why they don't get it...........it is because they try to legitimize Zionist Terrorism by saying Jews...then they call us Anti-Semites.....   the problem is for them no matter how they try to  legitimize the Filth of Zionist TERRORISM....these Synthetic Jew LOL /Zionists do not and never had the  Cultural beliefs of Real Jewish people.....They were created,repeat CREATED by an ATHIEST JEW(Synthetic JEW),Illegal's to Palestine,whose only intention was to bring Barbarity and Murder to the Palestinian  people......to take the Palestinians Land.
> 
> That these Zionists all of whom were converted to Judiasm (Synthetics) never had any idea of Palestine,no roots or understanding of the Israelites other than what they were told/here say by there Zionist Controllers......The original MODERN TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD.
> 
> Their whole being is built on a LIE,they perpetuate this LIE today,they mindlessly believe in this LIE and think by protecting this LIE they can use their enormous HATRED to try to demean and control others exposing the LIE
> 
> Creatures like Pheo,not a Jew according to him......then he tries to say that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.......I've heard this type of trash talk before,when the Nazis not only said that all Germans were Nazis but Arrogantly said they would rule the world......This type of Delusional Thinking is a Mental Disorder.......often created through GUILT etc,.
> 
> As an Organization the Zionists are openly Shameful,deliberately Aggressive and Delusional.............and a Danger to Mankind.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Steve.  You sound like a raging lunatic.  Are you under psychiatric care?   You certainly sound like you are, but are not being given the correct medication to help you.  Now join these so-called by you "fake Jews" next Friday night and you might enjoy yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You joining in Hoss ???? LOL steve...ps not Loony just Normal.......I can't help that you are a Zionut...I tell folk I don't like Synthetic "Fake Jews" I'm wrong because I love you man..steve,shit if I was over there I would have a few Jars with you,but don't try to convert me,...I hate plastic,LOL...see ya Hoss.
Click to expand...

I don't think  you realize, Steve, that with your "fake Jew" nonsense, you appear that you belong in the looney bin.   However,  if  you don't mind appearing like a crackpot, then go for it.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Today, I think there are less than *20 Non-Self-Governing Territories* _(the official terminology for colonial activity)_ (NSGTs).  The *General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960* is called the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and is the principle document which guides the UN Special Committee on exclusively on the issue of decolonization.  The UN considers assisting the movement for independence in Trust and NSGTs extremely important. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "when no such international law exists to this day."
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, _*per se,*_ is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In these contemporary times, there is no application of the anti-colonial law or the decolonization policy as related to the Middle East and Israel.   The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is not considered colonized in the context of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)].  

The attempt by the pro-Palestinian supporters to attach some sort of colonial criminal association to the Arab-Israeli Conflict as it stands today, is simply a frivolous allegation.  But even so, it should be noted that being a colonial country is not a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a Crime of Aggression.  Both the US and the UK - each Allied Powers - and each still holding NSGTs.  It is not a crime or illegal.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent,truthful and accurate post Tinnie...you know why they don't get it...........it is because they try to legitimize Zionist Terrorism by saying Jews...then they call us Anti-Semites.....   the problem is for them no matter how they try to  legitimize the Filth of Zionist TERRORISM....these Synthetic Jew LOL /Zionists do not and never had the  Cultural beliefs of Real Jewish people.....They were created,repeat CREATED by an ATHIEST JEW(Synthetic JEW),Illegal's to Palestine,whose only intention was to bring Barbarity and Murder to the Palestinian  people......to take the Palestinians Land.
> 
> That these Zionists all of whom were converted to Judiasm (Synthetics) never had any idea of Palestine,no roots or understanding of the Israelites other than what they were told/here say by there Zionist Controllers......The original MODERN TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD.
> 
> Their whole being is built on a LIE,they perpetuate this LIE today,they mindlessly believe in this LIE and think by protecting this LIE they can use their enormous HATRED to try to demean and control others exposing the LIE
> 
> Creatures like Pheo,not a Jew according to him......then he tries to say that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.......I've heard this type of trash talk before,when the Nazis not only said that all Germans were Nazis but Arrogantly said they would rule the world......This type of Delusional Thinking is a Mental Disorder.......often created through GUILT etc,.
> 
> As an Organization the Zionists are openly Shameful,deliberately Aggressive and Delusional.............and a Danger to Mankind.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Steve.  You sound like a raging lunatic.  Are you under psychiatric care?   You certainly sound like you are, but are not being given the correct medication to help you.  Now join these so-called by you "fake Jews" next Friday night and you might enjoy yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You joining in Hoss ???? LOL steve...ps not Loony just Normal.......I can't help that you are a Zionut...I tell folk I don't like Synthetic "Fake Jews" I'm wrong because I love you man..steve,shit if I was over there I would have a few Jars with you,but don't try to convert me,...I hate plastic,LOL...see ya Hoss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think  you realize, Steve, that with your "fake Jew" nonsense, you appear that you belong in the looney bin.   However,  if  you don't mind appearing like a crackpot, then go for it.
Click to expand...

On this issue,I cannot let you have the last word because you know I'm right......you need to think,to think about what I said,THINK BEING THE OPERATIVE WORD HERE steve


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent,truthful and accurate post Tinnie...you know why they don't get it...........it is because they try to legitimize Zionist Terrorism by saying Jews...then they call us Anti-Semites.....   the problem is for them no matter how they try to  legitimize the Filth of Zionist TERRORISM....these Synthetic Jew LOL /Zionists do not and never had the  Cultural beliefs of Real Jewish people.....They were created,repeat CREATED by an ATHIEST JEW(Synthetic JEW),Illegal's to Palestine,whose only intention was to bring Barbarity and Murder to the Palestinian  people......to take the Palestinians Land.
> 
> That these Zionists all of whom were converted to Judiasm (Synthetics) never had any idea of Palestine,no roots or understanding of the Israelites other than what they were told/here say by there Zionist Controllers......The original MODERN TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD.
> 
> Their whole being is built on a LIE,they perpetuate this LIE today,they mindlessly believe in this LIE and think by protecting this LIE they can use their enormous HATRED to try to demean and control others exposing the LIE
> 
> Creatures like Pheo,not a Jew according to him......then he tries to say that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.......I've heard this type of trash talk before,when the Nazis not only said that all Germans were Nazis but Arrogantly said they would rule the world......This type of Delusional Thinking is a Mental Disorder.......often created through GUILT etc,.
> 
> As an Organization the Zionists are openly Shameful,deliberately Aggressive and Delusional.............and a Danger to Mankind.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Steve.  You sound like a raging lunatic.  Are you under psychiatric care?   You certainly sound like you are, but are not being given the correct medication to help you.  Now join these so-called by you "fake Jews" next Friday night and you might enjoy yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You joining in Hoss ???? LOL steve...ps not Loony just Normal.......I can't help that you are a Zionut...I tell folk I don't like Synthetic "Fake Jews" I'm wrong because I love you man..steve,shit if I was over there I would have a few Jars with you,but don't try to convert me,...I hate plastic,LOL...see ya Hoss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think  you realize, Steve, that with your "fake Jew" nonsense, you appear that you belong in the looney bin.   However,  if  you don't mind appearing like a crackpot, then go for it.
Click to expand...

LOL,trouble is with your funny and Rocco's agree is...that you and Rocco made a Love Child which became Zionism......now that is Funny and I Agree LOL steve


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Today, I think there are less than *20 Non-Self-Governing Territories* _(the official terminology for colonial activity)_ (NSGTs).  The *General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960* is called the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and is the principle document which guides the UN Special Committee on exclusively on the issue of decolonization.  The UN considers assisting the movement for independence in Trust and NSGTs extremely important.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "when no such international law exists to this day."
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, _*per se,*_ is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In these contemporary times, there is no application of the anti-colonial law or the decolonization policy as related to the Middle East and Israel.   The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is not considered colonized in the context of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)].
> 
> The attempt by the pro-Palestinian supporters to attach some sort of colonial criminal association to the Arab-Israeli Conflict as it stands today, is simply a frivolous allegation.  But even so, it should be noted that being a colonial country is not a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a Crime of Aggression.  Both the US and the UK - each Allied Powers - and each still holding NSGTs.  It is not a crime or illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Huh,considering America  could vote in Trump for President and the UK who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag,why should anyone bother to listen to them.
Moreover Rocco,with respect to you.....War Crimes and Crimes generally were and still are being committed against the Palestinians.....as various countries have Warrants out against BiBi,for Crimes against Humanity......that's why he will never visit or land in Belgium....they will serve the Writ and Transport him to Den Haag,to the Criminal Court of Justice.........so your claim is not correct,with respect.steve


----------



## RoccoR

theliq,  et al,

I think I missed something here.



theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Today, I think there are less than *20 Non-Self-Governing Territories* _(the official terminology for colonial activity)_ (NSGTs).  The *General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960* is called the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and is the principle document which guides the UN Special Committee on exclusively on the issue of decolonization.  The UN considers assisting the movement for independence in Trust and NSGTs extremely important.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "when no such international law exists to this day."
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, _*per se,*_ is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In these contemporary times, there is no application of the anti-colonial law or the decolonization policy as related to the Middle East and Israel.   The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is not considered colonized in the context of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)].
> 
> The attempt by the pro-Palestinian supporters to attach some sort of colonial criminal association to the Arab-Israeli Conflict as it stands today, is simply a frivolous allegation.  But even so, it should be noted that being a colonial country is not a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a Crime of Aggression.  Both the US and the UK - each Allied Powers - and each still holding NSGTs.  It is not a crime or illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh,considering America  could vote in Trump for President and the UK who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag,why should anyone bother to listen to them.
> Moreover Rocco,with respect to you.....War Crimes and Crimes generally were and still are being committed against the Palestinians.....as various countries have Warrants out against BiBi,for Crimes against Humanity......that's why he will never visit or land in Belgium....they will serve the Writ and Transport him to Den Haag,to the Criminal Court of Justice.........so your claim is not correct,with respect.steve
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I totally lost the connection here.

v/r
R


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> I think I missed something here.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Today, I think there are less than *20 Non-Self-Governing Territories* _(the official terminology for colonial activity)_ (NSGTs).  The *General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960* is called the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and is the principle document which guides the UN Special Committee on exclusively on the issue of decolonization.  The UN considers assisting the movement for independence in Trust and NSGTs extremely important.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "when no such international law exists to this day."
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, _*per se,*_ is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In these contemporary times, there is no application of the anti-colonial law or the decolonization policy as related to the Middle East and Israel.   The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is not considered colonized in the context of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)].
> 
> The attempt by the pro-Palestinian supporters to attach some sort of colonial criminal association to the Arab-Israeli Conflict as it stands today, is simply a frivolous allegation.  But even so, it should be noted that being a colonial country is not a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a Crime of Aggression.  Both the US and the UK - each Allied Powers - and each still holding NSGTs.  It is not a crime or illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh,considering America  could vote in Trump for President and the UK who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag,why should anyone bother to listen to them.
> Moreover Rocco,with respect to you.....War Crimes and Crimes generally were and still are being committed against the Palestinians.....as various countries have Warrants out against BiBi,for Crimes against Humanity......that's why he will never visit or land in Belgium....they will serve the Writ and Transport him to Den Haag,to the Criminal Court of Justice.........so your claim is not correct,with respect.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I totally lost the connection here.
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...

What I was saying is....that just because the US and the UK saying there is no Crime etc.,who are they to say anything considering,what they have become,not only that both Governments are Lap-Dogs to the Zionist Lobby.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Today, I think there are less than *20 Non-Self-Governing Territories* _(the official terminology for colonial activity)_ (NSGTs).  The *General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960* is called the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and is the principle document which guides the UN Special Committee on exclusively on the issue of decolonization.  The UN considers assisting the movement for independence in Trust and NSGTs extremely important.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "when no such international law exists to this day."
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, _*per se,*_ is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In these contemporary times, there is no application of the anti-colonial law or the decolonization policy as related to the Middle East and Israel.   The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is not considered colonized in the context of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)].
> 
> The attempt by the pro-Palestinian supporters to attach some sort of colonial criminal association to the Arab-Israeli Conflict as it stands today, is simply a frivolous allegation.  But even so, it should be noted that being a colonial country is not a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a Crime of Aggression.  Both the US and the UK - each Allied Powers - and each still holding NSGTs.  It is not a crime or illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I am not looking at the political opinions of the UN. I am looking at the facts on the ground. Israeli settler colonialism has been ongoing for a hundred years. That is why there has been war for a hundred years.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Today, I think there are less than *20 Non-Self-Governing Territories* _(the official terminology for colonial activity)_ (NSGTs).  The *General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960* is called the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and is the principle document which guides the UN Special Committee on exclusively on the issue of decolonization.  The UN considers assisting the movement for independence in Trust and NSGTs extremely important.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "when no such international law exists to this day."
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, _*per se,*_ is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In these contemporary times, there is no application of the anti-colonial law or the decolonization policy as related to the Middle East and Israel.   The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is not considered colonized in the context of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)].
> 
> The attempt by the pro-Palestinian supporters to attach some sort of colonial criminal association to the Arab-Israeli Conflict as it stands today, is simply a frivolous allegation.  But even so, it should be noted that being a colonial country is not a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a Crime of Aggression.  Both the US and the UK - each Allied Powers - and each still holding NSGTs.  It is not a crime or illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not looking at the political opinions of the UN. I am looking at the facts on the ground. Israeli settler colonialism has been ongoing for a hundred years. That is why there has been war for a hundred years.
Click to expand...

Actually, study your koranology for why islamists have been at war with each other and with any society that has opposed Islamisms expansionist plans of colonization.


----------



## RoccoR

theliq,  et al,

Oh --- Please!



theliq said:


> What I was saying is....that just because the US and the UK saying there is no Crime etc.,who are they to say anything considering, what they have become, not only that both Governments are Lap-Dogs to the Zionist Lobby.


*(COMMENT)*

So, the people that made famous suicide bombing, airline hijacking, beheadings, and SALW attacks on tourist and school busses, are going to teach us about what is criminal and what is not?

America and the UK _(was well as France, Spain and New Zealand)_ may not be perfect; but they are considerable more cultured and socially advanced --- having more philosophically and moral integrity than any contribution by any Muslim Nations.

Just as a yard stick, nearly a quarter of the global population is Muslim.  By any normal distribution model, you would think that about a quarter of the Nobel Prizes would have similarly distributed marking their contribution to the world.  BUT, you would be wrong.  Since the end of the Great War and the Balfour Declaration a century ago, only a dozen _*(or so --- nearly one for each Olympian killed by Palestinians)*_ have been awarded to Muslim Laureates; of which only three have been for a hard science.  AND, of which about half of them having been awarded since the turn of the 21st Century.  And 

Denmark with a population of only 5.6 Million _(less than 3% of the Worlds Muslim population of more than 2 billion)_ has generated just as many 12 Nobel laureates _(5 have been for medicine, 3 have been for physics, 2 have been for chemistry, 1 has been for literature and one has been for peace)_.  

Credibility is the key here.  One Only has to look at nations like the Palestinians that glorify the Jihadist, Fedayeen, Islamic Radical, Insurgents and other asymmetric activities to see where the humanity rest in the core of the community.

Just because a culture like that of the Palestinians, claim to be a victim of unprovoked mayhem, doesn't make it true.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They entered the mandate of palestine with the intention of wiping out palestinians and stealing palestinian lands. Isnt that correct, and they made this very clear in the lead up to the invasion. The arab armies had no right to invade the mandate of palestine, and as soon as Israel declared independence the UN should have issued a declaration of war against the arab league unless they turned tail and went home.
> Remember the 300,000 figure was plucked out of thin air and included the population of Jordan because the reality was less than 50,000 were actually evicted, and they were all armed terrorists hiding in villages after the Jews had beaten the arab league forces back. The rest were willing evacuee's who left of their own free will when the arab league asked them to as they could not guarantee their safety.
> 
> Nothing stopping you from bringing up Zionists, Jews, Germans and the nazi's, you just need to make sure they are used in the correct context and not as you usually use them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have links to that line of crap?
> 
> I didn't think so.
Click to expand...








 Yes and I have posted them in the past many times, but as usual you ignore them and ask all over again for the same evidence so you can sat " Israeli talking points "


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could be but that is for others to decide.....but you Zionist have no SACK...JUST SHIT.....get use to it
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent,truthful and accurate post Tinnie...you know why they don't get it...........it is because they try to legitimize Zionist Terrorism by saying Jews...then they call us Anti-Semites.....   the problem is for them no matter how they try to  legitimize the Filth of Zionist TERRORISM....these Synthetic Jew LOL /Zionists do not and never had the  Cultural beliefs of Real Jewish people.....They were created,repeat CREATED by an ATHIEST JEW(Synthetic JEW),Illegal's to Palestine,whose only intention was to bring Barbarity and Murder to the Palestinian  people......to take the Palestinians Land.
> 
> That these Zionists all of whom were converted to Judiasm (Synthetics) never had any idea of Palestine,no roots or understanding of the Israelites other than what they were told/here say by there Zionist Controllers......The original MODERN TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD.
> 
> Their whole being is built on a LIE,they perpetuate this LIE today,they mindlessly believe in this LIE and think by protecting this LIE they can use their enormous HATRED to try to demean and control others exposing the LIE
> 
> Creatures like Pheo,not a Jew according to him......then he tries to say that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.......I've heard this type of trash talk before,when the Nazis not only said that all Germans were Nazis but Arrogantly said they would rule the world......This type of Delusional Thinking is a Mental Disorder.......often created through GUILT etc,.
> 
> As an Organization the Zionists are openly Shameful,deliberately Aggressive and Delusional.............and a Danger to Mankind.steve
Click to expand...








 Go away little boy, you have been shown as a complete idiot time and time again and you still peddle the LIES found on the hate sites


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean N.K. Jews dont you, that have it as their end times that the likes of you would be killed first so they can build a stairway to heaven out of your bodies.
> 
> ANTI ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI SEMITISM AND THE NAZI'S WILL SOON FIND THEY FACE PRISON FOR IT
> 
> 
> 
> Not Anti Jew(real Jews) but Zionists are a complete curse.......just because you Guys are unable to emancipate your minds from Zionism...that is not my fault...Anti Zionism is not Anti Semitism you fools....Zionists all 11 million of you are a mere drop in the Ocean......but you have Lying Mouths,just admit what you are and Stop trying to make out your Normal,which we know you are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More from the lying scum who claimed he was a Jew and then admitted he wasn't?
> What an ass you are.
> You're probably Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not understand English very well.....what I said was to someone was "For all I know I could be more Jewish than You if I delved deep enough in my ancestory".......That is so far removed from what you are espousing........If I was I would never entertain Filthy Zionism like most of you.
> 
> Hope that is clear enough for you,if not get a brain transplant.
> 
> Zionists HATE EVERYONE because their manifest is HATE,and the way you call for Palestinians to be driven in to the sea,is Hypocricy......Anyhow Zionism is a Mental Disorder.I feel Sorry for You
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionism | nationalistic movement
> 
> *Zionism, *Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I note the word PALESTINE............the REST OF THE POST IS UNMITIGATED ZIONIST TERRORIST<>BULLSHIT
Click to expand...








 So you even call your fellow Australians now when they tell the truth


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt was part of the force that intervened to try to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine by the European Zionists.  The British were well aware of this.  You have been fed Zionist propaganda all your life, you can't accept the truth.
> 
> "Declassified UK reports document build-up of conflict, *Jewish public's endorsement of their leaders' pro-terrorist *stance and declare* armies of Arab states were Palestinians' 'only hope'"*
> 
> "The documents, which have a remarkable contemporary resonance, *reveal how British officials looked on as Jewish settlers took over more and more Arab land.*
> 
> "After an increase in violent attacks by the militant Zionists of the Stern group and Irgun, British officials reported later in 1946: *"Arab leaders appear to be still disposed to defer active opposition so long as a chance of a political decision ...It is now obvious that the only hope of regaining their position lies in the regular armies of the Arab states."
> 
> British officials predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does this show that the arab league didnt  invaded the mandate of palestine with the stated intent of mass murdering the Jews and stealing the land that was granted under international laws to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> And your only source is the anti semitic failing rag the grauniad, that has never reported the truth in the last 5 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WRONG as per usual......how has fiction become fact to you Pheo......that's right,reading your Zionist Mantra Manual again,Christ you really are Boring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go away you pompous cretin, while you rot your brain with the hate sites you will never be my equal. I am your superior in every way and dont forget it. I have seen a video of you, and how you blubbered like a baby when proven to be a coward and a liar.
> 
> Should I POST IT ON HERE FOR ALL TO SEE ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> POST IT...unlike you,I am open,honest and have nothing to hide............................Do you really think I could be threatened,intimidated or cowerd by a TWO BIT  PEICE OF ZIONIST SHITHEAD LIKE YOU...... You are merely exposing your cowardly  RUNTness for all to see.............t
Click to expand...







 You are the coward


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  In order to demonize the Jews we have to change the meaning of common words and legal concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, occupation, terrorism, blockade, rights, self-determination, war crime, etc, etc, etc.  We have to invent entirely new meanings just so we can demonize the evil Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Settler colonialism is not new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly.  It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs.  Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places.  The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  Certainly no one talks about while *reversing the indigenous and the colonizers*, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.
> 
> Respectfully,
> a filthy Jew
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN you are manipulating to demonise the Jews when no such international law exists to this day.  The arab muslims have been practising settler colonisation all over the world in places like the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when no such international law exists to this day.​
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, per se, is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
Click to expand...








 Cant be if the concept is still legal


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your Logic inane,because I am  pragmatic over this schism,that somehow makes me a Zionist!!!!!!for fuck sake Shusha what is wrong with you???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with me is people like you who somehow think its okay to demonize Jews for vague reasons that they are filthy and evil while being unable to accurately define Zionism.
> 
> If you define Zionism, as Eloy did, as the desire for an exclusive Jewish State cleansed of Arab Palestinian Muslims and Christians -- then I am not a Zionist.  So if you call me filthy, it is not because of what I believe but because I am a Jew.
> 
> So tell define Zionism for me so you can be sure I am a Zionist and not just a Jew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't Demonize Jews just Zionists because of what they have done,their outright shamefulness of their denial of what they have done  and over the past few  years  their ridiculous claim  that Judaism  is  Zionism
Click to expand...








 LIAR


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741, Phoenall, theliq, Indeependent, et al,
> 
> Well, this track in the discussion gets us nowhere.  Quibbling over the term invasion gets us nowhere.  Either the Arab Army came across and international border or not, it is still an invasion.
> 
> The term "invasion" is a description of a tactical operation.  It is not the political term with consequence.  The term you really need to tack down is:
> 
> *Article 1  Definition of Aggression  A/RES/29/3314*
> 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.
> 
> Explanatory note: In this Definition the term "State":
> 
> (a) Is used without prejudice to questions of recognition or to whether a State is a member of the United Nations;
> (b) Includes the concept of a "group of States" where appropriate.​_Considering also_ that, since aggression is the most serious and dangerous form of the illegal use of force, being fraught, in the conditions created by the existence of all types of weapons of mass destruction, with the possible threat of a world conflict and all its catastrophic consequences, aggression should be defined at the present stage,​
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Another important fact & reason for Israel's right to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The definition or use of the term "Zionist or Zionism" is quite irrelevant. It is a nice adjective to through around, but it is no more meaningful than say the "Black Jews" or the "Rich Jews."
> 
> The term "zionism" is made even more ambiguous since it meaning changes over time; just like any other  entity that holds to a persuasion.  The Zionist of the 1920s when the San Remo Convention met, is different from the Zionist of 1948, and yet again, the Zionist of today.   It is a rather useless term except in the most broadest sense.
> 
> The reasoning that the pro-Palestinians take the position as they did in 1948 was simple.  Like our friend "P F Tinmore" the representative of the Arab Higher Committee insisted at the time --- that nationals of the Arab States could not be regarded as invaders in Palestine. It was only natural that the Palestinians had appealed to their neighbors for assistance in the face of mounting Jewish aggression.
> 
> •  Nationals of the Arab States = any Arab from the any Arab League member State.
> •  "Jewish Aggression = any Jewish Immigration into the territory, any attempt to Construct a Jewish Nation Home, and any attempt to exercise self-determination and declare independence --- following the UN adopted Step Preparatory for Independence.​
> In their eyes --- there is no way the pro-Palestinians can argue otherwise and there is no way for them to see the outcome in their favor.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent,truthful and accurate post Tinnie...you know why they don't get it...........it is because they try to legitimize Zionist Terrorism by saying Jews...then they call us Anti-Semites.....   the problem is for them no matter how they try to  legitimize the Filth of Zionist TERRORISM....these Synthetic Jew LOL /Zionists do not and never had the  Cultural beliefs of Real Jewish people.....They were created,repeat CREATED by an ATHIEST JEW(Synthetic JEW),Illegal's to Palestine,whose only intention was to bring Barbarity and Murder to the Palestinian  people......to take the Palestinians Land.
> 
> That these Zionists all of whom were converted to Judiasm (Synthetics) never had any idea of Palestine,no roots or understanding of the Israelites other than what they were told/here say by there Zionist Controllers......The original MODERN TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD.
> 
> Their whole being is built on a LIE,they perpetuate this LIE today,they mindlessly believe in this LIE and think by protecting this LIE they can use their enormous HATRED to try to demean and control others exposing the LIE
> 
> Creatures like Pheo,not a Jew according to him......then he tries to say that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.......I've heard this type of trash talk before,when the Nazis not only said that all Germans were Nazis but Arrogantly said they would rule the world......This type of Delusional Thinking is a Mental Disorder.......often created through GUILT etc,.
> 
> As an Organization the Zionists are openly Shameful,deliberately Aggressive and Delusional.............and a Danger to Mankind.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Steve.  You sound like a raging lunatic.  Are you under psychiatric care?   You certainly sound like you are, but are not being given the correct medication to help you.  Now join these so-called by you "fake Jews" next Friday night and you might enjoy yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You joining in Hoss ???? LOL steve...ps not Loony just Normal.......I can't help that you are a Zionut...I tell folk I don't like Synthetic "Fake Jews" I'm wrong because I love you man..steve,shit if I was over there I would have a few Jars with you,but don't try to convert me,...I hate plastic,LOL...see ya Hoss.
Click to expand...









The only synthetic fake Jew on here is you, and you show it every time you post


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Settler colonialism is not new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly.  It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs.  Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places.  The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  Certainly no one talks about while *reversing the indigenous and the colonizers*, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.
> 
> Respectfully,
> a filthy Jew
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN you are manipulating to demonise the Jews when no such international law exists to this day.  The arab muslims have been practising settler colonisation all over the world in places like the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when no such international law exists to this day.​
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, per se, is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant be if the concept is still legal
Click to expand...

What concept is legal?


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent,truthful and accurate post Tinnie...you know why they don't get it...........it is because they try to legitimize Zionist Terrorism by saying Jews...then they call us Anti-Semites.....   the problem is for them no matter how they try to  legitimize the Filth of Zionist TERRORISM....these Synthetic Jew LOL /Zionists do not and never had the  Cultural beliefs of Real Jewish people.....They were created,repeat CREATED by an ATHIEST JEW(Synthetic JEW),Illegal's to Palestine,whose only intention was to bring Barbarity and Murder to the Palestinian  people......to take the Palestinians Land.
> 
> That these Zionists all of whom were converted to Judiasm (Synthetics) never had any idea of Palestine,no roots or understanding of the Israelites other than what they were told/here say by there Zionist Controllers......The original MODERN TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD.
> 
> Their whole being is built on a LIE,they perpetuate this LIE today,they mindlessly believe in this LIE and think by protecting this LIE they can use their enormous HATRED to try to demean and control others exposing the LIE
> 
> Creatures like Pheo,not a Jew according to him......then he tries to say that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.......I've heard this type of trash talk before,when the Nazis not only said that all Germans were Nazis but Arrogantly said they would rule the world......This type of Delusional Thinking is a Mental Disorder.......often created through GUILT etc,.
> 
> As an Organization the Zionists are openly Shameful,deliberately Aggressive and Delusional.............and a Danger to Mankind.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Steve.  You sound like a raging lunatic.  Are you under psychiatric care?   You certainly sound like you are, but are not being given the correct medication to help you.  Now join these so-called by you "fake Jews" next Friday night and you might enjoy yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You joining in Hoss ???? LOL steve...ps not Loony just Normal.......I can't help that you are a Zionut...I tell folk I don't like Synthetic "Fake Jews" I'm wrong because I love you man..steve,shit if I was over there I would have a few Jars with you,but don't try to convert me,...I hate plastic,LOL...see ya Hoss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think  you realize, Steve, that with your "fake Jew" nonsense, you appear that you belong in the looney bin.   However,  if  you don't mind appearing like a crackpot, then go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On this issue,I cannot let you have the last word because you know I'm right......you need to think,to think about what I said,THINK BEING THE OPERATIVE WORD HERE steve
Click to expand...

You're a crackpot, Steve.  There is no getting around it.


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State,...​
> You always get this confused. The Arab armies entered Palestine but they did not attack Palestine. There was no aggression against Palestine. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were under attack.
> 
> Remember, about 300,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their homes before the Arab armies intervened.
> 
> BTW, I use the term "the Zionists" because that is what they called themselves. You can't use the term "the Jews" anymore than you can use the term "the Germans" when discussing "the Nazis."
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent,truthful and accurate post Tinnie...you know why they don't get it...........it is because they try to legitimize Zionist Terrorism by saying Jews...then they call us Anti-Semites.....   the problem is for them no matter how they try to  legitimize the Filth of Zionist TERRORISM....these Synthetic Jew LOL /Zionists do not and never had the  Cultural beliefs of Real Jewish people.....They were created,repeat CREATED by an ATHIEST JEW(Synthetic JEW),Illegal's to Palestine,whose only intention was to bring Barbarity and Murder to the Palestinian  people......to take the Palestinians Land.
> 
> That these Zionists all of whom were converted to Judiasm (Synthetics) never had any idea of Palestine,no roots or understanding of the Israelites other than what they were told/here say by there Zionist Controllers......The original MODERN TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD.
> 
> Their whole being is built on a LIE,they perpetuate this LIE today,they mindlessly believe in this LIE and think by protecting this LIE they can use their enormous HATRED to try to demean and control others exposing the LIE
> 
> Creatures like Pheo,not a Jew according to him......then he tries to say that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.......I've heard this type of trash talk before,when the Nazis not only said that all Germans were Nazis but Arrogantly said they would rule the world......This type of Delusional Thinking is a Mental Disorder.......often created through GUILT etc,.
> 
> As an Organization the Zionists are openly Shameful,deliberately Aggressive and Delusional.............and a Danger to Mankind.steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Steve.  You sound like a raging lunatic.  Are you under psychiatric care?   You certainly sound like you are, but are not being given the correct medication to help you.  Now join these so-called by you "fake Jews" next Friday night and you might enjoy yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You joining in Hoss ???? LOL steve...ps not Loony just Normal.......I can't help that you are a Zionut...I tell folk I don't like Synthetic "Fake Jews" I'm wrong because I love you man..steve,shit if I was over there I would have a few Jars with you,but don't try to convert me,...I hate plastic,LOL...see ya Hoss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think  you realize, Steve, that with your "fake Jew" nonsense, you appear that you belong in the looney bin.   However,  if  you don't mind appearing like a crackpot, then go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL,trouble is with your funny and Rocco's agree is...that you and Rocco made a Love Child which became Zionism......now that is Funny and I Agree LOL steve
Click to expand...

Well you have a love fest with all the anti-Semites, and Rocco, being a sharp man, was quick to catch on to you  and your silliness.


----------



## montelatici

Bereft of facts and relying on propaganda, the clowns actually accuse others of silliness.  They seem to have been influenced by the orange clown, also a blow hard liar. Rocco has never uttered one fact here. He has relied on pure Zionist propaganda and an innate hate of the native non-Jews of Palestine to blather nonsense.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly.  It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs.  Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places.  The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  Certainly no one talks about while *reversing the indigenous and the colonizers*, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.
> 
> Respectfully,
> a filthy Jew
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN you are manipulating to demonise the Jews when no such international law exists to this day.  The arab muslims have been practising settler colonisation all over the world in places like the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when no such international law exists to this day.​
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, per se, is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant be if the concept is still legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What concept is legal?
Click to expand...







 The one you are trying to claim is against international law of course. If the processes involved are illegal then the concept is also illegal. This is like your nation of palistine that never existed until 1988, it is an illegal concept until the arab muslims declared independance in accordance with International laws


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Bereft of facts and relying on propaganda, the clowns actually accuse others of silliness.  They seem to have been influenced by the orange clown, also a blow hard liar. Rocco has never uttered one fact here. He has relied on pure Zionist propaganda and an innate hate of the native non-Jews of Palestine to blather nonsense.









Shut up IDIOT you dont have a clue


----------



## Hossfly

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bereft of facts and relying on propaganda, the clowns actually accuse others of silliness.  They seem to have been influenced by the orange clown, also a blow hard liar. Rocco has never uttered one fact here. He has relied on pure Zionist propaganda and an innate hate of the native non-Jews of Palestine to blather nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up IDIOT you dont have a clue
Click to expand...

I think most readers realize that it is Monte who is the clown while he is busy calling others a clown.  We also have to remember that when he is spewing about Israel propaganda, he forgets that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.

arab propaganda best in the world - Google Search


----------



## Shusha

theliq said:


> I don't Demonize Jews just Zionists because of what they have done,their outright shamefulness of their denial of what they have done  and over the past few  years  their ridiculous claim  that Judaism  is  Zionism



No, you artificially create a fake divide between Jews and Zionists in order to put a veneer of social acceptablity on the toxic venom of your hate.  See, its socially acceptable to demonize Zionists, but its not socially acceptable to demonize Jews.  

The problem with that is no one who spouts off about filthy, evil Zionists is willing to put forth an objective definition of "Zionism".  If you had an objective definition of what Zionism is you would be able to articulate it and explain both why you think I am a Zionist and why I am filthy for being one.  The definition of Zionism used by most Jewish people is the universal right for all peoples, including the Jewish people, to have self-determination on their ancestral homeland.  Do you think that is a good definition?  Why or why not?  If not, what would you propose as an alternative. 

For example, Eloy claimed that Zionism is the belief in an exclusive State only for the Jewish people, with no Arab Muslim or Christian Palestinians permitted.  Yay!  Good news.  By that definition I am not a filthy Zionist.  In fact, by that definition, there would be virtually not a single Zionist to be found in the entire world.  Phew.

I'll give you another example.  I find the religious doctrine of jihad to be heinous.  Be clear here -- the ideology is heinous, the people who believe it are not filthy, they are simply products of their environment.  Specifically, the idea that the murder of innocents is not only acceptable but desirable; the idea that one can "purchase" a heavenly afterlife by substituting an innocent Jew for your own sins and the idea that G-d wants all of the Jews killed are heinous ideas.  The people who believe in those ideas deserve to be condemned for holding those ideas. 

Now define how Zionism is a heinous idea and offer proof that I hold those ideas.  Else I have no choice but to believe you condemn me as "filthy" simply because I am Jewish.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly.  It would go back at least as far back as the invasion of Israel and Judea by the Romans and then by the Arabs.  Indeed, it has happened all over the world and is happening right now in at least half a dozen places.  The thing is, no one talks about it being evil or immoral or even illegal, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  No one really talks about it at all, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.  Certainly no one talks about while *reversing the indigenous and the colonizers*, unless you are talking about the Jewish people.
> 
> Respectfully,
> a filthy Jew
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN you are manipulating to demonise the Jews when no such international law exists to this day.  The arab muslims have been practising settler colonisation all over the world in places like the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when no such international law exists to this day.​
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, per se, is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant be if the concept is still legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What concept is legal?
Click to expand...


A legal vote by the member nations of the UN at the time before the Muslim countries took it over makes Israel legal.  What makes all the Muslim countries legal?


----------



## montelatici

Treaty of Tordesillas divided the New World between Spain and Portugal and was legalized by the Pope, the final authority for Catholic countries at the time.  The native people were not in agreement with the treaty.   Was it really legal?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Treaty of Tordesillas divided the New World between Spain and Portugal and was legalized by the Pope, the final authority for Catholic countries at the time.  The native people were not in agreement with the treaty.   Was it really legal?




Ask the Pope, not me.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN you are manipulating to demonise the Jews when no such international law exists to this day.  The arab muslims have been practising settler colonisation all over the world in places like the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when no such international law exists to this day.​
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, per se, is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant be if the concept is still legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What concept is legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one you are trying to claim is against international law of course. If the processes involved are illegal then the concept is also illegal. This is like your nation of palistine that never existed until 1988, it is an illegal concept until the arab muslims declared independance in accordance with International laws
Click to expand...

Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, settler colonialism was not illegal at the time of the creation of the US, Canada, Australia, etc.. It was not until the 19th and 20th century that international laws attempted to make a more civilized world. It has been illegal for a hundred years or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN you are manipulating to demonise the Jews when no such international law exists to this day.  The arab muslims have been practising settler colonisation all over the world in places like the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when no such international law exists to this day.​
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, per se, is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant be if the concept is still legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What concept is legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A legal vote by the member nations of the UN at the time before the Muslim countries took it over makes Israel legal.  What makes all the Muslim countries legal?
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?



Effective government control over a territory?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
Click to expand...


Try again.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


Try crossing the line of demarcation from Islamic terrorist controlled territories where Israel exercises effective control.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


Wait, are you arguing that the Arab Palestinians had a government and control over territory in 1948?

Or are you arguing that you don't need to have a government or a territory to declare independence?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
Click to expand...


Try again.


Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try crossing the line of demarcation from Islamic terrorist controlled territories where Israel exercises effective control.
Click to expand...

Effective control describes occupation not sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, are you arguing that the Arab Palestinians had a government and control over territory in 1948?
> 
> Or are you arguing that you don't need to have a government or a territory to declare independence?
Click to expand...

A government is not required. A defined territory is necessary. Palestine is a territory defined by international borders.

Israel has never had a defined territory.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try crossing the line of demarcation from Islamic terrorist controlled territories where Israel exercises effective control.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Effective control describes occupation not sovereignty.
Click to expand...


Actually, no. I understand you're suffering from hurt feelings that the inept, incompetent Islamic terrorists could not manage to effectively govern, build a functioning society; one not dependent on kuffar welfare dollars or establish sovereignty, but that largely describes so many of the failed societies that define the Islamic Middle East. 

Cheer up. You can describe the Islamic terrorist enclaves of Gaza and the West Bank as typical Islamic state failures.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, are you arguing that the Arab Palestinians had a government and control over territory in 1948?
> 
> Or are you arguing that you don't need to have a government or a territory to declare independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government is not required. A defined territory is necessary. Palestine is a territory defined by international borders.
> 
> Israel has never had a defined territory.
Click to expand...


Describing your imaginary "country of Pal'istan"?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, are you arguing that the Arab Palestinians had a government and control over territory in 1948?
> 
> Or are you arguing that you don't need to have a government or a territory to declare independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government is not required. A defined territory is necessary. Palestine is a territory defined by international borders.
> 
> Israel has never had a defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Describing your imaginary "country of Pal'istan"?
Click to expand...

Palestine was defined by international borders and had hundreds of thousands of legal citizens. Israeli propaganda says that is not a country.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, are you arguing that the Arab Palestinians had a government and control over territory in 1948?
> 
> Or are you arguing that you don't need to have a government or a territory to declare independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government is not required. A defined territory is necessary. Palestine is a territory defined by international borders.
> 
> Israel has never had a defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Describing your imaginary "country of Pal'istan"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine was defined by international borders and had hundreds of thousands of legal citizens. Israeli propaganda says that is not a country.
Click to expand...


Why yes. The non-existence of your invented "country of Pal'istan" is all one, global conspiracy as a result of _The Zionists_™


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was defined by international borders and had hundreds of thousands of legal citizens. Israeli propaganda says that is not a country.



Oh it was definitely a country.  The Jewish National Home.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Today, I think there are less than *20 Non-Self-Governing Territories* _(the official terminology for colonial activity)_ (NSGTs).  The *General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960* is called the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and is the principle document which guides the UN Special Committee on exclusively on the issue of decolonization.  The UN considers assisting the movement for independence in Trust and NSGTs extremely important.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> "when no such international law exists to this day."
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, _*per se,*_ is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In these contemporary times, there is no application of the anti-colonial law or the decolonization policy as related to the Middle East and Israel.   The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is not considered colonized in the context of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)].
> 
> The attempt by the pro-Palestinian supporters to attach some sort of colonial criminal association to the Arab-Israeli Conflict as it stands today, is simply a frivolous allegation.  But even so, it should be noted that being a colonial country is not a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a Crime of Aggression.  Both the US and the UK - each Allied Powers - and each still holding NSGTs.  It is not a crime or illegal.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Both the US and the UK - each Allied Powers - and each still holding NSGTs. It is not a crime or illegal.​
OK, but let's look at Porto Rico. Do we bulldoze homes and build settlements?

If not we are talking apples and oranges.


----------



## P F Tinmore

OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.


That's more than just a little childish. Obvikusly, you're forced to abandon any attempt to defend your invention of this mythical "country of Pal'istan". But retreating by way of cutting and pasting more silly YouTube videos is an embarrassment.


----------



## montelatici

Little Hollie has a problem with people providing back up from neutral sources.  But, the fact is, the Israeli Supreme Court decided unequivocally that there is no Israeli Nationality in File No. 8573/08Civil Appeal, Ornan et al. v .Ministry of Interior (Oct. 2,2013 amended on 6.10.2013) 

"“The constitutional Jewish-ness of the state negates any judicial option to recognize an ‘Israeli nationality’....."

 - See more at: Discrimination is legal, there are no Israelis: Reading the Supreme Court’s decisions on Israeli nationality


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was defined by international borders and had hundreds of thousands of legal citizens. Israeli propaganda says that is not a country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh it was definitely a country.  The Jewish National Home.
Click to expand...


No, it was intended to be a national home within Palestine not a separate country, at least that is what the British stated in writing.   


"The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. *Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English."* *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. *They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of *the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home*,* but that such a Home should be founded *_*in Palestine* _In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organisation, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of the peoples an undisturbed national development."

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


----------



## esthermoon

P F Tinmore said:


> OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.


If what the man in the video says is true well it's pretty shocking. I didn't know Israeli nationality doesn't exist.
So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew? Am I right? 
I hope I misunderstood...


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Little Hollie has a problem with people providing back up from neutral sources.  But, the fact is, the Israeli Supreme Court decided unequivocally that there is no Israeli Nationality in File No. 8573/08Civil Appeal, Ornan et al. v .Ministry of Interior (Oct. 2,2013 amended on 6.10.2013)
> 
> "“The constitutional Jewish-ness of the state negates any judicial option to recognize an ‘Israeli nationality’....."
> 
> - See more at: Discrimination is legal, there are no Israelis: Reading the Supreme Court’s decisions on Israeli nationality


You poor, dear. The comments from Mondoweiss are hardly neutral. I'm afraid you need to understand what you frantically cut and paste should be viewed viewed from other than a source with an obvious agenda.

Op-Ed: Why ‘Israeli’ is not a nationality


----------



## Indeependent

esthermoon said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew?
Click to expand...


False.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Little Hollie has a problem with people providing back up from neutral sources.  But, the fact is, the Israeli Supreme Court decided unequivocally that there is no Israeli Nationality in File No. 8573/08Civil Appeal, Ornan et al. v .Ministry of Interior (Oct. 2,2013 amended on 6.10.2013)
> 
> "“The constitutional Jewish-ness of the state negates any judicial option to recognize an ‘Israeli nationality’....."
> 
> - See more at: Discrimination is legal, there are no Israelis: Reading the Supreme Court’s decisions on Israeli nationality
> 
> 
> 
> You poor, dear. The comments from Mondoweiss are hardly neutral. I'm afraid you need to understand what you frantically cut and paste should be viewed viewed from other than a source with an obvious agenda.
> 
> Op-Ed: Why ‘Israeli’ is not a nationality
Click to expand...


Poor little Hollie, you can't even figure out that it is a quote from the court case.  Here, would you prefer reading from a different site, the Cardozo opinions of the Israeli Supreme Court site?

"“the existence of an ‘Israeli nationality’ was not proven in the legal sense and the development of new ‘fractions’ of nationality should not be encouraged”

Ornan v. Ministry of the Interior | Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.
Click to expand...




esthermoon said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what the man in the video says is true well it's pretty shocking. I didn't know Israeli nationality doesn't exist.
> So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew? Am I right?
> I hope I misunderstood...
Click to expand...


You did not misunderstand, much like Apartheid South Africa, Israel categorizes people based on race/ethnicity/religion. And, an Israeli nationality does not exist as the Jews would not want the non-Jews to be Israeli nationals.

The Israeli Supreme Court made this clear :

"“the existence of an ‘Israeli nationality’ was not proven in the legal sense and the development of new ‘fractions’ of nationality should not be encouraged”

Ornan v. Ministry of the Interior | Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Little Hollie has a problem with people providing back up from neutral sources.  But, the fact is, the Israeli Supreme Court decided unequivocally that there is no Israeli Nationality in File No. 8573/08Civil Appeal, Ornan et al. v .Ministry of Interior (Oct. 2,2013 amended on 6.10.2013)
> 
> "“The constitutional Jewish-ness of the state negates any judicial option to recognize an ‘Israeli nationality’....."
> 
> - See more at: Discrimination is legal, there are no Israelis: Reading the Supreme Court’s decisions on Israeli nationality
> 
> 
> 
> You poor, dear. The comments from Mondoweiss are hardly neutral. I'm afraid you need to understand what you frantically cut and paste should be viewed viewed from other than a source with an obvious agenda.
> 
> Op-Ed: Why ‘Israeli’ is not a nationality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor little Hollie, you can't even figure out that it is a quote from the court case.  Here, would you prefer reading from a different site, the Cardozo opinions of the Israeli Supreme Court site?
> 
> "“the existence of an ‘Israeli nationality’ was not proven in the legal sense and the development of new ‘fractions’ of nationality should not be encouraged”
> 
> Ornan v. Ministry of the Interior | Cardozo Israeli Supreme Court Project
Click to expand...

Your frantic cutting and pasting is a bit pointless. You're obviously trying to find something sinister in the ruling and other than grasping for conspiracy theories, you're offering nothing.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't Demonize Jews just Zionists because of what they have done,their outright shamefulness of their denial of what they have done  and over the past few  years  their ridiculous claim  that Judaism  is  Zionism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you artificially create a fake divide between Jews and Zionists in order to put a veneer of social acceptablity on the toxic venom of your hate.  See, its socially acceptable to demonize Zionists, but its not socially acceptable to demonize Jews.
> 
> The problem with that is no one who spouts off about filthy, evil Zionists is willing to put forth an objective definition of "Zionism".  If you had an objective definition of what Zionism is you would be able to articulate it and explain both why you think I am a Zionist and why I am filthy for being one.  The definition of Zionism used by most Jewish people is the universal right for all peoples, including the Jewish people, to have self-determination on their ancestral homeland.  Do you think that is a good definition?  Why or why not?  If not, what would you propose as an alternative.
> 
> For example, Eloy claimed that Zionism is the belief in an exclusive State only for the Jewish people, with no Arab Muslim or Christian Palestinians permitted.  Yay!  Good news.  By that definition I am not a filthy Zionist.  In fact, by that definition, there would be virtually not a single Zionist to be found in the entire world.  Phew.
> 
> I'll give you another example.  I find the religious doctrine of jihad to be heinous.  Be clear here -- the ideology is heinous, the people who believe it are not filthy, they are simply products of their environment.  Specifically, the idea that the murder of innocents is not only acceptable but desirable; the idea that one can "purchase" a heavenly afterlife by substituting an innocent Jew for your own sins and the idea that G-d wants all of the Jews killed are heinous ideas.  The people who believe in those ideas deserve to be condemned for holding those ideas.
> 
> Now define how Zionism is a heinous idea and offer proof that I hold those ideas.  Else I have no choice but to believe you condemn me as "filthy" simply because I am Jewish.
Click to expand...




 Dont expect an intelligent answer as none of the hate sites have one apart from " because we say so "


----------



## Phoenall

More partial copying of only the small portion that meets with your POV. When the full contextual report is read it say the opposite.



 From your link



*ABSTRACT *

*[This abstract is not part of the Court's opinion and is provided for the reader's convenience. It has been translated from a Hebrew version prepared by Nevo Press Ltd. and is used with its kind permission.]*


* Then this*

* Additionally, Justice Vogelman believes that even without straying from the Tamarin Decision, existing law already provides the Appellant with the means to identify – to themselves and to the world – as Israelis vis-à-vis their Israeli citizenship, which would continue to be registered in the Population Registry, regardless of the nationality marker. This is possible through following the proper process for removing the registration in terms of the nationality marker, according to the Shik decision.*



Once again destroyed by your own link that proves you wrong.

 Can someone rub salt in monte's wounds by repeating my post for him to see as he has me on ignore after doing this many times before.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Treaty of Tordesillas divided the New World between Spain and Portugal and was legalized by the Pope, the final authority for Catholic countries at the time.  The native people were not in agreement with the treaty.   Was it really legal?









 NO because the pope was a pervert as shown by the dynasty that nearly toppled catholisism


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN you are manipulating to demonise the Jews when no such international law exists to this day.  The arab muslims have been practising settler colonisation all over the world in places like the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen etc
> 
> 
> 
> when no such international law exists to this day.​
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, per se, is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant be if the concept is still legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What concept is legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one you are trying to claim is against international law of course. If the processes involved are illegal then the concept is also illegal. This is like your nation of palistine that never existed until 1988, it is an illegal concept until the arab muslims declared independance in accordance with International laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
Click to expand...






 If you dont know why dont you look. Apart from the 1948 declaration was 6 months too late and would have made palestine a wholly islamonazi cess pit


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN you are manipulating to demonise the Jews when no such international law exists to this day.  The arab muslims have been practising settler colonisation all over the world in places like the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen etc
> 
> 
> 
> when no such international law exists to this day.​
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, per se, is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant be if the concept is still legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What concept is legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A legal vote by the member nations of the UN at the time before the Muslim countries took it over makes Israel legal.  What makes all the Muslim countries legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...






That is what he is asking you for ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try crossing the line of demarcation from Islamic terrorist controlled territories where Israel exercises effective control.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Effective control describes occupation not sovereignty.
Click to expand...






 And occuation is 9/10ths of the law


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, are you arguing that the Arab Palestinians had a government and control over territory in 1948?
> 
> Or are you arguing that you don't need to have a government or a territory to declare independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government is not required. A defined territory is necessary. Palestine is a territory defined by international borders.
> 
> Israel has never had a defined territory.
Click to expand...







 When did a nation of palestine get defined borders that were not described as the Mandate of palestine.


 ONCE AGAIN LINK TO THE TREATY SIGNED BY THE PALESTINIAN ARAB MUSLIM REPRESENTATIVE ?


----------



## RoccoR

esthermoon,  et al,

Well, there is a lot of anti-Israeli propaganda on this topic.



esthermoon said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what the man in the video says is true well it's pretty shocking. I didn't know Israeli nationality doesn't exist.
> So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew? Am I right?
> I hope I misunderstood...
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Like every other country, Israeli citizenship has its own requirements, as do each of the 22 members of the Arab League.

So, the the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explain the four ways to achieve nationality:  Acquisition of Israeli Nationality

*01 Jan 2010*

Israel's Nationality Law relates to persons born in Israel or resident therein, as well as to those wishing to settle in the country, regardless of race, religion, creed, sex or political belief. Citizenship may be acquired by:


Birth
The Law of Return
Residence
Naturalization

As you can see, 

I know it is confusing but originally the State of Israel was to be a "Jewish National Home" (as in the San Remo Convention and the Mandate for Palestine) or as described in the 1947 Resolution 181 (II), a "Jewish State."  But it was also declared (simultaneously) to be a "democratic State in the Declaration of Independence, (Officially known as the THE DECLARATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL) May 14, 1948  Or as the state (in Part):

"DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL."​
On such matters, it is always BEST to go to the Israelis to get an explanantion.  Don't satisfy yourself on the basis of a anti-Semetic with a hidden agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

esthermoon said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what the man in the video says is true well it's pretty shocking. I didn't know Israeli nationality doesn't exist.
> So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew? Am I right?
> I hope I misunderstood...
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true. We hear all the time that all Israeli citizens have equal rights. Except for some cultural racism that is true. (?)

However, there are two sets of rights. Citizen's rights (as above) and nationality rights. Nationality rights only apply to Jewish nationality. These rights do not apply to Arab (Palestinian) nationality. These include things like immigration, citizenship, land, marriage and others.

BTW, I used to teach school in Vietnam. I had many friends. Good people.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what the man in the video says is true well it's pretty shocking. I didn't know Israeli nationality doesn't exist.
> So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew? Am I right?
> I hope I misunderstood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is true. We hear all the time that all Israeli citizens have equal rights. Except for some cultural racism that is true. (?)
> 
> However, there are two sets of rights. Citizen's rights (as above) and nationality rights. Nationality rights only apply to Jewish nationality. These rights do not apply to Arab (Palestinian) nationality. These include things like immigration, citizenship, land, marriage and others.
> 
> BTW, I used to teach school in Vietnam. I had many friends. Good people.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could give us a synopsis of the rights available to the non-islamics in your islamic paradises of Gaza and the West Bank. If you want to define apartheid, fascism and subjugation of minority ethnicities and religions we can take a look at anyone single example of islamist majority nations across the islamist Middle East. 

Care to compare?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> when no such international law exists to this day.​
> That is somewhat correct. I don't think settler colonialism, per se, is illegal. However, many of the processes involved in establishing settler colonialism is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cant be if the concept is still legal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What concept is legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one you are trying to claim is against international law of course. If the processes involved are illegal then the concept is also illegal. This is like your nation of palistine that never existed until 1988, it is an illegal concept until the arab muslims declared independance in accordance with International laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you dont know why dont you look. Apart from the 1948 declaration was 6 months too late and would have made palestine a wholly islamonazi cess pit
Click to expand...

Why was 1948 too late and 1988 not.

You make no sense.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, are you arguing that the Arab Palestinians had a government and control over territory in 1948?
> 
> Or are you arguing that you don't need to have a government or a territory to declare independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government is not required. A defined territory is necessary. Palestine is a territory defined by international borders.
> 
> Israel has never had a defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did a nation of palestine get defined borders that were not described as the Mandate of palestine.
> 
> 
> ONCE AGAIN LINK TO THE TREATY SIGNED BY THE PALESTINIAN ARAB MUSLIM REPRESENTATIVE ?
Click to expand...

Mandates were trustees. They only administered other people's countries.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what the man in the video says is true well it's pretty shocking. I didn't know Israeli nationality doesn't exist.
> So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew? Am I right?
> I hope I misunderstood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is true. We hear all the time that all Israeli citizens have equal rights. Except for some cultural racism that is true. (?)
> 
> However, there are two sets of rights. Citizen's rights (as above) and nationality rights. Nationality rights only apply to Jewish nationality. These rights do not apply to Arab (Palestinian) nationality. These include things like immigration, citizenship, land, marriage and others.
> 
> BTW, I used to teach school in Vietnam. I had many friends. Good people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you could give us a synopsis of the rights available to the non-islamics in your islamic paradises of Gaza and the West Bank. If you want to define apartheid, fascism and subjugation of minority ethnicities and religions we can take a look at anyone single example of islamist majority nations across the islamist Middle East.
> 
> Care to compare?
Click to expand...


Since the West Bank is ruled by Israel under martial law, the treatment of the Christians by the Israelis is no different than the treatment of the Muslims.  

As far as Gaza, Christians and Muslims alike are held in what can only be described as a large outdoor prison run by the Israelis.  Non-Muslims would feel uncomfortable under the rule Islamist thugs like Hamas (no better than Zionist thugs) , however, the few Christians left in Gaza are able to practice their religion.  

For example from 2 days ago Published November 06, 2016 fro Fox News no less:

*"British cardinal pays rare visit to Gaza's Christians*

"Christian leaders blame the shattered economy, conflict with Israel and the blockade for encouraging Christians to move out......"

British cardinal pays rare visit to Gaza's Christians


----------



## Phoenall

And then the original national home was partitioned so that palestine was not wholly either Jewish or muslim, with the muslims getting 78% called  trans Jordan and the Jews 22% called the future Jewish national home. You have been shown the proof of this many times from your own links and still you deny it by giving your own interpretation on another persons words. They did not create the Jewish national home on the whole of palestine, nor did they create the arab muslim national home on the whole of palestine they gave each their own parts.


----------



## Phoenall

esthermoon said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what the man in the video says is true well it's pretty shocking. I didn't know Israeli nationality doesn't exist.
> So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew? Am I right?
> I hope I misunderstood...
Click to expand...







 You are misinformed by the various mistranslations and interpretations of what is actually said or written. There is no Israeli nationality just as there is no arab nationality or Christian nationality it is all a play on words. But there is an Israeli identity in the form of citizenship, giving al Israeli citizens the same legal, moral, civil, political and spiritual rights


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Effective government control over a territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, are you arguing that the Arab Palestinians had a government and control over territory in 1948?
> 
> Or are you arguing that you don't need to have a government or a territory to declare independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government is not required. A defined territory is necessary. Palestine is a territory defined by international borders.
> 
> Israel has never had a defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did a nation of palestine get defined borders that were not described as the Mandate of palestine.
> 
> 
> ONCE AGAIN LINK TO THE TREATY SIGNED BY THE PALESTINIAN ARAB MUSLIM REPRESENTATIVE ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mandates were trustees. They only administered other people's countries.
Click to expand...








 Confused again by similar words that dont mean the same thing.

 When did palestine become a trustee of a mandate then, or Syria and Mesopotamia then. They were Mandates or legal entities run by mandatories who were caretakers.


 Still waiting for the link to these alleged international borders other than thosed of the mandate of palestine. That just so happened to lie alongside the mandate of Syria the nations of Egypt, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cant be if the concept is still legal
> 
> 
> 
> What concept is legal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one you are trying to claim is against international law of course. If the processes involved are illegal then the concept is also illegal. This is like your nation of palistine that never existed until 1988, it is an illegal concept until the arab muslims declared independance in accordance with International laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting. What was the legal difference between the 1948 declaration and the 1988 declaration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you dont know why dont you look. Apart from the 1948 declaration was 6 months too late and would have made palestine a wholly islamonazi cess pit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was 1948 too late and 1988 not.
> 
> You make no sense.
Click to expand...







 Only to you as everyone else see's it as perfect sense. the 1948 declaration was made 6 months after another declaration had been submitted and accepted as true. So the arab league declaration was not acceptable as it broke the UN rules, UN charter and LoN rules. The arab muslims already had their home in Jordan so that is where they should be today


----------



## Shusha

esthermoon said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what the man in the video says is true well it's pretty shocking. I didn't know Israeli nationality doesn't exist.
> So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew? Am I right?
> I hope I misunderstood...
Click to expand...


Don't worry, you do indeed misunderstand.  Rocco explained it well.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

It makes absolute prefect sense.  You just don't like the answer.



P F Tinmore said:


> Why was 1948 too late and 1988 not.
> You make no sense.


*(COMMENT)*

In September 1948 the All Palestine Government (APG) declared Independence over the entirety of the former Mandate of Palestine on the West side of the Jordan.  But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1948.

The territory cannot be sovereign to --- two different governments.

APG was a unique government in that it had no territory. 

The APG was dissolved by its creator; the Egyptians in 1959.  The Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the PLO as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”  The PLO declared independence (November 1988) over territory that had been abandon by the Jordanians in July 1988 --- and left in the hands of the Israelis.

Similarly, the Gaza Strip, formerly a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT) under a Egyptian Military Governorship vacated the territory in 1967, leaving it in the hands of the Israelis.

Unbelievably, the Arab Palestinians made the same mistake a second time; being late again in Declaring Independence in November 1988.

It could have face a serious challenge, except for the fact that Israel simply did not want to assimilate the West Bank and Gaza Strip into the sovereignty of the nations.  There were several reasons why the Israelis allowed the establishment of the Palestinian Declared State; least of all was that it was not economically feasible to incorporate a totally unproductive people into the Israeli society.  And --- these two areas contained a unusually large number of security threats including the elements that attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Kingdom and the Islamic Jihadist that attacked the Olympic Team in Munich.  No one in the Arab World wanted to assimilate them, and Israeli did not either.

Most Respectfully.
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It makes absolute prefect sense.  You just don't like the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was 1948 too late and 1988 not.
> You make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In September 1948 the All Palestine Government (APG) declared Independence over the entirety of the former Mandate of Palestine on the West side of the Jordan.  But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.
> 
> The territory cannot be sovereign to --- two different governments.
> 
> APG was a unique government in that it had no territory.
> 
> The APG was dissolved by its creator; the Egyptians in 1959.  The Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the PLO as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”  The PLO declared independence (November 1988) over territory that had been abandon by the Jordanians in July 1988 --- and left in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Similarly, the Gaza Strip, formerly a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT) under a Egyptian Military Governorship vacated the territory in 1967, leaving it in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Unbelievably, the Arab Palestinians made the same mistake a second time; being late again in Declaring Independence in November 1988.
> 
> It could have face a serious challenge, except for the fact that Israel simply did not want to assimilate the West Bank and Gaza Strip into the sovereignty of the nations.  There were several reasons way the Israelis allowed the establishment of the Palestinian Declared State; least of all was that it was not economically feasible to incorporate a totally unproductive people into the Israeli society.  And --- these two areas contained a unusually large number of security threats including the elements that attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Kingdom and the Islamic Jihadist that attacked the Olympic Team in Munich.  No one in the Arab World wanted to assimilate them, and Israeli did not either.
> 
> Most Respectfully.
> R
Click to expand...

But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.​
OK, but what was Israel's defined territory in 1948. Do you have a map or some documented description? Where did Palestine's international borders encroach on Israel's territory?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, --- excellent question.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It makes absolute prefect sense.  You just don't like the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was 1948 too late and 1988 not.
> You make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In September 1948 the All Palestine Government (APG) declared Independence over the entirety of the former Mandate of Palestine on the West side of the Jordan.  But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.
> 
> The territory cannot be sovereign to --- two different governments.
> 
> APG was a unique government in that it had no territory.
> 
> The APG was dissolved by its creator; the Egyptians in 1959.  The Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the PLO as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”  The PLO declared independence (November 1988) over territory that had been abandon by the Jordanians in July 1988 --- and left in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Similarly, the Gaza Strip, formerly a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT) under a Egyptian Military Governorship vacated the territory in 1967, leaving it in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Unbelievably, the Arab Palestinians made the same mistake a second time; being late again in Declaring Independence in November 1988.
> 
> It could have face a serious challenge, except for the fact that Israel simply did not want to assimilate the West Bank and Gaza Strip into the sovereignty of the nations.  There were several reasons way the Israelis allowed the establishment of the Palestinian Declared State; least of all was that it was not economically feasible to incorporate a totally unproductive people into the Israeli society.  And --- these two areas contained a unusually large number of security threats including the elements that attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Kingdom and the Islamic Jihadist that attacked the Olympic Team in Munich.  No one in the Arab World wanted to assimilate them, and Israeli did not either.
> 
> Most Respectfully.
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.​
> OK, but what was Israel's defined territory in 1948. Do you have a map or some documented description? Where did Palestine's international borders encroach on Israel's territory?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

On May 14th, 1948, the boundaries (as agreed upon with the UNPC) was that stipulated in the Resolution 181 (II) and Annex A.   After the pre-planned invasion by Arab League forces; effective control for Israel expanded.  The Armistice Lines were not drawn until the early month of 1949.  Israels control expanded from 55% to ≈77%.  However, No group representing the Arab Palestinians as a whole existed.  By 1979 and again in 1994, the situation evolved with treaties.

See one of my previous positing #3201.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, --- excellent question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It makes absolute prefect sense.  You just don't like the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was 1948 too late and 1988 not.
> You make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In September 1948 the All Palestine Government (APG) declared Independence over the entirety of the former Mandate of Palestine on the West side of the Jordan.  But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.
> 
> The territory cannot be sovereign to --- two different governments.
> 
> APG was a unique government in that it had no territory.
> 
> The APG was dissolved by its creator; the Egyptians in 1959.  The Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the PLO as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”  The PLO declared independence (November 1988) over territory that had been abandon by the Jordanians in July 1988 --- and left in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Similarly, the Gaza Strip, formerly a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT) under a Egyptian Military Governorship vacated the territory in 1967, leaving it in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Unbelievably, the Arab Palestinians made the same mistake a second time; being late again in Declaring Independence in November 1988.
> 
> It could have face a serious challenge, except for the fact that Israel simply did not want to assimilate the West Bank and Gaza Strip into the sovereignty of the nations.  There were several reasons way the Israelis allowed the establishment of the Palestinian Declared State; least of all was that it was not economically feasible to incorporate a totally unproductive people into the Israeli society.  And --- these two areas contained a unusually large number of security threats including the elements that attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Kingdom and the Islamic Jihadist that attacked the Olympic Team in Munich.  No one in the Arab World wanted to assimilate them, and Israeli did not either.
> 
> Most Respectfully.
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.​
> OK, but what was Israel's defined territory in 1948. Do you have a map or some documented description? Where did Palestine's international borders encroach on Israel's territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On May 14th, 1948, the boundaries (as agreed upon with the UNPC) was that stipulated in the Resolution 181 (II) and Annex A.   After the pre-planned invasion by Arab League forces; effective control for Israel expanded.  The Armistice Lines were not drawn until the early month of 1949.  Israels control expanded from 55% to ≈77%.  However, No group representing the Arab Palestinians as a whole existed.  By 1979 and again in 1994, the situation evolved with treaties.
> 
> See one of my previous positing #3201.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You keep forgetting that resolution 181 never happened.

Israels control expanded from 55% to ≈77%.​
Indeed, all taken by military force. And most of that before the 1948 war along with about 300,00 refugees. Israel blames that on the war but that is a lie.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, --- excellent question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It makes absolute prefect sense.  You just don't like the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was 1948 too late and 1988 not.
> You make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In September 1948 the All Palestine Government (APG) declared Independence over the entirety of the former Mandate of Palestine on the West side of the Jordan.  But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.
> 
> The territory cannot be sovereign to --- two different governments.
> 
> APG was a unique government in that it had no territory.
> 
> The APG was dissolved by its creator; the Egyptians in 1959.  The Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the PLO as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”  The PLO declared independence (November 1988) over territory that had been abandon by the Jordanians in July 1988 --- and left in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Similarly, the Gaza Strip, formerly a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT) under a Egyptian Military Governorship vacated the territory in 1967, leaving it in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Unbelievably, the Arab Palestinians made the same mistake a second time; being late again in Declaring Independence in November 1988.
> 
> It could have face a serious challenge, except for the fact that Israel simply did not want to assimilate the West Bank and Gaza Strip into the sovereignty of the nations.  There were several reasons way the Israelis allowed the establishment of the Palestinian Declared State; least of all was that it was not economically feasible to incorporate a totally unproductive people into the Israeli society.  And --- these two areas contained a unusually large number of security threats including the elements that attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Kingdom and the Islamic Jihadist that attacked the Olympic Team in Munich.  No one in the Arab World wanted to assimilate them, and Israeli did not either.
> 
> Most Respectfully.
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.​
> OK, but what was Israel's defined territory in 1948. Do you have a map or some documented description? Where did Palestine's international borders encroach on Israel's territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On May 14th, 1948, the boundaries (as agreed upon with the UNPC) was that stipulated in the Resolution 181 (II) and Annex A.   After the pre-planned invasion by Arab League forces; effective control for Israel expanded.  The Armistice Lines were not drawn until the early month of 1949.  Israels control expanded from 55% to ≈77%.  However, No group representing the Arab Palestinians as a whole existed.  By 1979 and again in 1994, the situation evolved with treaties.
> 
> See one of my previous positing #3201.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep forgetting that resolution 181 never happened.
> 
> Israels control expanded from 55% to ≈77%.​
> Indeed, all taken by military force. And most of that before the 1948 war along with about 300,00 refugees. Israel blames that on the war but that is a lie.
Click to expand...


"Indeed, all taken by military force."

Indeed, taken as a defensive response to acts of war by Islamist armies.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, this is your standard response.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On May 14th, 1948, the boundaries (as agreed upon with the UNPC) was that stipulated in the Resolution 181 (II) and Annex A.   After the pre-planned invasion by Arab League forces; effective control for Israel expanded.  The Armistice Lines were not drawn until the early month of 1949.  Israels control expanded from 55% to ≈77%.  However, No group representing the Arab Palestinians as a whole existed.  By 1979 and again in 1994, the situation evolved with treaties.
> See one of my previous positing #3201.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep forgetting that resolution 181 never happened.
> 
> Indeed, all taken by military force. And most of that before the 1948 war along with about 300,00 refugees. Israel blames that on the war but that is a lie.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You always say that, when I mention General Assembly Resolution 181(II) Future Government of Palestine --- "that resolution 181 never happened."  It is interesting to note that when the UN recognized and acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988 --- and --- the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, they each included:   

•  General Assembly Resolution 67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations (2012)
*Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,*​•  General Assembly Resolution 43/177 Question of Palestine (1988)
*Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,*​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

First of all the Arab armies intervened in an attempt to prevent the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  This was recently confirmed by recently released British intelligence reports the links to which have been posted before.  Secondly, the Arab states were very secular at the time, and one of the Arab armies was Christian, not Islamist at all.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> First of all the Arab armies intervened in an attempt to prevent the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  This was recently confirmed by recently released British intelligence reports the links to which have been posted before.  Secondly, the Arab states were very secular at the time, and one of the Arab armies was Christian, not Islamist at all.


First of all, your pointless "because I say so" comments are hardly worth anyone's time. 

Uncovered: U.K. intel encouraged Arab armies to invade Israel in 1948 - Features


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, you are making two mistakes here.



Hollie said:


> Indeed, all taken by military force. And most of that before the 1948 war along with about 300,00 refugees. Israel blames that on the war but that is a lie.



"Indeed, all taken by military force."

Indeed, taken as a defensive response to acts of war by Islamist armies.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

First, does it say "military force?"

What it saysis:  "from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,"

When you disassemble that it is:
§  "any kind of force"
§  Specifically used against the "territorial integrity."
§  Specifically against the "political independence"​Second, does it say "taken by." 

When you disassemble that it is:

§  "threat or use of force against."​
POINTS:

The timeline starts when the British terminate the Mandate, AND _(simultaneously)_ the UNPC coordinated Declaration of Independence that was issued by the Provisional Government.  

All the Arab League nations that participated in the attack against the "political independence of" Israel are the actual violators of the intent of the treaty obligation.  NOT Israel.

There is NO LAW (treaty obligation) that requires the return of territory that the defender of "political independence" overruns in the wake of hostile forces under pursuit.  That territory was not acquired for the purpose of expanding sovereignty or threatening the independence of the hostile nations.  That expansion was an adverse consequence of the violation of the treaty obligation.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It makes absolute prefect sense.  You just don't like the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was 1948 too late and 1988 not.
> You make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In September 1948 the All Palestine Government (APG) declared Independence over the entirety of the former Mandate of Palestine on the West side of the Jordan.  But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.
> 
> The territory cannot be sovereign to --- two different governments.
> 
> APG was a unique government in that it had no territory.
> 
> The APG was dissolved by its creator; the Egyptians in 1959.  The Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the PLO as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”  The PLO declared independence (November 1988) over territory that had been abandon by the Jordanians in July 1988 --- and left in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Similarly, the Gaza Strip, formerly a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT) under a Egyptian Military Governorship vacated the territory in 1967, leaving it in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Unbelievably, the Arab Palestinians made the same mistake a second time; being late again in Declaring Independence in November 1988.
> 
> It could have face a serious challenge, except for the fact that Israel simply did not want to assimilate the West Bank and Gaza Strip into the sovereignty of the nations.  There were several reasons way the Israelis allowed the establishment of the Palestinian Declared State; least of all was that it was not economically feasible to incorporate a totally unproductive people into the Israeli society.  And --- these two areas contained a unusually large number of security threats including the elements that attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Kingdom and the Islamic Jihadist that attacked the Olympic Team in Munich.  No one in the Arab World wanted to assimilate them, and Israeli did not either.
> 
> Most Respectfully.
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.​
> OK, but what was Israel's defined territory in 1948. Do you have a map or some documented description? Where did Palestine's international borders encroach on Israel's territory?
Click to expand...








 Do they need one, what INTERNATIONAL LAW states that Israel needs a map to declare as a sovereign state. The declaration accepted by the U.N in may 1948 was sufficient for them so it should be more than sufficient for you. At every point apart from where they touched Jordan and Egypt. Under INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1922 and 1925 the LoN delineated the borders of the Jewish national home and the arab muslim national home. Those are the borders referered to in the Declaration of independence and the UN had no authority to take any part of those lands away from the Jews. So the arab muslims that are not prepared to live in peace should be forcibly returned to their lands of origin or their designated home with the remuneration agreed at the time.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, --- excellent question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It makes absolute prefect sense.  You just don't like the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was 1948 too late and 1988 not.
> You make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In September 1948 the All Palestine Government (APG) declared Independence over the entirety of the former Mandate of Palestine on the West side of the Jordan.  But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.
> 
> The territory cannot be sovereign to --- two different governments.
> 
> APG was a unique government in that it had no territory.
> 
> The APG was dissolved by its creator; the Egyptians in 1959.  The Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the PLO as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”  The PLO declared independence (November 1988) over territory that had been abandon by the Jordanians in July 1988 --- and left in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Similarly, the Gaza Strip, formerly a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT) under a Egyptian Military Governorship vacated the territory in 1967, leaving it in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Unbelievably, the Arab Palestinians made the same mistake a second time; being late again in Declaring Independence in November 1988.
> 
> It could have face a serious challenge, except for the fact that Israel simply did not want to assimilate the West Bank and Gaza Strip into the sovereignty of the nations.  There were several reasons way the Israelis allowed the establishment of the Palestinian Declared State; least of all was that it was not economically feasible to incorporate a totally unproductive people into the Israeli society.  And --- these two areas contained a unusually large number of security threats including the elements that attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Kingdom and the Islamic Jihadist that attacked the Olympic Team in Munich.  No one in the Arab World wanted to assimilate them, and Israeli did not either.
> 
> Most Respectfully.
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.​
> OK, but what was Israel's defined territory in 1948. Do you have a map or some documented description? Where did Palestine's international borders encroach on Israel's territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On May 14th, 1948, the boundaries (as agreed upon with the UNPC) was that stipulated in the Resolution 181 (II) and Annex A.   After the pre-planned invasion by Arab League forces; effective control for Israel expanded.  The Armistice Lines were not drawn until the early month of 1949.  Israels control expanded from 55% to ≈77%.  However, No group representing the Arab Palestinians as a whole existed.  By 1979 and again in 1994, the situation evolved with treaties.
> 
> See one of my previous positing #3201.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep forgetting that resolution 181 never happened.
> 
> Israels control expanded from 55% to ≈77%.​
> Indeed, all taken by military force. And most of that before the 1948 war along with about 300,00 refugees. Israel blames that on the war but that is a lie.
Click to expand...








 And how many times have you been shown that 181 did happen despite the best that the arab muslims could do to stop it. You refuse to accept any evidence that proves you wrong without providing any links that show you are right


----------



## Phoenall

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, --- excellent question.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It makes absolute prefect sense.  You just don't like the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was 1948 too late and 1988 not.
> You make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In September 1948 the All Palestine Government (APG) declared Independence over the entirety of the former Mandate of Palestine on the West side of the Jordan.  But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.
> 
> The territory cannot be sovereign to --- two different governments.
> 
> APG was a unique government in that it had no territory.
> 
> The APG was dissolved by its creator; the Egyptians in 1959.  The Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the PLO as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”  The PLO declared independence (November 1988) over territory that had been abandon by the Jordanians in July 1988 --- and left in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Similarly, the Gaza Strip, formerly a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT) under a Egyptian Military Governorship vacated the territory in 1967, leaving it in the hands of the Israelis.
> 
> Unbelievably, the Arab Palestinians made the same mistake a second time; being late again in Declaring Independence in November 1988.
> 
> It could have face a serious challenge, except for the fact that Israel simply did not want to assimilate the West Bank and Gaza Strip into the sovereignty of the nations.  There were several reasons way the Israelis allowed the establishment of the Palestinian Declared State; least of all was that it was not economically feasible to incorporate a totally unproductive people into the Israeli society.  And --- these two areas contained a unusually large number of security threats including the elements that attempted to overthrow the Jordanian Kingdom and the Islamic Jihadist that attacked the Olympic Team in Munich.  No one in the Arab World wanted to assimilate them, and Israeli did not either.
> 
> Most Respectfully.
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that encompassed the State of Israel declared in May 1988.​
> OK, but what was Israel's defined territory in 1948. Do you have a map or some documented description? Where did Palestine's international borders encroach on Israel's territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On May 14th, 1948, the boundaries (as agreed upon with the UNPC) was that stipulated in the Resolution 181 (II) and Annex A.   After the pre-planned invasion by Arab League forces; effective control for Israel expanded.  The Armistice Lines were not drawn until the early month of 1949.  Israels control expanded from 55% to ≈77%.  However, No group representing the Arab Palestinians as a whole existed.  By 1979 and again in 1994, the situation evolved with treaties.
> 
> See one of my previous positing #3201.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep forgetting that resolution 181 never happened.
> 
> Israels control expanded from 55% to ≈77%.​
> Indeed, all taken by military force. And most of that before the 1948 war along with about 300,00 refugees. Israel blames that on the war but that is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Indeed, all taken by military force."
> 
> Indeed, taken as a defensive response to acts of war by Islamist armies.
Click to expand...








 And before doing so was seen as illegal under international laws, I believe that it is still legal as islam has taken much land by force over the last 20 years


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> First of all the Arab armies intervened in an attempt to prevent the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  This was recently confirmed by recently released British intelligence reports the links to which have been posted before.  Secondly, the Arab states were very secular at the time, and one of the Arab armies was Christian, not Islamist at all.









 And contempraneous reports from 1947 show that the intent was the genocide of the Jews and the taking of the land as part of the arab nationalist movement. A pity the Jews destroyed the arab muslim forces twice and so created Israel out of whole cloth


----------



## esthermoon

P F Tinmore said:


> esthermoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's add some clarity about Israel. Or confusion depending on which side of the isle you are on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what the man in the video says is true well it's pretty shocking. I didn't know Israeli nationality doesn't exist.
> So in Israel you have full political and civil rights only if you're Jew? Am I right?
> I hope I misunderstood...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that is true. We hear all the time that all Israeli citizens have equal rights. Except for some cultural racism that is true. (?)
> 
> However, there are two sets of rights. Citizen's rights (as above) and nationality rights. Nationality rights only apply to Jewish nationality. These rights do not apply to Arab (Palestinian) nationality. These include things like immigration, citizenship, land, marriage and others.
> 
> BTW, I used to teach school in Vietnam. I had many friends. Good people.
Click to expand...

Hey! I'm glad to know you did teach here!


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, --- It actually makes no difference.



P F Tinmore said:


> Mandates were trustees. They only administered other people's countries.


*(COMMENT)*

The current world is not going to turn the 18th most humanly developed country in the world upside-down; in favor of a leadership and a people that has --- for nearly a century --- been unable to take one peaceful step forward for the improvement of their people and the economy.

The Arab Palestinians cannot refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts,

The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.

Like much of the international donor community has discovered since the beginning of the 21st Century, the Arab Palestinians are unable to accept what is an move forward towards a productive and profitable future.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> First of all the Arab armies intervened in an attempt to prevent the ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  This was recently confirmed by recently released British intelligence reports the links to which have been posted before.  Secondly, the Arab states were very secular at the time, and one of the Arab armies was Christian, not Islamist at all.


LMAO!  Godd one Monte.  Oh yes how the Arab countries love Christians.  Heh Heh!  Please post here more often.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Again, --- It actually makes no difference.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mandates were trustees. They only administered other people's countries.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The current world is not going to turn the 18th most humanly developed country in the world upside-down; in favor of a leadership and a people that has --- for nearly a century --- been unable to take one peaceful step forward for the improvement of their people and the economy.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians cannot refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts,
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.
> 
> Like much of the international donor community has discovered since the beginning of the 21st Century, the Arab Palestinians are unable to accept what is an move forward towards a productive and profitable future.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.

The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.


----------



## Eloy

RoccoR said:


> The current world is not going to turn the 18th most humanly developed country in the world upside-down ...


What country do you mean?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Again, --- It actually makes no difference.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mandates were trustees. They only administered other people's countries.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The current world is not going to turn the 18th most humanly developed country in the world upside-down; in favor of a leadership and a people that has --- for nearly a century --- been unable to take one peaceful step forward for the improvement of their people and the economy.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians cannot refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts,
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.
> 
> Like much of the international donor community has discovered since the beginning of the 21st Century, the Arab Palestinians are unable to accept what is an move forward towards a productive and profitable future.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the international community is growing weary of the endless whining, moaning and demands for "more" by the Islamic terrorist franchises occupying Gaza and the West Bank. The "banner of BDS" is simply a means to an end for a collection of people who are incapable of taking the steps necessary to develop a functioning society.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)

Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)

 To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:

_••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,

_••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,

••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Oh jeese, another slime the Palestinians rant.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent,truthful and accurate post Tinnie...you know why they don't get it...........it is because they try to legitimize Zionist Terrorism by saying Jews...then they call us Anti-Semites.....   the problem is for them no matter how they try to  legitimize the Filth of Zionist TERRORISM....these Synthetic Jew LOL /Zionists do not and never had the  Cultural beliefs of Real Jewish people.....They were created,repeat CREATED by an ATHIEST JEW(Synthetic JEW),Illegal's to Palestine,whose only intention was to bring Barbarity and Murder to the Palestinian  people......to take the Palestinians Land.
> 
> That these Zionists all of whom were converted to Judiasm (Synthetics) never had any idea of Palestine,no roots or understanding of the Israelites other than what they were told/here say by there Zionist Controllers......The original MODERN TERRORISTS OF THE WORLD.
> 
> Their whole being is built on a LIE,they perpetuate this LIE today,they mindlessly believe in this LIE and think by protecting this LIE they can use their enormous HATRED to try to demean and control others exposing the LIE
> 
> Creatures like Pheo,not a Jew according to him......then he tries to say that Judaism and Zionism are the same thing.......I've heard this type of trash talk before,when the Nazis not only said that all Germans were Nazis but Arrogantly said they would rule the world......This type of Delusional Thinking is a Mental Disorder.......often created through GUILT etc,.
> 
> As an Organization the Zionists are openly Shameful,deliberately Aggressive and Delusional.............and a Danger to Mankind.steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Steve.  You sound like a raging lunatic.  Are you under psychiatric care?   You certainly sound like you are, but are not being given the correct medication to help you.  Now join these so-called by you "fake Jews" next Friday night and you might enjoy yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You joining in Hoss ???? LOL steve...ps not Loony just Normal.......I can't help that you are a Zionut...I tell folk I don't like Synthetic "Fake Jews" I'm wrong because I love you man..steve,shit if I was over there I would have a few Jars with you,but don't try to convert me,...I hate plastic,LOL...see ya Hoss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think  you realize, Steve, that with your "fake Jew" nonsense, you appear that you belong in the looney bin.   However,  if  you don't mind appearing like a crackpot, then go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL,trouble is with your funny and Rocco's agree is...that you and Rocco made a Love Child which became Zionism......now that is Funny and I Agree LOL steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you have a love fest with all the anti-Semites, and Rocco, being a sharp man, was quick to catch on to you  and your silliness.
Click to expand...

You have become so Zionistically brainwashed that your judgement is unreality


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Steve.  You sound like a raging lunatic.  Are you under psychiatric care?   You certainly sound like you are, but are not being given the correct medication to help you.  Now join these so-called by you "fake Jews" next Friday night and you might enjoy yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You joining in Hoss ???? LOL steve...ps not Loony just Normal.......I can't help that you are a Zionut...I tell folk I don't like Synthetic "Fake Jews" I'm wrong because I love you man..steve,shit if I was over there I would have a few Jars with you,but don't try to convert me,...I hate plastic,LOL...see ya Hoss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think  you realize, Steve, that with your "fake Jew" nonsense, you appear that you belong in the looney bin.   However,  if  you don't mind appearing like a crackpot, then go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL,trouble is with your funny and Rocco's agree is...that you and Rocco made a Love Child which became Zionism......now that is Funny and I Agree LOL steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you have a love fest with all the anti-Semites, and Rocco, being a sharp man, was quick to catch on to you  and your silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have become so Zionistically brainwashed that your judgement is unreality
Click to expand...

Thanks, Digger.


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Idiotic,the only thing the pro-Zionists in the International community have been doing is Doggying the Zionist Scum.....Israel and America like Iran are NOT "Good Faith States"..are NOT bastions of the rules of International Law.......as for Peace founded upon Freedom......You are a Joker or I suggest you stop snorting Coke,either way your prose is ridiculous.....Methinks you have a touch of Trumpmania..>>>Say any outrageous comment,


RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Give Up Today Rocco....Please......America,Iran and Israel amongst others ARE NOT A GOOD FAITH STATE..OR..UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPALS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW..OR HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR DEVELOPING HUMAN RIGHTS.Who are you kidding?

Stop smoking Weed..............It is bad for your mind and wellbeing Rocco,...steve


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> You joining in Hoss ???? LOL steve...ps not Loony just Normal.......I can't help that you are a Zionut...I tell folk I don't like Synthetic "Fake Jews" I'm wrong because I love you man..steve,shit if I was over there I would have a few Jars with you,but don't try to convert me,...I hate plastic,LOL...see ya Hoss.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think  you realize, Steve, that with your "fake Jew" nonsense, you appear that you belong in the looney bin.   However,  if  you don't mind appearing like a crackpot, then go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL,trouble is with your funny and Rocco's agree is...that you and Rocco made a Love Child which became Zionism......now that is Funny and I Agree LOL steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you have a love fest with all the anti-Semites, and Rocco, being a sharp man, was quick to catch on to you  and your silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have become so Zionistically brainwashed that your judgement is unreality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks, Digger.
Click to expand...

Methinks 50% actually slightly less than 50% as Clinton got more votes,but to the matter of the post...I think you, like many Americans at the moment have a Touch of Trumpitis......Scream out Bullshit and hope the suckers believe it.............see ya Hoss in a couple of months


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think  you realize, Steve, that with your "fake Jew" nonsense, you appear that you belong in the looney bin.   However,  if  you don't mind appearing like a crackpot, then go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL,trouble is with your funny and Rocco's agree is...that you and Rocco made a Love Child which became Zionism......now that is Funny and I Agree LOL steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you have a love fest with all the anti-Semites, and Rocco, being a sharp man, was quick to catch on to you  and your silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have become so Zionistically brainwashed that your judgement is unreality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks, Digger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Methinks 50% actually slightly less than 50% as Clinton got more votes,but to the matter of the post...I think you, like many Americans at the moment have a Touch of Trumpitis......Scream out Bullshit and hope the suckers believe it.............see ya Hoss in a couple of months
Click to expand...


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL,trouble is with your funny and Rocco's agree is...that you and Rocco made a Love Child which became Zionism......now that is Funny and I Agree LOL steve
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have a love fest with all the anti-Semites, and Rocco, being a sharp man, was quick to catch on to you  and your silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have become so Zionistically brainwashed that your judgement is unreality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks, Digger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Methinks 50% actually slightly less than 50% as Clinton got more votes,but to the matter of the post...I think you, like many Americans at the moment have a Touch of Trumpitis......Scream out Bullshit and hope the suckers believe it.............see ya Hoss in a couple of months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 97728
Click to expand...

Wise old cat....you do realize Hoss that I am teasing Rocco and Thee LOL...steve


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Again, --- It actually makes no difference.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mandates were trustees. They only administered other people's countries.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The current world is not going to turn the 18th most humanly developed country in the world upside-down; in favor of a leadership and a people that has --- for nearly a century --- been unable to take one peaceful step forward for the improvement of their people and the economy.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians cannot refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts,
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.
> 
> Like much of the international donor community has discovered since the beginning of the 21st Century, the Arab Palestinians are unable to accept what is an move forward towards a productive and profitable future.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
Click to expand...









 Since when have American born students been arab muslims, as these are the majority of BDS activists ?


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current world is not going to turn the 18th most humanly developed country in the world upside-down ...
> 
> 
> 
> What country do you mean?
Click to expand...








 If you have to ask it shows just how out of touch with reality and truth you really are


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, another slime the Palestinians rant.
Click to expand...







 Only to you who cant see the reality of what the arab muslims are. Telling the truth and using evidence from an unbiased source is not a slime the palestinians rant IT IS SHOWING THE REALITY.
 The fact that they are in breach of this all encompasing international law shows that you are just defending islamonazi terrorism, violence and genocide of the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down, Steve.  You sound like a raging lunatic.  Are you under psychiatric care?   You certainly sound like you are, but are not being given the correct medication to help you.  Now join these so-called by you "fake Jews" next Friday night and you might enjoy yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You joining in Hoss ???? LOL steve...ps not Loony just Normal.......I can't help that you are a Zionut...I tell folk I don't like Synthetic "Fake Jews" I'm wrong because I love you man..steve,shit if I was over there I would have a few Jars with you,but don't try to convert me,...I hate plastic,LOL...see ya Hoss.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think  you realize, Steve, that with your "fake Jew" nonsense, you appear that you belong in the looney bin.   However,  if  you don't mind appearing like a crackpot, then go for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL,trouble is with your funny and Rocco's agree is...that you and Rocco made a Love Child which became Zionism......now that is Funny and I Agree LOL steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you have a love fest with all the anti-Semites, and Rocco, being a sharp man, was quick to catch on to you  and your silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have become so Zionistically brainwashed that your judgement is unreality
Click to expand...







 SHUT UP IDIOT


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotic,the only thing the pro-Zionists in the International community have been doing is Doggying the Zionist Scum.....Israel and America like Iran are NOT "Good Faith States"..are NOT bastions of the rules of International Law.......as for Peace founded upon Freedom......You are a Joker or I suggest you stop snorting Coke,either way your prose is ridiculous.....Methinks you have a touch of Trumpmania..>>>Say any outrageous comment,
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give Up Today Rocco....Please......America,Iran and Israel amongst others ARE NOT A GOOD FAITH STATE..OR..UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPALS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW..OR HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR DEVELOPING HUMAN RIGHTS.Who are you kidding?
> 
> Stop smoking Weed..............It is bad for your mind and wellbeing Rocco,...steve
Click to expand...






SHUT UP IDIOT and stop trolling the board


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have a love fest with all the anti-Semites, and Rocco, being a sharp man, was quick to catch on to you  and your silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> You have become so Zionistically brainwashed that your judgement is unreality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks, Digger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Methinks 50% actually slightly less than 50% as Clinton got more votes,but to the matter of the post...I think you, like many Americans at the moment have a Touch of Trumpitis......Scream out Bullshit and hope the suckers believe it.............see ya Hoss in a couple of months
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 97728
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wise old cat....you do realize Hoss that I am teasing Rocco and Thee LOL...steve
Click to expand...








 Do you realise that we are taking the piss out of you and showing you for the complete moron you are ?


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotic,the only thing the pro-Zionists in the International community have been doing is Doggying the Zionist Scum.....Israel and America like Iran are NOT "Good Faith States"..are NOT bastions of the rules of International Law.......as for Peace founded upon Freedom......You are a Joker or I suggest you stop snorting Coke,either way your prose is ridiculous.....Methinks you have a touch of Trumpmania..>>>Say any outrageous comment,
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give Up Today Rocco....Please......America,Iran and Israel amongst others ARE NOT A GOOD FAITH STATE..OR..UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPALS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW..OR HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR DEVELOPING HUMAN RIGHTS.Who are you kidding?
> 
> Stop smoking Weed..............It is bad for your mind and wellbeing Rocco,...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUT UP IDIOT and stop trolling the board
Click to expand...

PURRRRRRRR OR IS THAT ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......All your comments I suppose we could call them..... have been consigned to the Dustbin  with the rest of  your Verbal and Written SHIT

Folks find you an UNEDUCATED LITTLE BORE......AN OBSEQUEOUS,REPEDITIVE LITTLE BORE.....AKA A PRICK...and.....I can't take the PISS OUT OF YOU.....Why?????


Because you cannot take the PISS OUT OF SHIT


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotic,the only thing the pro-Zionists in the International community have been doing is Doggying the Zionist Scum.....Israel and America like Iran are NOT "Good Faith States"..are NOT bastions of the rules of International Law.......as for Peace founded upon Freedom......You are a Joker or I suggest you stop snorting Coke,either way your prose is ridiculous.....Methinks you have a touch of Trumpmania..>>>Say any outrageous comment,
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are incapable of resolving their disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give Up Today Rocco....Please......America,Iran and Israel amongst others ARE NOT A GOOD FAITH STATE..OR..UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPALS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW..OR HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR DEVELOPING HUMAN RIGHTS.Who are you kidding?
> 
> Stop smoking Weed..............It is bad for your mind and wellbeing Rocco,...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUT UP IDIOT and stop trolling the board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PURRRRRRRR OR IS THAT ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......All your comments I suppose we could call them..... have been consigned to the Dustbin  with the rest of  your Verbal and Written SHIT
> 
> Folks find you an UNEDUCATED LITTLE BORE......AN OBSEQUEOUS,REPEDITIVE LITTLE BORE.....AKA A PRICK...and.....I can't take the PISS OUT OF YOU.....Why?????
> 
> 
> Because you cannot take the PISS OUT OF SHIT
Click to expand...








 Do they, or do you mean you cant rise to my level so have to make excuses for your inferior intelligence and intelect. It is only you and the other neo nazi's that frequent the hate sites that see this way, the rest of the board see you as the pile of shite that defends islamonazi terrorism and violence


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotic,the only thing the pro-Zionists in the International community have been doing is Doggying the Zionist Scum.....Israel and America like Iran are NOT "Good Faith States"..are NOT bastions of the rules of International Law.......as for Peace founded upon Freedom......You are a Joker or I suggest you stop snorting Coke,either way your prose is ridiculous.....Methinks you have a touch of Trumpmania..>>>Say any outrageous comment,
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give Up Today Rocco....Please......America,Iran and Israel amongst others ARE NOT A GOOD FAITH STATE..OR..UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPALS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW..OR HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR DEVELOPING HUMAN RIGHTS.Who are you kidding?
> 
> Stop smoking Weed..............It is bad for your mind and wellbeing Rocco,...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUT UP IDIOT and stop trolling the board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PURRRRRRRR OR IS THAT ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......All your comments I suppose we could call them..... have been consigned to the Dustbin  with the rest of  your Verbal and Written SHIT
> 
> Folks find you an UNEDUCATED LITTLE BORE......AN OBSEQUEOUS,REPEDITIVE LITTLE BORE.....AKA A PRICK...and.....I can't take the PISS OUT OF YOU.....Why?????
> 
> 
> Because you cannot take the PISS OUT OF SHIT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they, or do you mean you cant rise to my level so have to make excuses for your inferior intelligence and intelect. It is only you and the other neo nazi's that frequent the hate sites that see this way, the rest of the board see you as the pile of shite that defends islamonazi terrorism and violence
Click to expand...

I told you before Pheo,you have no LEVEL because you live in the GUTTER and that is NO LEVEL AT ALL,swimming around in all that Hateful Zionist Garbage you call a Mantra,  but keep abusing if it helps you mentally that's fine by me......it's all shit off a Ducks Back.


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiotic,the only thing the pro-Zionists in the International community have been doing is Doggying the Zionist Scum.....Israel and America like Iran are NOT "Good Faith States"..are NOT bastions of the rules of International Law.......as for Peace founded upon Freedom......You are a Joker or I suggest you stop snorting Coke,either way your prose is ridiculous.....Methinks you have a touch of Trumpmania..>>>Say any outrageous comment,
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Indeed, the international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass while piles of UN resolutions collect dust.
> 
> The Palestinians are no longer waiting and have created many activities and organizations to promote justice. Many of these are now flying the banner of BDS. Perhaps they can kick something loose that has been tied down by politics for way too long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give Up Today Rocco....Please......America,Iran and Israel amongst others ARE NOT A GOOD FAITH STATE..OR..UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPALS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW..OR HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR DEVELOPING HUMAN RIGHTS.Who are you kidding?
> 
> Stop smoking Weed..............It is bad for your mind and wellbeing Rocco,...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUT UP IDIOT and stop trolling the board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PURRRRRRRR OR IS THAT ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......All your comments I suppose we could call them..... have been consigned to the Dustbin  with the rest of  your Verbal and Written SHIT
> 
> Folks find you an UNEDUCATED LITTLE BORE......AN OBSEQUEOUS,REPEDITIVE LITTLE BORE.....AKA A PRICK...and.....I can't take the PISS OUT OF YOU.....Why?????
> 
> 
> Because you cannot take the PISS OUT OF SHIT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they, or do you mean you cant rise to my level so have to make excuses for your inferior intelligence and intelect. It is only you and the other neo nazi's that frequent the hate sites that see this way, the rest of the board see you as the pile of shite that defends islamonazi terrorism and violence
Click to expand...

Contrary to your INSANE SHIT RIDDEN MOUTHINGS...I have never defended the SCOURGE OF ISLAMO TERRORISM as I have never defended ZIONIST TERRORISM>>>>>>They are both FILTH,and those that belong to these Organizations are FILTH TOO......people like you as it happens....the Lowlifes of Humanity


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic,the only thing the pro-Zionists in the International community have been doing is Doggying the Zionist Scum.....Israel and America like Iran are NOT "Good Faith States"..are NOT bastions of the rules of International Law.......as for Peace founded upon Freedom......You are a Joker or I suggest you stop snorting Coke,either way your prose is ridiculous.....Methinks you have a touch of Trumpmania..>>>Say any outrageous comment,
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give Up Today Rocco....Please......America,Iran and Israel amongst others ARE NOT A GOOD FAITH STATE..OR..UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPALS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW..OR HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR DEVELOPING HUMAN RIGHTS.Who are you kidding?
> 
> Stop smoking Weed..............It is bad for your mind and wellbeing Rocco,...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUT UP IDIOT and stop trolling the board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PURRRRRRRR OR IS THAT ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......All your comments I suppose we could call them..... have been consigned to the Dustbin  with the rest of  your Verbal and Written SHIT
> 
> Folks find you an UNEDUCATED LITTLE BORE......AN OBSEQUEOUS,REPEDITIVE LITTLE BORE.....AKA A PRICK...and.....I can't take the PISS OUT OF YOU.....Why?????
> 
> 
> Because you cannot take the PISS OUT OF SHIT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they, or do you mean you cant rise to my level so have to make excuses for your inferior intelligence and intelect. It is only you and the other neo nazi's that frequent the hate sites that see this way, the rest of the board see you as the pile of shite that defends islamonazi terrorism and violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you before Pheo,you have no LEVEL because you live in the GUTTER and that is NO LEVEL AT ALL,swimming around in all that Hateful Zionist Garbage you call a Mantra,  but keep abusing if it helps you mentally that's fine by me......it's all shit off a Ducks Back.
Click to expand...








 SHUT UP IDIOT INTELLIGENT ADULTS ARE TRYING TO HAVE MEANINGFULL CONVERSATIONS HERE


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Idiotic,the only thing the pro-Zionists in the International community have been doing is Doggying the Zionist Scum.....Israel and America like Iran are NOT "Good Faith States"..are NOT bastions of the rules of International Law.......as for Peace founded upon Freedom......You are a Joker or I suggest you stop snorting Coke,either way your prose is ridiculous.....Methinks you have a touch of Trumpmania..>>>Say any outrageous comment,
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> AGAIN, this is an example of how the Arab Palestinians think:  "international community has been sitting around with their thumb up their ass"
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Under consensus, IT IS NOT the duty of the International Community to take action on behalf of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.  BUT rather IT IS THE DUTY of Hostile Arab Palestinians to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, including Israel. (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> Yes, we hear all the time about how the world is so unjust with the Arab Palestinian.  BUT under the consensus that the Arab Palestinians attempt to raise as justification for their actions, IT IS THE DUTY of the Arab Palestinian to observe the principle of sovereign equality of States (including the Jewish State of Israel), and THE DUTY to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries (so-called Resistance Movement), for incursion into the territory of another State, (including the Jewish State of Israel).  (A/RES/25/2625 - Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations)
> 
> To be a nation, it is not about what you can squeeze out of the International Community and Donor Nations, but about:
> 
> _••  Bearing in mind_ the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights and of developing friendly relations among nations irrespective of their political, economic and social systems or the levels of their development,
> 
> _••  Considering_ that the faithful observance of the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among States and the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by States,
> 
> ••  _Understanding_ that to be a "Good Faith State" the Arab Palestinians must "comply in good faith with their obligations under the generally recognized principles and rules of international law with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, and shall endeavor to make the United Nations security system based on the Charter more effective."​
> Don't think for a minute that is is the responsibility of the International Community to threaten or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel to achieve what the Arab Palestinians could not in their despicable use of Jihadist, Fedayeen, Resistance Members, Terrorists, Insurgents, Islamic Radicals, and other asymmetric resources to intimidate or coerce an outcome they did not have the knowledge, skills and abilities to foster on their own.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give Up Today Rocco....Please......America,Iran and Israel amongst others ARE NOT A GOOD FAITH STATE..OR..UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPALS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW..OR HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR DEVELOPING HUMAN RIGHTS.Who are you kidding?
> 
> Stop smoking Weed..............It is bad for your mind and wellbeing Rocco,...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SHUT UP IDIOT and stop trolling the board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PURRRRRRRR OR IS THAT ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ......All your comments I suppose we could call them..... have been consigned to the Dustbin  with the rest of  your Verbal and Written SHIT
> 
> Folks find you an UNEDUCATED LITTLE BORE......AN OBSEQUEOUS,REPEDITIVE LITTLE BORE.....AKA A PRICK...and.....I can't take the PISS OUT OF YOU.....Why?????
> 
> 
> Because you cannot take the PISS OUT OF SHIT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they, or do you mean you cant rise to my level so have to make excuses for your inferior intelligence and intelect. It is only you and the other neo nazi's that frequent the hate sites that see this way, the rest of the board see you as the pile of shite that defends islamonazi terrorism and violence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contrary to your INSANE SHIT RIDDEN MOUTHINGS...I have never defended the SCOURGE OF ISLAMO TERRORISM as I have never defended ZIONIST TERRORISM>>>>>>They are both FILTH,and those that belong to these Organizations are FILTH TOO......people like you as it happens....the Lowlifes of Humanity
Click to expand...







 LIAR  you defend it all the time when you refuse to produce the source of your claims. Like when you claimed that Israel mass murdered hundreds of thousands of children and gave false links hoping no one would read them.


As another poster has asked you where do you get your definition of Zionism from as it only matches that of the one found on he hate sites.


----------



## Shusha

Phoenall said:


> As another poster has asked you where do you get your definition of Zionism from as it only matches that of the one found on he hate sites.



I don't believe steve has every provided us with his definition of Zionism.  I keep asking.  But I'm relatively certain he will continue to refuse to answer (they all do).  Even he recognizes his definition is socially unacceptable and will reveal his irrational hatred towards Jews.


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As another poster has asked you where do you get your definition of Zionism from as it only matches that of the one found on he hate sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe steve has every provided us with his definition of Zionism.  I keep asking.  But I'm relatively certain he will continue to refuse to answer (they all do).  Even he recognizes his definition is socially unacceptable and will reveal his irrational hatred towards Jews.
Click to expand...

I cannot fight against those who have FAITH,yours is Zionist Faith,no matter how irrational your thought,as corrupt and mindless that it is.....you can never change because you have been so indoctorinated sic that your mind and thoughts,no matter how bizzare,... they are  so ingrained in you persona,It is such a shame that you will never emancipate your deluded mind.

But like Pheo keep TROLLING it suits you


----------



## Shusha

Steve, 

Your rant would have more weight if you outlined just exactly what "bizarre, irrational, corrupt, deluded and mindless" thoughts you think I have been "indoctrinated" with.


----------



## RoccoR

theliq,  et al,

What is not logical or reasonable?



theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As another poster has asked you where do you get your definition of Zionism from as it only matches that of the one found on he hate sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe steve has every provided us with his definition of Zionism.  I keep asking.  But I'm relatively certain he will continue to refuse to answer (they all do).  Even he recognizes his definition is socially unacceptable and will reveal his irrational hatred towards Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cannot fight against those who have FAITH,yours is Zionist Faith,no matter how irrational your thought,as corrupt and mindless that it is.....you can never change because you have been so indoctorinated sic that your mind and thoughts,no matter how bizzare,... they are  so ingrained in you persona,It is such a shame that you will never emancipate your deluded mind.
> 
> But like Pheo keep TROLLING it suits you
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Outline how the stance is illogical.

In 1916 The idea of the Jewish Nation Home (JNH) unfolds.
In 1918, in 1920, and again in 1924, the Allied Powers gained, confirmed and reconfirmed the Title and Rights to the territory.
In 1922, the holders of the Title and Rights to the territory begins the process of developing self-government activities, facilitates the establishment JNH.
In 1948, the JNH is established and called the State of Israel. 
In 1967, established the effective control of over the Jordanian Annexed Territory.
In 1967, the Egyptian Military Government withdrew leaving Israel in control.
In 1988, Jordan breaks all ties with the West Bank leaving Israel in control.​There is no logic.  There is only reality, action and consequence.  The attempt by Arab Forces, to conquer and destroy Israel has failed in every attempt.  What is illogical is the persistence of the Arab Palestinian to continue the absurd Jihad against Israel.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> Steve,
> 
> Your rant would have more weight if you outlined just exactly what "bizarre, irrational, corrupt, deluded and mindless" thoughts you think I have been "indoctrinated" with.


Look Shusha,I am past dealing with you and the likes of Pheo....for too many reasons to mention,I just can't be bothered with you anymore,watching Pheo send 20 responses one after another is ridiculous,you too are grating in your responses,lets just leave it at that...I am sure you are a nice person but for me it's like a bad date.I wish you all the best for your future,with kind regards steven ps it will be good for me,as I will not need to Rant anymore,as you unkindly put it


----------



## Shusha

Steve, I am disappointed that you choose not to engage with the challenges I have put before you.  Disappointed but not surprised.  However, I can not force you to confront your prejudices, but only challenge you to do so.  I hope you do.  I think the world is a better place for it.  

I would encourage you to develop an objective list of behaviours and ideologies which you find troublesome, without attaching that objective list to a specific ethnic or cultural group and see what you come up with.  If you ever do and feel like sharing, I'd be happy to read it.  

But, I respect your wishes to bow out of this challenge.  I will leave you with some of my "bizarre, corrupt, deluded, irrational, mindless and indoctrinated" thoughts.  

I believe both the Jewish people and the Palestinian Arab people have an inherent and inalienable human right to a national self-determination in a part of the territory. I believe that both peoples should take responsibility for ending the conflict.

If that makes me corrupt or irrational, so be it.


----------



## Phoenall

He did once and it was the description of extremist islamic terrorism, and he lifted it straight from one of the hate sites.  To see which sites he is using go to google ( no other search engine has this facility) And paste in the first sentence of his quote and it will list the site they came from. Then he will be stumped once again on how to deny he uses hate sites.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As another poster has asked you where do you get your definition of Zionism from as it only matches that of the one found on he hate sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe steve has every provided us with his definition of Zionism.  I keep asking.  But I'm relatively certain he will continue to refuse to answer (they all do).  Even he recognizes his definition is socially unacceptable and will reveal his irrational hatred towards Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cannot fight against those who have FAITH,yours is Zionist Faith,no matter how irrational your thought,as corrupt and mindless that it is.....you can never change because you have been so indoctorinated sic that your mind and thoughts,no matter how bizzare,... they are  so ingrained in you persona,It is such a shame that you will never emancipate your deluded mind.
> 
> But like Pheo keep TROLLING it suits you
Click to expand...








 The only trolling is by yiu that denies the evidence placed in front of your eyes.

You have been told and shown what zionism stands for and still claim it is what islamic terrorism stands for. You LIE to try and prove your point and then get angry when called a LIAR and a CHEAT. You are brainwashed into being an islamonazi stooge and propagandist to the point that reality no longer exists for you


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Your rant would have more weight if you outlined just exactly what "bizarre, irrational, corrupt, deluded and mindless" thoughts you think I have been "indoctrinated" with.
> 
> 
> 
> Look Shusha,I am past dealing with you and the likes of Pheo....for too many reasons to mention,I just can't be bothered with you anymore,watching Pheo send 20 responses one after another is ridiculous,you too are grating in your responses,lets just leave it at that...I am sure you are a nice person but for me it's like a bad date.I wish you all the best for your future,with kind regards steven ps it will be good for me,as I will not need to Rant anymore,as you unkindly put it
Click to expand...








 In other words you admit that you have no arguments left other than the LIES and LIBELS from the hate sites.  If you dont like being shown to be a complete moron then it is time to get a new hobby, try breeding red backs and funnel webs


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As another poster has asked you where do you get your definition of Zionism from as it only matches that of the one found on he hate sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe steve has every provided us with his definition of Zionism.  I keep asking.  But I'm relatively certain he will continue to refuse to answer (they all do).  Even he recognizes his definition is socially unacceptable and will reveal his irrational hatred towards Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cannot fight against those who have FAITH,yours is Zionist Faith,no matter how irrational your thought,as corrupt and mindless that it is.....you can never change because you have been so indoctorinated sic that your mind and thoughts,no matter how bizzare,... they are  so ingrained in you persona,It is such a shame that you will never emancipate your deluded mind.
> 
> But like Pheo keep TROLLING it suits you
Click to expand...


Steve, if you would remember to take your meds, you wouldn't sound so irrationable


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As another poster has asked you where do you get your definition of Zionism from as it only matches that of the one found on he hate sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe steve has every provided us with his definition of Zionism.  I keep asking.  But I'm relatively certain he will continue to refuse to answer (they all do).  Even he recognizes his definition is socially unacceptable and will reveal his irrational hatred towards Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cannot fight against those who have FAITH,yours is Zionist Faith,no matter how irrational your thought,as corrupt and mindless that it is.....you can never change because you have been so indoctorinated sic that your mind and thoughts,no matter how bizzare,... they are  so ingrained in you persona,It is such a shame that you will never emancipate your deluded mind.
> 
> But like Pheo keep TROLLING it suits you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Steve, if you would remember to take your meds, you wouldn't sound so irrationable[/QUOTE
> Well at least I don't have the Brain of a bean......
Click to expand...


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As another poster has asked you where do you get your definition of Zionism from as it only matches that of the one found on he hate sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe steve has every provided us with his definition of Zionism.  I keep asking.  But I'm relatively certain he will continue to refuse to answer (they all do).  Even he recognizes his definition is socially unacceptable and will reveal his irrational hatred towards Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cannot fight against those who have FAITH,yours is Zionist Faith,no matter how irrational your thought,as corrupt and mindless that it is.....you can never change because you have been so indoctorinated sic that your mind and thoughts,no matter how bizzare,... they are  so ingrained in you persona,It is such a shame that you will never emancipate your deluded mind.
> 
> But like Pheo keep TROLLING it suits you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Steve, if you would remember to take your meds, you wouldn't sound so irrationable[/QUOTE
> Well at least I don't have the Brain of a bean......
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, Steve, when you rant on and on, it appears that your brain has shrunk to the size of a grain of sand.   As your friend, when I say you sound irrational, I am not lying.  Most of the readers are  probably laughing and being entertained by you instead of taking anything you say as serious.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> Steve,
> 
> Your rant would have more weight if you outlined just exactly what "bizarre, irrational, corrupt, deluded and mindless" thoughts you think I have been "indoctrinated" with.



Can't be done with that God given piece of wood in his head to think with.


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Your rant would have more weight if you outlined just exactly what "bizarre, irrational, corrupt, deluded and mindless" thoughts you think I have been "indoctrinated" with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be done with that God given piece of wood in his head to think with.
Click to expand...

Well I have to give you Credit MJ for being Amusing...Well Done 10/10...steve


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As another poster has asked you where do you get your definition of Zionism from as it only matches that of the one found on he hate sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe steve has every provided us with his definition of Zionism.  I keep asking.  But I'm relatively certain he will continue to refuse to answer (they all do).  Even he recognizes his definition is socially unacceptable and will reveal his irrational hatred towards Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cannot fight against those who have FAITH,yours is Zionist Faith,no matter how irrational your thought,as corrupt and mindless that it is.....you can never change because you have been so indoctorinated sic that your mind and thoughts,no matter how bizzare,... they are  so ingrained in you persona,It is such a shame that you will never emancipate your deluded mind.
> 
> But like Pheo keep TROLLING it suits you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Steve, if you would remember to take your meds, you wouldn't sound so irrationable[/QUOTE
> Well at least I don't have the Brain of a bean......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Steve, when you rant on and on, it appears that your brain has shrunk to the size of a grain of sand.   As your friend, when I say you sound irrational, I am not lying.  Most of the readers are  probably laughing and being entertained by you instead of taking anything you say as serious.
Click to expand...

Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve

Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe steve has every provided us with his definition of Zionism.  I keep asking.  But I'm relatively certain he will continue to refuse to answer (they all do).  Even he recognizes his definition is socially unacceptable and will reveal his irrational hatred towards Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot fight against those who have FAITH,yours is Zionist Faith,no matter how irrational your thought,as corrupt and mindless that it is.....you can never change because you have been so indoctorinated sic that your mind and thoughts,no matter how bizzare,... they are  so ingrained in you persona,It is such a shame that you will never emancipate your deluded mind.
> 
> But like Pheo keep TROLLING it suits you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Steve, if you would remember to take your meds, you wouldn't sound so irrationable[/QUOTE
> Well at least I don't have the Brain of a bean......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Steve, when you rant on and on, it appears that your brain has shrunk to the size of a grain of sand.   As your friend, when I say you sound irrational, I am not lying.  Most of the readers are  probably laughing and being entertained by you instead of taking anything you say as serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve
> 
> Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.
Click to expand...

Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.

Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda

Pallywood


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot fight against those who have FAITH,yours is Zionist Faith,no matter how irrational your thought,as corrupt and mindless that it is.....you can never change because you have been so indoctorinated sic that your mind and thoughts,no matter how bizzare,... they are  so ingrained in you persona,It is such a shame that you will never emancipate your deluded mind.
> 
> But like Pheo keep TROLLING it suits you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve, if you would remember to take your meds, you wouldn't sound so irrationable[/QUOTE
> Well at least I don't have the Brain of a bean......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Steve, when you rant on and on, it appears that your brain has shrunk to the size of a grain of sand.   As your friend, when I say you sound irrational, I am not lying.  Most of the readers are  probably laughing and being entertained by you instead of taking anything you say as serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve
> 
> Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.
> 
> Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda
> 
> Pallywood
Click to expand...

I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.

The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steve, if you would remember to take your meds, you wouldn't sound so irrationable[/QUOTE
> Well at least I don't have the Brain of a bean......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Steve, when you rant on and on, it appears that your brain has shrunk to the size of a grain of sand.   As your friend, when I say you sound irrational, I am not lying.  Most of the readers are  probably laughing and being entertained by you instead of taking anything you say as serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve
> 
> Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.
> 
> Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda
> 
> Pallywood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.
> 
> The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........
Click to expand...


Of course you kept mentioning the Jews helping the Nazis.  You got this from Edwin Black's' book "The Transfer" which is a big hit on the hate site where the NeoNazis try to make it seem like the Jews were collaborating with the Nazis all the time.    When you look at it, it's a shame the boycott didn't go on and topple the Hitler regime and millions wouldn't have consequently been murdered by Nazi Germany.

"The Transfer Agreement is Edwin Black's compelling, award-winning story of a negotiated arrangement in 1933 between Zionist organizations and the Nazis to transfer some 50,000 Jews, and $100 million of their assets, to Jewish Palestine in exchange for stopping the worldwide Jewish-led boycott threatening to topple the Hitler regime in its first year.'

Meanwhile, since I don 't believe the hate sites mention Blacks following book, Steve is going to get a copy and read it.


https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Steve, when you rant on and on, it appears that your brain has shrunk to the size of a grain of sand.   As your friend, when I say you sound irrational, I am not lying.  Most of the readers are  probably laughing and being entertained by you instead of taking anything you say as serious.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve
> 
> Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.
> 
> Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda
> 
> Pallywood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.
> 
> The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you kept mentioning the Jews helping the Nazis.  You got this from Edwin Black's' book "The Transfer" which is a big hit on the hate site where the NeoNazis try to make it seem like the Jews were collaborating with the Nazis all the time.    When you look at it, it's a shame the boycott didn't go on and topple the Hitler regime and millions wouldn't have consequently been murdered by Nazi Germany.
> 
> "The Transfer Agreement is Edwin Black's compelling, award-winning story of a negotiated arrangement in 1933 between Zionist organizations and the Nazis to transfer some 50,000 Jews, and $100 million of their assets, to Jewish Palestine in exchange for stopping the worldwide Jewish-led boycott threatening to topple the Hitler regime in its first year.'
> 
> Meanwhile, since I don 't believe the hate sites mention Blacks following book, Steve is going to get a copy and read it.
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
Click to expand...

Hoss,a little reading for you on the Israelite invasion of Canaan,you may find this interesting and educating.....https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1612000193....
Just click Holy Wars 3000.........Enjoy

As for your prose above...it is not relevant to me as such as I know my own history and never use  hate sites because they are Myopic by both sides and totally counter-productive..steve


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe steve has every provided us with his definition of Zionism.  I keep asking.  But I'm relatively certain he will continue to refuse to answer (they all do).  Even he recognizes his definition is socially unacceptable and will reveal his irrational hatred towards Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot fight against those who have FAITH,yours is Zionist Faith,no matter how irrational your thought,as corrupt and mindless that it is.....you can never change because you have been so indoctorinated sic that your mind and thoughts,no matter how bizzare,... they are  so ingrained in you persona,It is such a shame that you will never emancipate your deluded mind.
> 
> But like Pheo keep TROLLING it suits you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Steve, if you would remember to take your meds, you wouldn't sound so irrationable[/QUOTE
> Well at least I don't have the Brain of a bean......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Steve, when you rant on and on, it appears that your brain has shrunk to the size of a grain of sand.   As your friend, when I say you sound irrational, I am not lying.  Most of the readers are  probably laughing and being entertained by you instead of taking anything you say as serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve
> 
> Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.
Click to expand...








 And you are the one parroting the 1930's propaganda, and dressing it up as anti zionism. It is still just anti semitism lifted straight from the hate sites.  I will start posting the sites that carry your anti semitic rants so the world can see hoa evil you are


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Steve, when you rant on and on, it appears that your brain has shrunk to the size of a grain of sand.   As your friend, when I say you sound irrational, I am not lying.  Most of the readers are  probably laughing and being entertained by you instead of taking anything you say as serious.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve
> 
> Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.
> 
> Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda
> 
> Pallywood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.
> 
> The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you kept mentioning the Jews helping the Nazis.  You got this from Edwin Black's' book "The Transfer" which is a big hit on the hate site where the NeoNazis try to make it seem like the Jews were collaborating with the Nazis all the time.    When you look at it, it's a shame the boycott didn't go on and topple the Hitler regime and millions wouldn't have consequently been murdered by Nazi Germany.
> 
> "The Transfer Agreement is Edwin Black's compelling, award-winning story of a negotiated arrangement in 1933 between Zionist organizations and the Nazis to transfer some 50,000 Jews, and $100 million of their assets, to Jewish Palestine in exchange for stopping the worldwide Jewish-led boycott threatening to topple the Hitler regime in its first year.'
> 
> Meanwhile, since I don 't believe the hate sites mention Blacks following book, Steve is going to get a copy and read it.
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoss,a little reading for you on the Israelite invasion of Canaan,you may find this interesting and educating.....https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1612000193....
> Just click Holy Wars 3000.........Enjoy
> 
> As for your prose above...it is not relevant to me as such as I know my own history and never use  hate sites because they are Myopic by both sides and totally counter-productive..steve
Click to expand...








 Proving that Israel has a right to exist, and has ownership of the land. Do you have many toes left after shooting them of like this all the time. You world be better sticking to the childrens social media as you dont have the intelligence to exist on the adult boards




 As for knowing your history why do you use the twisted history from the hate sites, is it because you are so stupid


----------



## sealybobo

MJB12741 said:


> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks


 Are we going to war with Iran for the Jews? Isn't that why we invaded Iraq?


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steve, if you would remember to take your meds, you wouldn't sound so irrationable[/QUOTE
> Well at least I don't have the Brain of a bean......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Steve, when you rant on and on, it appears that your brain has shrunk to the size of a grain of sand.   As your friend, when I say you sound irrational, I am not lying.  Most of the readers are  probably laughing and being entertained by you instead of taking anything you say as serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve
> 
> Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.
> 
> Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda
> 
> Pallywood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.
> 
> The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........
Click to expand...






And that was lifted straight from one of the hate sites as you have nothing else to support ypur LIES


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Your rant would have more weight if you outlined just exactly what "bizarre, irrational, corrupt, deluded and mindless" thoughts you think I have been "indoctrinated" with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be done with that God given piece of wood in his head to think with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I have to give you Credit MJ for being Amusing...Well Done 10/10...steve
Click to expand...


My pleasure drongo.  And you may address me as MJB, the Great.


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Steve, when you rant on and on, it appears that your brain has shrunk to the size of a grain of sand.   As your friend, when I say you sound irrational, I am not lying.  Most of the readers are  probably laughing and being entertained by you instead of taking anything you say as serious.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve
> 
> Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.
> 
> Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda
> 
> Pallywood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.
> 
> The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you kept mentioning the Jews helping the Nazis.  You got this from Edwin Black's' book "The Transfer" which is a big hit on the hate site where the NeoNazis try to make it seem like the Jews were collaborating with the Nazis all the time.    When you look at it, it's a shame the boycott didn't go on and topple the Hitler regime and millions wouldn't have consequently been murdered by Nazi Germany.
> 
> "The Transfer Agreement is Edwin Black's compelling, award-winning story of a negotiated arrangement in 1933 between Zionist organizations and the Nazis to transfer some 50,000 Jews, and $100 million of their assets, to Jewish Palestine in exchange for stopping the worldwide Jewish-led boycott threatening to topple the Hitler regime in its first year.'
> 
> Meanwhile, since I don 't believe the hate sites mention Blacks following book, Steve is going to get a copy and read it.
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoss,a little reading for you on the Israelite invasion of Canaan,you may find this interesting and educating.....https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1612000193....
> Just click Holy Wars 3000.........Enjoy
> 
> As for your prose above...it is not relevant to me as such as I know my own history and never use  hate sites because they are Myopic by both sides and totally counter-productive..steve
Click to expand...

I think all of us who took Ancient History in school had learned about all the wars which went on in olden days by various groups.  Meanwhile, I have a site for you.since you so kindly gave me one.

Understanding Jihad (History, Goals, and Tactics) - Discover the Networks

As for you never going to hate sites, even a Muslim woman knew about the book The Transfer because she was a regular reader of the hate sites.  I assure you she didn't learn about Edwin Black and his book in her madrassa in India.  Like you, I doubt if she even read any excerpt written about Edwin Black's book showing the Nazis and the Arabs collaborating  since the hate sites would never cover this book..


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Your rant would have more weight if you outlined just exactly what "bizarre, irrational, corrupt, deluded and mindless" thoughts you think I have been "indoctrinated" with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be done with that God given piece of wood in his head to think with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I have to give you Credit MJ for being Amusing...Well Done 10/10...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My pleasure drongo.  And you may address me as MJB, the Great.
Click to expand...

see I am the Original H.I.M......you are a Jonny Come Lately Wannabee.......VERSIONIST Too late MJ...you failed...simple as that...steve


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Steve, when you rant on and on, it appears that your brain has shrunk to the size of a grain of sand.   As your friend, when I say you sound irrational, I am not lying.  Most of the readers are  probably laughing and being entertained by you instead of taking anything you say as serious.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve
> 
> Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.
> 
> Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda
> 
> Pallywood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.
> 
> The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was lifted straight from one of the hate sites as you have nothing else to support ypur LIES
Click to expand...

Nosense


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve
> 
> Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.
> 
> Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda
> 
> Pallywood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.
> 
> The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you kept mentioning the Jews helping the Nazis.  You got this from Edwin Black's' book "The Transfer" which is a big hit on the hate site where the NeoNazis try to make it seem like the Jews were collaborating with the Nazis all the time.    When you look at it, it's a shame the boycott didn't go on and topple the Hitler regime and millions wouldn't have consequently been murdered by Nazi Germany.
> 
> "The Transfer Agreement is Edwin Black's compelling, award-winning story of a negotiated arrangement in 1933 between Zionist organizations and the Nazis to transfer some 50,000 Jews, and $100 million of their assets, to Jewish Palestine in exchange for stopping the worldwide Jewish-led boycott threatening to topple the Hitler regime in its first year.'
> 
> Meanwhile, since I don 't believe the hate sites mention Blacks following book, Steve is going to get a copy and read it.
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoss,a little reading for you on the Israelite invasion of Canaan,you may find this interesting and educating.....https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1612000193....
> Just click Holy Wars 3000.........Enjoy
> 
> As for your prose above...it is not relevant to me as such as I know my own history and never use  hate sites because they are Myopic by both sides and totally counter-productive..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think all of us who took Ancient History in school had learned about all the wars which went on in olden days by various groups.  Meanwhile, I have a site for you.since you so kindly gave me one.
> 
> Understanding Jihad (History, Goals, and Tactics) - Discover the Networks
> 
> As for you never going to hate sites, even a Muslim woman knew about the book The Transfer because she was a regular reader of the hate sites.  I assure you she didn't learn about Edwin Black and his book in her madrassa in India.  Like you, I doubt if she even read any excerpt written about Edwin Black's book showing the Nazis and the Arabs collaborating  since the hate sites would never cover this book..
Click to expand...

I read with some interest Hoss,reading further I noticed a slight Conservative and dare I say Jewish tone...Hoss....I then checked who "Discoverthenetworks.org" were....my assumption was clear...A Jewish inspired publication out of Sherman Oaks,California,the E.I.Chief is David Horowitz(no need to say much more) and his side kick Jamie Glazov,Russian Jew from Canada...I read the rest and decided that it was merely another pro-Zionist Rag.....Hoss I gave it my best shot but in future,give me things to read that are more enlightening than this Right Wing,Pro-Zionist site.

But Thanks for trying despite foul mouthing me regarding getting a copy....If I wanted to be imbued with Pro-Zionist Trash,I get my fill on here thanks..steve...ps As I explained Hoss,I don't do hate sites,neither Zionist or ISIS etc,.., It is great to be independent,intelligent and a free thinker without having to resort to hate sites


----------



## SAYIT

theliq said:


> I read with some interest Hoss,reading further I noticed a slight Conservative and dare I say Jewish tone...Hoss....I then checked who "Discoverthenetworks.org" were....my assumption was clear...A Jewish inspired publication out of Sherman Oaks,California,the E.I.Chief is David Horowitz(no need to say much more) and his side kick Jamie Glazov,Russian Jew from Canada...I read the rest and decided that it was merely another pro-Zionist Rag.....Hoss I gave it my best shot but in future,give me things to read that are more enlightening than this Right Wing,Pro-Zionist site..



I've have something that's right up you alley, NaziBoy but I'm guessing you already have a leather bound copy signed by the author:


----------



## theliq

SAYIT said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read with some interest Hoss,reading further I noticed a slight Conservative and dare I say Jewish tone...Hoss....I then checked who "Discoverthenetworks.org" were....my assumption was clear...A Jewish inspired publication out of Sherman Oaks,California,the E.I.Chief is David Horowitz(no need to say much more) and his side kick Jamie Glazov,Russian Jew from Canada...I read the rest and decided that it was merely another pro-Zionist Rag.....Hoss I gave it my best shot but in future,give me things to read that are more enlightening than this Right Wing,Pro-Zionist site..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've have something that's right up you alley, NaziBoy but I'm guessing you already have a leather bound copy signed by the author:
Click to expand...

Well YOU WOULD HAVE BIENG AS YOU ARE A NAZI_ZIONISTA


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Your rant would have more weight if you outlined just exactly what "bizarre, irrational, corrupt, deluded and mindless" thoughts you think I have been "indoctrinated" with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be done with that God given piece of wood in his head to think with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I have to give you Credit MJ for being Amusing...Well Done 10/10...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My pleasure drongo.  And you may address me as MJB, the Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see I am the Original H.I.M......you are a Jonny Come Lately Wannabee.......VERSIONIST Too late MJ...you failed...simple as that...steve
Click to expand...







 You are a nothing, a nobody outside of your own fantasy. Time to grow up and stop the substance abuse, try croc wrestling instead


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read with some interest Hoss,reading further I noticed a slight Conservative and dare I say Jewish tone...Hoss....I then checked who "Discoverthenetworks.org" were....my assumption was clear...A Jewish inspired publication out of Sherman Oaks,California,the E.I.Chief is David Horowitz(no need to say much more) and his side kick Jamie Glazov,Russian Jew from Canada...I read the rest and decided that it was merely another pro-Zionist Rag.....Hoss I gave it my best shot but in future,give me things to read that are more enlightening than this Right Wing,Pro-Zionist site..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've have something that's right up you alley, NaziBoy but I'm guessing you already have a leather bound copy signed by the author:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well YOU WOULD HAVE BIENG AS YOU ARE A NAZI_ZIONISTA
Click to expand...









 Changing tyhe spelling does not change the anti semitic intent, ask your lawyer about it. 



 dont forget anti zionism is just another term for racism or anti semitism, and I believe they have laws against that in Oz


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Steve, when you rant on and on, it appears that your brain has shrunk to the size of a grain of sand.   As your friend, when I say you sound irrational, I am not lying.  Most of the readers are  probably laughing and being entertained by you instead of taking anything you say as serious.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve
> 
> Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.
> 
> Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda
> 
> Pallywood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.
> 
> The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was lifted straight from one of the hate sites as you have nothing else to support ypur LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nosense
Click to expand...








 No fact as proven time after time by googling your words


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.
> 
> Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda
> 
> Pallywood
> 
> 
> 
> I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.
> 
> The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you kept mentioning the Jews helping the Nazis.  You got this from Edwin Black's' book "The Transfer" which is a big hit on the hate site where the NeoNazis try to make it seem like the Jews were collaborating with the Nazis all the time.    When you look at it, it's a shame the boycott didn't go on and topple the Hitler regime and millions wouldn't have consequently been murdered by Nazi Germany.
> 
> "The Transfer Agreement is Edwin Black's compelling, award-winning story of a negotiated arrangement in 1933 between Zionist organizations and the Nazis to transfer some 50,000 Jews, and $100 million of their assets, to Jewish Palestine in exchange for stopping the worldwide Jewish-led boycott threatening to topple the Hitler regime in its first year.'
> 
> Meanwhile, since I don 't believe the hate sites mention Blacks following book, Steve is going to get a copy and read it.
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoss,a little reading for you on the Israelite invasion of Canaan,you may find this interesting and educating.....https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1612000193....
> Just click Holy Wars 3000.........Enjoy
> 
> As for your prose above...it is not relevant to me as such as I know my own history and never use  hate sites because they are Myopic by both sides and totally counter-productive..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think all of us who took Ancient History in school had learned about all the wars which went on in olden days by various groups.  Meanwhile, I have a site for you.since you so kindly gave me one.
> 
> Understanding Jihad (History, Goals, and Tactics) - Discover the Networks
> 
> As for you never going to hate sites, even a Muslim woman knew about the book The Transfer because she was a regular reader of the hate sites.  I assure you she didn't learn about Edwin Black and his book in her madrassa in India.  Like you, I doubt if she even read any excerpt written about Edwin Black's book showing the Nazis and the Arabs collaborating  since the hate sites would never cover this book..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read with some interest Hoss,reading further I noticed a slight Conservative and dare I say Jewish tone...Hoss....I then checked who "Discoverthenetworks.org" were....my assumption was clear...A Jewish inspired publication out of Sherman Oaks,California,the E.I.Chief is David Horowitz(no need to say much more) and his side kick Jamie Glazov,Russian Jew from Canada...I read the rest and decided that it was merely another pro-Zionist Rag.....Hoss I gave it my best shot but in future,give me things to read that are more enlightening than this Right Wing,Pro-Zionist site.
> 
> But Thanks for trying despite foul mouthing me regarding getting a copy....If I wanted to be imbued with Pro-Zionist Trash,I get my fill on here thanks..steve...ps As I explained Hoss,I don't do hate sites,neither Zionist or ISIS etc,.., It is great to be independent,intelligent and a free thinker without having to resort to hate sites
Click to expand...


I get it now, Steve.  You are frustrated that you weren't around to help the Nazis write the propaganda for the Arabs so you try to catch up by doing you best trying to put down the Zionists like good Nazis would.  Another suggestion for you since it appears that you apparently don't like what Jewish scholars and historians have to say,  Google History of Jihad where you can get the history of what happened in different countries.  I don't think the authors are all Jewish scholars who have contributed to this.

Remember, since  you allegedly read The Transfer by a Jew, you certainly are going to read his latter book on the Nazis collaborating with the Nazis.  A "sharp" guy like you must want to be educated about everything that went on at that time.   If it really is too much for you, then you can always ask to be sent all the Pallywood videos so you could curse the Zionists while you watch them.

https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.
> 
> The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you kept mentioning the Jews helping the Nazis.  You got this from Edwin Black's' book "The Transfer" which is a big hit on the hate site where the NeoNazis try to make it seem like the Jews were collaborating with the Nazis all the time.    When you look at it, it's a shame the boycott didn't go on and topple the Hitler regime and millions wouldn't have consequently been murdered by Nazi Germany.
> 
> "The Transfer Agreement is Edwin Black's compelling, award-winning story of a negotiated arrangement in 1933 between Zionist organizations and the Nazis to transfer some 50,000 Jews, and $100 million of their assets, to Jewish Palestine in exchange for stopping the worldwide Jewish-led boycott threatening to topple the Hitler regime in its first year.'
> 
> Meanwhile, since I don 't believe the hate sites mention Blacks following book, Steve is going to get a copy and read it.
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoss,a little reading for you on the Israelite invasion of Canaan,you may find this interesting and educating.....https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1612000193....
> Just click Holy Wars 3000.........Enjoy
> 
> As for your prose above...it is not relevant to me as such as I know my own history and never use  hate sites because they are Myopic by both sides and totally counter-productive..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think all of us who took Ancient History in school had learned about all the wars which went on in olden days by various groups.  Meanwhile, I have a site for you.since you so kindly gave me one.
> 
> Understanding Jihad (History, Goals, and Tactics) - Discover the Networks
> 
> As for you never going to hate sites, even a Muslim woman knew about the book The Transfer because she was a regular reader of the hate sites.  I assure you she didn't learn about Edwin Black and his book in her madrassa in India.  Like you, I doubt if she even read any excerpt written about Edwin Black's book showing the Nazis and the Arabs collaborating  since the hate sites would never cover this book..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read with some interest Hoss,reading further I noticed a slight Conservative and dare I say Jewish tone...Hoss....I then checked who "Discoverthenetworks.org" were....my assumption was clear...A Jewish inspired publication out of Sherman Oaks,California,the E.I.Chief is David Horowitz(no need to say much more) and his side kick Jamie Glazov,Russian Jew from Canada...I read the rest and decided that it was merely another pro-Zionist Rag.....Hoss I gave it my best shot but in future,give me things to read that are more enlightening than this Right Wing,Pro-Zionist site.
> 
> But Thanks for trying despite foul mouthing me regarding getting a copy....If I wanted to be imbued with Pro-Zionist Trash,I get my fill on here thanks..steve...ps As I explained Hoss,I don't do hate sites,neither Zionist or ISIS etc,.., It is great to be independent,intelligent and a free thinker without having to resort to hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it now, Steve.  You are frustrated that you weren't around to help the Nazis write the propaganda for the Arabs so you try to catch up by doing you best trying to put down the Zionists like good Nazis would.  Another suggestion for you since it appears that you apparently don't like what Jewish scholars and historians have to say,  Google History of Jihad where you can get the history of what happened in different countries.  I don't think the authors are all Jewish scholars who have contributed to this.
> 
> Remember, since  you allegedly read The Transfer by a Jew, you certainly are going to read his latter book on the Nazis collaborating with the Nazis.  A "sharp" guy like you must want to be educated about everything that went on at that time.   If it really is too much for you, then you can always ask to be sent all the Pallywood videos so you could curse the Zionists while you watch them.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
Click to expand...

Hoss YOU GAVE ME THE CRAP SITE,you deceived me into thinking you we giving me sound information............You  Let Yourself Down...No Matter steve..Ps I don't do Frustration and Hate SITES.......


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that is as maybe to you Hoss,BUT my friend try to emancipate your deluded mind as I have told you before.....reading much of the Zionist propaganda on here makes me feel like I'm in Germany in 1936......Who the hell are these propagandists.........Nazis then....Zionists on here......all Mad as a cut Rattle Snake. steve
> 
> Trust you and the Family are well Hossie.
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.
> 
> Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda
> 
> Pallywood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.
> 
> The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was lifted straight from one of the hate sites as you have nothing else to support ypur LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nosense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No fact as proven time after time by googling your words
Click to expand...


Dunce


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you kept mentioning the Jews helping the Nazis.  You got this from Edwin Black's' book "The Transfer" which is a big hit on the hate site where the NeoNazis try to make it seem like the Jews were collaborating with the Nazis all the time.    When you look at it, it's a shame the boycott didn't go on and topple the Hitler regime and millions wouldn't have consequently been murdered by Nazi Germany.
> 
> "The Transfer Agreement is Edwin Black's compelling, award-winning story of a negotiated arrangement in 1933 between Zionist organizations and the Nazis to transfer some 50,000 Jews, and $100 million of their assets, to Jewish Palestine in exchange for stopping the worldwide Jewish-led boycott threatening to topple the Hitler regime in its first year.'
> 
> Meanwhile, since I don 't believe the hate sites mention Blacks following book, Steve is going to get a copy and read it.
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss,a little reading for you on the Israelite invasion of Canaan,you may find this interesting and educating.....https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1612000193....
> Just click Holy Wars 3000.........Enjoy
> 
> As for your prose above...it is not relevant to me as such as I know my own history and never use  hate sites because they are Myopic by both sides and totally counter-productive..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think all of us who took Ancient History in school had learned about all the wars which went on in olden days by various groups.  Meanwhile, I have a site for you.since you so kindly gave me one.
> 
> Understanding Jihad (History, Goals, and Tactics) - Discover the Networks
> 
> As for you never going to hate sites, even a Muslim woman knew about the book The Transfer because she was a regular reader of the hate sites.  I assure you she didn't learn about Edwin Black and his book in her madrassa in India.  Like you, I doubt if she even read any excerpt written about Edwin Black's book showing the Nazis and the Arabs collaborating  since the hate sites would never cover this book..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read with some interest Hoss,reading further I noticed a slight Conservative and dare I say Jewish tone...Hoss....I then checked who "Discoverthenetworks.org" were....my assumption was clear...A Jewish inspired publication out of Sherman Oaks,California,the E.I.Chief is David Horowitz(no need to say much more) and his side kick Jamie Glazov,Russian Jew from Canada...I read the rest and decided that it was merely another pro-Zionist Rag.....Hoss I gave it my best shot but in future,give me things to read that are more enlightening than this Right Wing,Pro-Zionist site.
> 
> But Thanks for trying despite foul mouthing me regarding getting a copy....If I wanted to be imbued with Pro-Zionist Trash,I get my fill on here thanks..steve...ps As I explained Hoss,I don't do hate sites,neither Zionist or ISIS etc,.., It is great to be independent,intelligent and a free thinker without having to resort to hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it now, Steve.  You are frustrated that you weren't around to help the Nazis write the propaganda for the Arabs so you try to catch up by doing you best trying to put down the Zionists like good Nazis would.  Another suggestion for you since it appears that you apparently don't like what Jewish scholars and historians have to say,  Google History of Jihad where you can get the history of what happened in different countries.  I don't think the authors are all Jewish scholars who have contributed to this.
> 
> Remember, since  you allegedly read The Transfer by a Jew, you certainly are going to read his latter book on the Nazis collaborating with the Nazis.  A "sharp" guy like you must want to be educated about everything that went on at that time.   If it really is too much for you, then you can always ask to be sent all the Pallywood videos so you could curse the Zionists while you watch them.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoss YOU GAVE ME THE CRAP SITE,you deceived me into thinking you we giving me sound information............You  Let Yourself Down...No Matter steve..Ps I don't do Frustration and Hate SITES.......
Click to expand...

Amazon is a retail site. They sell books. They're not promoting them.


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss,a little reading for you on the Israelite invasion of Canaan,you may find this interesting and educating.....https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1612000193....
> Just click Holy Wars 3000.........Enjoy
> 
> As for your prose above...it is not relevant to me as such as I know my own history and never use  hate sites because they are Myopic by both sides and totally counter-productive..steve
> 
> 
> 
> I think all of us who took Ancient History in school had learned about all the wars which went on in olden days by various groups.  Meanwhile, I have a site for you.since you so kindly gave me one.
> 
> Understanding Jihad (History, Goals, and Tactics) - Discover the Networks
> 
> As for you never going to hate sites, even a Muslim woman knew about the book The Transfer because she was a regular reader of the hate sites.  I assure you she didn't learn about Edwin Black and his book in her madrassa in India.  Like you, I doubt if she even read any excerpt written about Edwin Black's book showing the Nazis and the Arabs collaborating  since the hate sites would never cover this book..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read with some interest Hoss,reading further I noticed a slight Conservative and dare I say Jewish tone...Hoss....I then checked who "Discoverthenetworks.org" were....my assumption was clear...A Jewish inspired publication out of Sherman Oaks,California,the E.I.Chief is David Horowitz(no need to say much more) and his side kick Jamie Glazov,Russian Jew from Canada...I read the rest and decided that it was merely another pro-Zionist Rag.....Hoss I gave it my best shot but in future,give me things to read that are more enlightening than this Right Wing,Pro-Zionist site.
> 
> But Thanks for trying despite foul mouthing me regarding getting a copy....If I wanted to be imbued with Pro-Zionist Trash,I get my fill on here thanks..steve...ps As I explained Hoss,I don't do hate sites,neither Zionist or ISIS etc,.., It is great to be independent,intelligent and a free thinker without having to resort to hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it now, Steve.  You are frustrated that you weren't around to help the Nazis write the propaganda for the Arabs so you try to catch up by doing you best trying to put down the Zionists like good Nazis would.  Another suggestion for you since it appears that you apparently don't like what Jewish scholars and historians have to say,  Google History of Jihad where you can get the history of what happened in different countries.  I don't think the authors are all Jewish scholars who have contributed to this.
> 
> Remember, since  you allegedly read The Transfer by a Jew, you certainly are going to read his latter book on the Nazis collaborating with the Nazis.  A "sharp" guy like you must want to be educated about everything that went on at that time.   If it really is too much for you, then you can always ask to be sent all the Pallywood videos so you could curse the Zionists while you watch them.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoss YOU GAVE ME THE CRAP SITE,you deceived me into thinking you we giving me sound information............You  Let Yourself Down...No Matter steve..Ps I don't do Frustration and Hate SITES.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazon is a retail site. They sell books. They're not promoting them.
Click to expand...

I can't be doing with you today Hoss my friend,have a lovely weekend with the Family...steve


----------



## member

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think all of us who took Ancient History in school had learned about all the wars which went on in olden days by various groups.  Meanwhile, I have a site for you.since you so kindly gave me one.
> 
> Understanding Jihad (History, Goals, and Tactics) - Discover the Networks
> 
> As for you never going to hate sites, even a Muslim woman knew about the book The Transfer because she was a regular reader of the hate sites.  I assure you she didn't learn about Edwin Black and his book in her madrassa in India.  Like you, I doubt if she even read any excerpt written about Edwin Black's book showing the Nazis and the Arabs collaborating  since the hate sites would never cover this book..
> 
> 
> 
> I read with some interest Hoss,reading further I noticed a slight Conservative and dare I say Jewish tone...Hoss....I then checked who "Discoverthenetworks.org" were....my assumption was clear...A Jewish inspired publication out of Sherman Oaks,California,the E.I.Chief is David Horowitz(no need to say much more) and his side kick Jamie Glazov,Russian Jew from Canada...I read the rest and decided that it was merely another pro-Zionist Rag.....Hoss I gave it my best shot but in future,give me things to read that are more enlightening than this Right Wing,Pro-Zionist site.
> 
> But Thanks for trying despite foul mouthing me regarding getting a copy....If I wanted to be imbued with Pro-Zionist Trash,I get my fill on here thanks..steve...ps As I explained Hoss,I don't do hate sites,neither Zionist or ISIS etc,.., It is great to be independent,intelligent and a free thinker without having to resort to hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it now, Steve.  You are frustrated that you weren't around to help the Nazis write the propaganda for the Arabs so you try to catch up by doing you best trying to put down the Zionists like good Nazis would.  Another suggestion for you since it appears that you apparently don't like what Jewish scholars and historians have to say,  Google History of Jihad where you can get the history of what happened in different countries.  I don't think the authors are all Jewish scholars who have contributed to this.
> 
> Remember, since  you allegedly read The Transfer by a Jew, you certainly are going to read his latter book on the Nazis collaborating with the Nazis.  A "sharp" guy like you must want to be educated about everything that went on at that time.   If it really is too much for you, then you can always ask to be sent all the Pallywood videos so you could curse the Zionists while you watch them.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoss YOU GAVE ME THE CRAP SITE,you deceived me into thinking you we giving me sound information............You  Let Yourself Down...No Matter steve..Ps I don't do Frustration and Hate SITES.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazon is a retail site. They sell books. They're not promoting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be doing with you today Hoss my friend,have a lovely weekend with the Family...steve
Click to expand...




 Australia............

 ...must be," wow."

Seriously....lucky for you, you're surrounded by water..............



What's the black population ? 

 .. you have black neighborhoods in Australia ?  or is it one big happy neighborhood everywhere ?

What's the muslim population ? 

are there a lot of mosques 

 in Australia ?

it's easier to ask someone who lives right there (if you know offhand).


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen Steve ever make mention  of all those Pallywood videos which are brought up here.  We have to rememember that Arab propaganda is some of the best in the world.  They must have learned from the Nazis who ran to the Middle East to avoid prosecution after World War II and who wrote the propaganda for the Arabs then.  The Arabs certainly learned their lessons well from the masters.
> 
> Modern Arab Propaganda has incorporated Nazi Propaganda
> 
> Pallywood
> 
> 
> 
> I said exactly the same thing about Zionists who collaborated with the Nazis a couple of years ago Hoss......Like the rest of your Synthetic Horde...nice to see that you are all VERSIONISTS and so UNIMAGINATIVE and UNORIGINAL that you ALL have to PLAGIARIZE MY WORK.
> 
> The ORIGINIAL,The ALMIGHTY,THELIQ.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that was lifted straight from one of the hate sites as you have nothing else to support ypur LIES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nosense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No fact as proven time after time by googling your words
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dunce
Click to expand...








 No more computer savvy than you will ever be seeing as I have worked on them since 1973, and built my own in 1974.

I can see which site you use for your evidence just by typing in a few simple words, and you are shown to be a frequent user of certain hate sites


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think all of us who took Ancient History in school had learned about all the wars which went on in olden days by various groups.  Meanwhile, I have a site for you.since you so kindly gave me one.
> 
> Understanding Jihad (History, Goals, and Tactics) - Discover the Networks
> 
> As for you never going to hate sites, even a Muslim woman knew about the book The Transfer because she was a regular reader of the hate sites.  I assure you she didn't learn about Edwin Black and his book in her madrassa in India.  Like you, I doubt if she even read any excerpt written about Edwin Black's book showing the Nazis and the Arabs collaborating  since the hate sites would never cover this book..
> 
> 
> 
> I read with some interest Hoss,reading further I noticed a slight Conservative and dare I say Jewish tone...Hoss....I then checked who "Discoverthenetworks.org" were....my assumption was clear...A Jewish inspired publication out of Sherman Oaks,California,the E.I.Chief is David Horowitz(no need to say much more) and his side kick Jamie Glazov,Russian Jew from Canada...I read the rest and decided that it was merely another pro-Zionist Rag.....Hoss I gave it my best shot but in future,give me things to read that are more enlightening than this Right Wing,Pro-Zionist site.
> 
> But Thanks for trying despite foul mouthing me regarding getting a copy....If I wanted to be imbued with Pro-Zionist Trash,I get my fill on here thanks..steve...ps As I explained Hoss,I don't do hate sites,neither Zionist or ISIS etc,.., It is great to be independent,intelligent and a free thinker without having to resort to hate sites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it now, Steve.  You are frustrated that you weren't around to help the Nazis write the propaganda for the Arabs so you try to catch up by doing you best trying to put down the Zionists like good Nazis would.  Another suggestion for you since it appears that you apparently don't like what Jewish scholars and historians have to say,  Google History of Jihad where you can get the history of what happened in different countries.  I don't think the authors are all Jewish scholars who have contributed to this.
> 
> Remember, since  you allegedly read The Transfer by a Jew, you certainly are going to read his latter book on the Nazis collaborating with the Nazis.  A "sharp" guy like you must want to be educated about everything that went on at that time.   If it really is too much for you, then you can always ask to be sent all the Pallywood videos so you could curse the Zionists while you watch them.
> 
> The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust: Edwin Black: 9780914153146: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoss YOU GAVE ME THE CRAP SITE,you deceived me into thinking you we giving me sound information............You  Let Yourself Down...No Matter steve..Ps I don't do Frustration and Hate SITES.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazon is a retail site. They sell books. They're not promoting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be doing with you today Hoss my friend,have a lovely weekend with the Family...steve
Click to expand...






Then go and treat all the koala's your ancestors raped and infected with syphilis


----------



## theliq

member said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read with some interest Hoss,reading further I noticed a slight Conservative and dare I say Jewish tone...Hoss....I then checked who "Discoverthenetworks.org" were....my assumption was clear...A Jewish inspired publication out of Sherman Oaks,California,the E.I.Chief is David Horowitz(no need to say much more) and his side kick Jamie Glazov,Russian Jew from Canada...I read the rest and decided that it was merely another pro-Zionist Rag.....Hoss I gave it my best shot but in future,give me things to read that are more enlightening than this Right Wing,Pro-Zionist site.
> 
> But Thanks for trying despite foul mouthing me regarding getting a copy....If I wanted to be imbued with Pro-Zionist Trash,I get my fill on here thanks..steve...ps As I explained Hoss,I don't do hate sites,neither Zionist or ISIS etc,.., It is great to be independent,intelligent and a free thinker without having to resort to hate sites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now, Steve.  You are frustrated that you weren't around to help the Nazis write the propaganda for the Arabs so you try to catch up by doing you best trying to put down the Zionists like good Nazis would.  Another suggestion for you since it appears that you apparently don't like what Jewish scholars and historians have to say,  Google History of Jihad where you can get the history of what happened in different countries.  I don't think the authors are all Jewish scholars who have contributed to this.
> 
> Remember, since  you allegedly read The Transfer by a Jew, you certainly are going to read his latter book on the Nazis collaborating with the Nazis.  A "sharp" guy like you must want to be educated about everything that went on at that time.   If it really is too much for you, then you can always ask to be sent all the Pallywood videos so you could curse the Zionists while you watch them.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoss YOU GAVE ME THE CRAP SITE,you deceived me into thinking you we giving me sound information............You  Let Yourself Down...No Matter steve..Ps I don't do Frustration and Hate SITES.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazon is a retail site. They sell books. They're not promoting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be doing with you today Hoss my friend,have a lovely weekend with the Family...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia............
> 
> ...must be," wow."
> 
> Seriously....lucky for you, you're surrounded by water..............
> 
> 
> 
> What's the black population ?
> 
> .. you have black neighborhoods in Australia ?  or is it one big happy neighborhood everywhere ?
> 
> What's the muslim population ?
> 
> are there a lot of mosques
> 
> in Australia ?
> 
> it's easier to ask someone who lives right there (if you know offhand).
Click to expand...

We have as many ethnic people as much as the US....but unlike you they are not called Muslim Americans,Jewish Americans,Irish American etc.,They are called just Australian,I think you get my drift.....it also equals Harmony.....Church's, Mosque's,Synogues sic and other places of worship....moreover the different Religions regularly meet with each other,ALL GOOD HERE.

Regards Member..steve


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now, Steve.  You are frustrated that you weren't around to help the Nazis write the propaganda for the Arabs so you try to catch up by doing you best trying to put down the Zionists like good Nazis would.  Another suggestion for you since it appears that you apparently don't like what Jewish scholars and historians have to say,  Google History of Jihad where you can get the history of what happened in different countries.  I don't think the authors are all Jewish scholars who have contributed to this.
> 
> Remember, since  you allegedly read The Transfer by a Jew, you certainly are going to read his latter book on the Nazis collaborating with the Nazis.  A "sharp" guy like you must want to be educated about everything that went on at that time.   If it really is too much for you, then you can always ask to be sent all the Pallywood videos so you could curse the Zionists while you watch them.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss YOU GAVE ME THE CRAP SITE,you deceived me into thinking you we giving me sound information............You  Let Yourself Down...No Matter steve..Ps I don't do Frustration and Hate SITES.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazon is a retail site. They sell books. They're not promoting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be doing with you today Hoss my friend,have a lovely weekend with the Family...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia............
> 
> ...must be," wow."
> 
> Seriously....lucky for you, you're surrounded by water..............
> 
> 
> 
> What's the black population ?
> 
> .. you have black neighborhoods in Australia ?  or is it one big happy neighborhood everywhere ?
> 
> What's the muslim population ?
> 
> are there a lot of mosques
> 
> in Australia ?
> 
> it's easier to ask someone who lives right there (if you know offhand).
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have as many ethnic people as much as the US....but unlike you they are not called Muslim Americans,Jewish Americans,Irish American etc.,They are called just Australian,I think you get my drift.....it also equals Harmony.....Church's, Mosque's,Synogues sic and other places of worship....moreover the different Religions regularly meet with each other,ALL GOOD HERE.
> 
> Regards Member..steve
Click to expand...








 Unless they are indigenous then they are called abo, boy, black bastard and any other derogatory term you can think of


----------



## member

theliq said:


> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now, Steve.  You are frustrated that you weren't around to help the Nazis write the propaganda for the Arabs so you try to catch up by doing you best trying to put down the Zionists like good Nazis would.  Another suggestion for you since it appears that you apparently don't like what Jewish scholars and historians have to say,  Google History of Jihad where you can get the history of what happened in different countries.  I don't think the authors are all Jewish scholars who have contributed to this.
> 
> Remember, since  you allegedly read The Transfer by a Jew, you certainly are going to read his latter book on the Nazis collaborating with the Nazis.  A "sharp" guy like you must want to be educated about everything that went on at that time.   If it really is too much for you, then you can always ask to be sent all the Pallywood videos so you could curse the Zionists while you watch them.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Farhud-Roots-Arab-Nazi-Alliance-Holocaust/dp/0914153145&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss YOU GAVE ME THE CRAP SITE,you deceived me into thinking you we giving me sound information............You  Let Yourself Down...No Matter steve..Ps I don't do Frustration and Hate SITES.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazon is a retail site. They sell books. They're not promoting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be doing with you today Hoss my friend,have a lovely weekend with the Family...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia............
> 
> ...must be," wow."
> 
> Seriously....lucky for you, you're surrounded by water..............
> 
> 
> 
> What's the black population ?
> 
> .. you have black neighborhoods in Australia ?  or is it one big happy neighborhood everywhere ?
> 
> What's the muslim population ?
> 
> are there a lot of mosques
> 
> in Australia ?
> 
> it's easier to ask someone who lives right there (if you know offhand).
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have as many ethnic people as much as the US....but unlike you they are not called Muslim Americans,Jewish Americans,Irish American etc.,They are called just Australian,I think you get my drift.....it also equals Harmony.....Church's, Mosque's,Synogues sic and other places of worship....moreover the different Religions regularly meet with each other,ALL GOOD HERE.
> 
> Regards Member..steve
Click to expand...




Steve....thirsty ?  












​



*"I think you get my drift..."*







I think I do_*....."We have as many ethnic people as much as the US"


*_
(seeing how you danced 

 around my question -  _you know what mean ma_te)....



you don't live within a MILE of black folk.....*S_nA_p*


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss YOU GAVE ME THE CRAP SITE,you deceived me into thinking you we giving me sound information............You  Let Yourself Down...No Matter steve..Ps I don't do Frustration and Hate SITES.......
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon is a retail site. They sell books. They're not promoting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be doing with you today Hoss my friend,have a lovely weekend with the Family...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia............
> 
> ...must be," wow."
> 
> Seriously....lucky for you, you're surrounded by water..............
> 
> 
> 
> What's the black population ?
> 
> .. you have black neighborhoods in Australia ?  or is it one big happy neighborhood everywhere ?
> 
> What's the muslim population ?
> 
> are there a lot of mosques
> 
> in Australia ?
> 
> it's easier to ask someone who lives right there (if you know offhand).
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have as many ethnic people as much as the US....but unlike you they are not called Muslim Americans,Jewish Americans,Irish American etc.,They are called just Australian,I think you get my drift.....it also equals Harmony.....Church's, Mosque's,Synogues sic and other places of worship....moreover the different Religions regularly meet with each other,ALL GOOD HERE.
> 
> Regards Member..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they are indigenous then they are called abo, boy, black bastard and any other derogatory term you can think of
Click to expand...

Moron,Abo is a derogatory term used by Filth like you........We as a society are more enlightened,thank goodness.......Filth belongs to an older Epoch,but you use the words Black,and ingger...you arse an ignorant fool Pheo......as expected from  a Zionist Twat


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon is a retail site. They sell books. They're not promoting them.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't be doing with you today Hoss my friend,have a lovely weekend with the Family...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia............
> 
> ...must be," wow."
> 
> Seriously....lucky for you, you're surrounded by water..............
> 
> 
> 
> What's the black population ?
> 
> .. you have black neighborhoods in Australia ?  or is it one big happy neighborhood everywhere ?
> 
> What's the muslim population ?
> 
> are there a lot of mosques
> 
> in Australia ?
> 
> it's easier to ask someone who lives right there (if you know offhand).
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have as many ethnic people as much as the US....but unlike you they are not called Muslim Americans,Jewish Americans,Irish American etc.,They are called just Australian,I think you get my drift.....it also equals Harmony.....Church's, Mosque's,Synogues sic and other places of worship....moreover the different Religions regularly meet with each other,ALL GOOD HERE.
> 
> Regards Member..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they are indigenous then they are called abo, boy, black bastard and any other derogatory term you can think of
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron,Abo is a derogatory term used by Filth like you........We as a society are more enlightened,thank goodness.......Filth belongs to an older Epoch,but you use the words Black,and ingger...you arse an ignorant fool Pheo......as expected from  a Zionist Twat
Click to expand...









 It is still used today by scum like you who view them as untermensch. How many "servants" did you have


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Your rant would have more weight if you outlined just exactly what "bizarre, irrational, corrupt, deluded and mindless" thoughts you think I have been "indoctrinated" with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be done with that God given piece of wood in his head to think with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I have to give you Credit MJ for being Amusing...Well Done 10/10...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My pleasure drongo.  And you may address me as MJB, the Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see I am the Original H.I.M......you are a Jonny Come Lately Wannabee.......VERSIONIST Too late MJ...you failed...simple as that...steve
Click to expand...


BS.  Hey, join me in a tallie of amber fluid.  Here's to ya mate.


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Your rant would have more weight if you outlined just exactly what "bizarre, irrational, corrupt, deluded and mindless" thoughts you think I have been "indoctrinated" with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be done with that God given piece of wood in his head to think with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I have to give you Credit MJ for being Amusing...Well Done 10/10...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My pleasure drongo.  And you may address me as MJB, the Great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see I am the Original H.I.M......you are a Jonny Come Lately Wannabee.......VERSIONIST Too late MJ...you failed...simple as that...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS.  Hey, join me in a tallie of amber fluid.  Here's to ya mate.
> 
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only,GEE MJ........where on earth did you dig this advert from ????? it says 1 pint 8 fluid ounces!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! considering we have been metricated since 1965,I wouldn't touch this can as it's rusted around the bottom,anyhow I'm a Coopers man.....did you know that we invented the ring-pull-can...but I would drink with you,despite our differences,you would always be welcome at our table..steve
Click to expand...


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read with some interest Hoss,reading further I noticed a slight Conservative and dare I say Jewish tone...Hoss....I then checked who "Discoverthenetworks.org" were....my assumption was clear...A Jewish inspired publication out of Sherman Oaks,California,the E.I.Chief is David Horowitz(no need to say much more) and his side kick Jamie Glazov,Russian Jew from Canada...I read the rest and decided that it was merely another pro-Zionist Rag.....Hoss I gave it my best shot but in future,give me things to read that are more enlightening than this Right Wing,Pro-Zionist site.
> 
> But Thanks for trying despite foul mouthing me regarding getting a copy....If I wanted to be imbued with Pro-Zionist Trash,I get my fill on here thanks..steve...ps As I explained Hoss,I don't do hate sites,neither Zionist or ISIS etc,.., It is great to be independent,intelligent and a free thinker without having to resort to hate sites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now, Steve.  You are frustrated that you weren't around to help the Nazis write the propaganda for the Arabs so you try to catch up by doing you best trying to put down the Zionists like good Nazis would.  Another suggestion for you since it appears that you apparently don't like what Jewish scholars and historians have to say,  Google History of Jihad where you can get the history of what happened in different countries.  I don't think the authors are all Jewish scholars who have contributed to this.
> 
> Remember, since  you allegedly read The Transfer by a Jew, you certainly are going to read his latter book on the Nazis collaborating with the Nazis.  A "sharp" guy like you must want to be educated about everything that went on at that time.   If it really is too much for you, then you can always ask to be sent all the Pallywood videos so you could curse the Zionists while you watch them.
> 
> The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust: Edwin Black: 9780914153146: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hoss YOU GAVE ME THE CRAP SITE,you deceived me into thinking you we giving me sound information............You  Let Yourself Down...No Matter steve..Ps I don't do Frustration and Hate SITES.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazon is a retail site. They sell books. They're not promoting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be doing with you today Hoss my friend,have a lovely weekend with the Family...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then go and treat all the koala's your ancestors raped and infected with syphilis
Click to expand...

What a WEIRD set of Posts(last 10)   Pheo,R U  Feeling Well or What !!!!!!!???????,most strange


----------



## theliq

member said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss YOU GAVE ME THE CRAP SITE,you deceived me into thinking you we giving me sound information............You  Let Yourself Down...No Matter steve..Ps I don't do Frustration and Hate SITES.......
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon is a retail site. They sell books. They're not promoting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be doing with you today Hoss my friend,have a lovely weekend with the Family...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia............
> 
> ...must be," wow."
> 
> Seriously....lucky for you, you're surrounded by water..............
> 
> 
> 
> What's the black population ?
> 
> .. you have black neighborhoods in Australia ?  or is it one big happy neighborhood everywhere ?
> 
> What's the muslim population ?
> 
> are there a lot of mosques
> 
> in Australia ?
> 
> it's easier to ask someone who lives right there (if you know offhand).
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have as many ethnic people as much as the US....but unlike you they are not called Muslim Americans,Jewish Americans,Irish American etc.,They are called just Australian,I think you get my drift.....it also equals Harmony.....Church's, Mosque's,Synogues sic and other places of worship....moreover the different Religions regularly meet with each other,ALL GOOD HERE.
> 
> Regards Member..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve....thirsty ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> *"I think you get my drift..."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I do_*....."We have as many ethnic people as much as the US"
> 
> 
> *_
> (seeing how you danced
> 
> around my question -  _you know what mean ma_te)....
> 
> 
> 
> you don't live within a MILE of black folk.....*S_nA_p*[/QUOTE
> 
> We employ 32 Australians(Aboriginals to your thinking and racist attitude),I have been welcome in their homes as they have mine..You don't know me,other wise you wouldn't talk such shit.........
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it now, Steve.  You are frustrated that you weren't around to help the Nazis write the propaganda for the Arabs so you try to catch up by doing you best trying to put down the Zionists like good Nazis would.  Another suggestion for you since it appears that you apparently don't like what Jewish scholars and historians have to say,  Google History of Jihad where you can get the history of what happened in different countries.  I don't think the authors are all Jewish scholars who have contributed to this.
> 
> Remember, since  you allegedly read The Transfer by a Jew, you certainly are going to read his latter book on the Nazis collaborating with the Nazis.  A "sharp" guy like you must want to be educated about everything that went on at that time.   If it really is too much for you, then you can always ask to be sent all the Pallywood videos so you could curse the Zionists while you watch them.
> 
> The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust: Edwin Black: 9780914153146: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> 
> Hoss YOU GAVE ME THE CRAP SITE,you deceived me into thinking you we giving me sound information............You  Let Yourself Down...No Matter steve..Ps I don't do Frustration and Hate SITES.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazon is a retail site. They sell books. They're not promoting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't be doing with you today Hoss my friend,have a lovely weekend with the Family...steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then go and treat all the koala's your ancestors raped and infected with syphilis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a WEIRD set of Posts(last 10)   Pheo,R U  Feeling Well or What !!!!!!!???????,most strange
Click to expand...






 Getting back on your meds I see, take it slowly as you are sounding very islamonazi...........


----------



## MJB12741

What legal right do Palestinian squatters have to live in Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


Another song and dance in place of a coherent response.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


>





P F Tinmore said:


>



Sure sounds like you need to take an advanced course in Israeli geography & put your fairy tales aside for a change.


----------



## MJB12741

LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY

Israel Philharmonic Orchestra


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

It is a nice little jingle; but then there is the meaning and implication.  The Ant-Israeli Jingle states a premise for the backdrop to asked the compound questions:

*Backdrop:*

•  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "full of hate."
•  The "Arabs won't recognized the Jewish State."
•  The "Palestinians won't accept Jewish Rule on their Holy Ground."
•  The neighboring "Arab don't accept their new neighbors" [Israel]. 
•  Palestinians do not approve of Israel as a neighboring state.
•  The Arabs and the Palestinians "do not respect" Israel.​*The Chorus Questions:*

•  "Where are " [Israelis] borders?
•  Where are the borders "drawn in Black and White"?
•  "Do they" [the borders] "include:

√  The West Bank?
√  Gaza?
√  Golan Heights​


Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another song and dance in place of a coherent response.
Click to expand...

*(OBSERVATIONS and EXHIBITS)*

•  Israel-PLO Recognition: Exchange of Letters Between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat:

1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN: September 9, 1993
√  "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

2. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO NORWEGIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: September 9, 1993
√  "PLO encourages and calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic develoment and cooperation."

3. LETTER FROM PRIME MINISTER RABIN TO YASSER ARAFAT:  September 9, 1993
√  [T]he Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.​
•  Treaties outlining the Internationally Recognized boundaries:

√  Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979​
∆  Article II

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​​
√   Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty,  26 October 1994,
[T]he treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time, putting an end to the dangerous and false Zionist claim that “Jordan is Palestine.”
​∆    Article 3 - International Boundary


1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
3. The Parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.
4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than 9 months after the signing of the Treaty.​​
•  General Map of the Golan Heights Annexed by Israel.

​
*(DISCUSSION and COMMENTS)*

I think that, beyond that of a normal Israeli Citizen, PM Netanyahu it no more hateful of the Arab Palestinian as may normally be expected towards a nation that sponsors Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

The honesty, integrity and moral fiber of the Arab Palestinian is very much demonstrated in its political flip-flop on the question of recognition.  As you can see, there is no one single voice that speaks with authority for the Arab Palestinians.  But, there was a time when the Arab Palestinians did recognize the State of Israel.  But on the question of recognizing the Jewish State, that is a matter of discrimination at the political level based on religion.   It is committed in the context of an Arab Palestinian regime of systematic domination by one racial Islamic group committed with the intention of suppressing the Jewish State in favor of an Islamic State.  NOTE:  *ARTICLE 6   Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933  *The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. *Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.  *The importance here relates to the allegation that Israel is truly concerned about the actual recognition by the Arab Palestinians.  Actually, the Israelis are calling into question the competency of the Arab Palestinian regime in its attempt to shift its position in the face of customary practices in diplomatic relations. If the PLO _*(the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People)*_ recognized Israel in 1993 (See Exchange of Letters); then how can it withdraw the recognition?  And *IF* that is possible because they question the development of the people towards self-governance, *THEN* is anything the Palestinians say or agree to valid?

With the exception of the Temple Mount, there is no other area considered of religious or sacred significance.  While the Arab Palestinian want to make an issue on this point, all three major religions are stakeholders in this argument; operating under the same Supreme Being _(The God of Abraham)_.  However, many of the Hostile Arabs have chosen to scramble this point and make it an exploitable factor in the confrontation.

Whether or not the Arab Palestinians approve or disapprove of Israel as a neighboring state is totally irrelevant.  The only way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to rectify this issue in their favor is to dismantle the Jewish State.  And that would be contrary to the original intention to erect a national home to protect and preserve the culture that has come under abuse so many times in history.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> • Palestinians do not approve of Israel as a neighboring state.


Israel is not a neighboring state. It is the colonization of Palestine.

Is there a legal right to defend colonialism?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • Palestinians do not approve of Israel as a neighboring state.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not a neighboring state. It is the colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Is there a legal right to defend colonialism?
Click to expand...


And yet you are sitting on Native American and/or Mexican soil, with the justification that it became the U.S. before civilized times and/or before an artificial date when warfare became illegal.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • Palestinians do not approve of Israel as a neighboring state.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not a neighboring state. It is the colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Is there a legal right to defend colonialism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you are sitting on Native American and/or Mexican soil, with the justification that it became the U.S. before civilized times and/or before an artificial date when warfare became illegal.
Click to expand...


Not to mention your personal participation in the invasion of a distant country (Vietnam) that posed no threat to our security.


----------



## MJB12741

That is true.  Which brings up the question why does Egypt & Jordan have peace with Israel & open borders & yet don't want the Palestinians crossing them?  Gee, is it actually possible they know the Palestinians best?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

WoW.!.!.!  That is just so cute.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • Palestinians do not approve of Israel as a neighboring state.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not a neighboring state. It is the colonization of Palestine.
> Is there a legal right to defend colonialism?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Israel is not defined by you, or any Arab Palestinian; or, any other nation. . .

The political existence of the Jewish State of Israel is completely and utterly independent of recognition by the other nations; regional coalitions, and especial the _P F Tinmore Hypothesis_.

The primary interest of the Jewish State of Israel is the "conservation of peace."  This is drastically different from the primary interest of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (either the Gaza or West Bank vintage).  "Jihad and Armed Resistance" are the mantra of Palestine and the restoration of all rights."   But the Arab Palestinian have never been truly interested in the restoration of peace.

This colonial charge is neither valid or sound.  It is not a basis for the abrogation of duties of a state.  While many Arab Palestinians try to promote these false accusations, it is well know that they are merely a political aberration to obscure the true situation.

The fundamental rights of the Jewish State of Israel is NOT susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever by the Arab Palestinians _(Article 5, Convention on Rights and Duties of States)_. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> This colonial charge is neither valid or sound. It is not a basis for the abrogation of duties of a state.


You are denying actual history that is confirmed by facts on the ground.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


>










Is this what you are reduced to comical songs that would not even raise a penny if he sat in a N.Y subway station performing them.

You are now scraping underneath the barrel for any residue your anti semitic/anti Israel/anti Jew videos have been proven wrong so many times now


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you are reduced to comical songs that would not even raise a penny if he sat in a N.Y subway station performing them.
> 
> You are now scraping underneath the barrel for any residue your anti semitic/anti Israel/anti Jew videos have been proven wrong so many times now
Click to expand...

Calling names is a sign of losing.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This colonial charge is neither valid or sound. It is not a basis for the abrogation of duties of a state.
> 
> 
> 
> You are denying actual history that is confirmed by facts on the ground.
Click to expand...








 No that is your premise as shown by your abject refusal to accept the international law that set up Jordan also set up Israel. You deny the history that says there is no state of palestine in existence and never has been, that what you believe to be the nation of palestine was the mandate of palestine. That international law does not exist that supports and defends Israel actions defending against violence and terrorism. That history is as written by the left wing neo marxists, islamonazi propagandists and the neo nazi scum you follow and is presented on the hate sites.

All your "facts on the ground" amount to you cant accept the truth so look for any LIE that supports your Jew hatred


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you are reduced to comical songs that would not even raise a penny if he sat in a N.Y subway station performing them.
> 
> You are now scraping underneath the barrel for any residue your anti semitic/anti Israel/anti Jew videos have been proven wrong so many times now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling names is a sign of losing.
Click to expand...







 So that is why you have done this so many times in the past.

 Now were is the name calling in pointing out that you are desperate for new material after seeing your old lot debunked, destroyed and proven to be lies ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you are reduced to comical songs that would not even raise a penny if he sat in a N.Y subway station performing them.
> 
> You are now scraping underneath the barrel for any residue your anti semitic/anti Israel/anti Jew videos have been proven wrong so many times now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling names is a sign of losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is why you have done this so many times in the past.
> 
> Now were is the name calling in pointing out that you are desperate for new material after seeing your old lot debunked, destroyed and proven to be lies ?
Click to expand...

Telling lies and calling names does not debunk anything.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • Palestinians do not approve of Israel as a neighboring state.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is not a neighboring state. It is the colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Is there a legal right to defend colonialism?
Click to expand...








 How can you colonize your own lands then, do explain this in detail including when the land was granted to the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians.

I can not find any links on the internet showing a treaty between the Ottomans or the LoN granting the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians any lands in palestine. All I can find is the grant of trans Jordan and the Jewish national home under the palestinian mandate of 1922. This delineates the extent of the Jewish National Home and the extent of trans Jordan, it does not delineate any extent of any nation of palestine. The only mention of palestine is when it delineates the international boundaries of the mandate of palestine. The only colonialism is that of the arab muslims invasion by force from 1921 to the present day on lands that are wholly Jewish using islamonazi propaganda as the justification of this illegal activity


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you are reduced to comical songs that would not even raise a penny if he sat in a N.Y subway station performing them.
> 
> You are now scraping underneath the barrel for any residue your anti semitic/anti Israel/anti Jew videos have been proven wrong so many times now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling names is a sign of losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is why you have done this so many times in the past.
> 
> Now were is the name calling in pointing out that you are desperate for new material after seeing your old lot debunked, destroyed and proven to be lies ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Telling lies and calling names does not debunk anything.
Click to expand...








 Detail the lies and name calling please, as your word on these matters is far from trustworthy and believable


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you are reduced to comical songs that would not even raise a penny if he sat in a N.Y subway station performing them.
> 
> You are now scraping underneath the barrel for any residue your anti semitic/anti Israel/anti Jew videos have been proven wrong so many times now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling names is a sign of losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is why you have done this so many times in the past.
> 
> Now were is the name calling in pointing out that you are desperate for new material after seeing your old lot debunked, destroyed and proven to be lies ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Telling lies and calling names does not debunk anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail the lies and name calling please, as your word on these matters is far from trustworthy and believable
Click to expand...

Understanding this situation requires clear thinking. Your thinking stops at the end of Israeli propaganda. That is why it is confusing to you.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you are reduced to comical songs that would not even raise a penny if he sat in a N.Y subway station performing them.
> 
> You are now scraping underneath the barrel for any residue your anti semitic/anti Israel/anti Jew videos have been proven wrong so many times now
> 
> 
> 
> Calling names is a sign of losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is why you have done this so many times in the past.
> 
> Now were is the name calling in pointing out that you are desperate for new material after seeing your old lot debunked, destroyed and proven to be lies ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Telling lies and calling names does not debunk anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail the lies and name calling please, as your word on these matters is far from trustworthy and believable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understanding this situation requires clear thinking. Your thinking stops at the end of Israeli propaganda. That is why it is confusing to you.
Click to expand...








 So you are deflecting again because you have been found out in yet another of your lies.

 How about details of these alleged Israeli propaganda then, and the proof that they are propaganda. Or will you deflect once again because you are telling yet another lie.

 All you have done is project yourself in this post because you have nothing else to fall back on


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you are reduced to comical songs that would not even raise a penny if he sat in a N.Y subway station performing them.
> 
> You are now scraping underneath the barrel for any residue your anti semitic/anti Israel/anti Jew videos have been proven wrong so many times now
> 
> 
> 
> Calling names is a sign of losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is why you have done this so many times in the past.
> 
> Now were is the name calling in pointing out that you are desperate for new material after seeing your old lot debunked, destroyed and proven to be lies ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Telling lies and calling names does not debunk anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail the lies and name calling please, as your word on these matters is far from trustworthy and believable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understanding this situation requires clear thinking. Your thinking stops at the end of Israeli propaganda. That is why it is confusing to you.
Click to expand...

Do you agree Israel is to blame for this ongoing conflict with their damn Zionist treatment of the Palestinians with peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to keep them in Israel instead of helping to free them back to their native homelands?  Face it you Zionists, no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, ever treated them like Israel does.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling names is a sign of losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is why you have done this so many times in the past.
> 
> Now were is the name calling in pointing out that you are desperate for new material after seeing your old lot debunked, destroyed and proven to be lies ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Telling lies and calling names does not debunk anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail the lies and name calling please, as your word on these matters is far from trustworthy and believable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understanding this situation requires clear thinking. Your thinking stops at the end of Israeli propaganda. That is why it is confusing to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are deflecting again because you have been found out in yet another of your lies.
> 
> How about details of these alleged Israeli propaganda then, and the proof that they are propaganda. Or will you deflect once again because you are telling yet another lie.
> 
> All you have done is project yourself in this post because you have nothing else to fall back on
Click to expand...

You say that the Jews were given Palestine for the Jewish National Home. Also that the Mandate was to help create that Jewish National home. Here is where your thinking stops. But this raises some questions.

Why did the Mandate pass the territory to the UNPC and not the Jews?

Why did the UN propose to divide the territory?

Why did the Zionists accept this division?

Why is the West Bank and Gaza still called occupied Palestinian territory?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
Click to expand...








 YES BY PROVING IT IS A LIE USING UNBIASED SOURCES


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most are now converting to civilized democracy under Israeli rule.  What's the problem, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The indigenous people that weren't expelled are still Muslims and Christians from what I have observed.  Very few have converted to the religion of the European conquerors.
Click to expand...








 Would you allow them to become islamo catholics with their track record


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES BY PROVING IT IS A LIE USING UNBIASED SOURCES
Click to expand...

The facts on the ground prove my point. Nothing in Resolution 181 really happened. The UN created nothing.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that is why you have done this so many times in the past.
> 
> Now were is the name calling in pointing out that you are desperate for new material after seeing your old lot debunked, destroyed and proven to be lies ?
> 
> 
> 
> Telling lies and calling names does not debunk anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail the lies and name calling please, as your word on these matters is far from trustworthy and believable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understanding this situation requires clear thinking. Your thinking stops at the end of Israeli propaganda. That is why it is confusing to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are deflecting again because you have been found out in yet another of your lies.
> 
> How about details of these alleged Israeli propaganda then, and the proof that they are propaganda. Or will you deflect once again because you are telling yet another lie.
> 
> All you have done is project yourself in this post because you have nothing else to fall back on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that the Jews were given Palestine for the Jewish National Home. Also that the Mandate was to help create that Jewish National home. Here is where your thinking stops. But this raises some questions.
> 
> Why did the Mandate pass the territory to the UNPC and not the Jews?
> 
> Why did the UN propose to divide the territory?
> 
> Why did the Zionists accept this division?
> 
> Why is the West Bank and Gaza still called occupied Palestinian territory?
Click to expand...






 It didnt it passed to the Jews, it was the mandate that passed to the UNPC

To try and placate the arab muslims so they would not resort to violence

 To placate the arab muslims so they would not resort to violence 

Because that is what they are according to the islamonazi's, to the rest of society it is called disputed territories.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES BY PROVING IT IS A LIE USING UNBIASED SOURCES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground prove my point. Nothing in Resolution 181 really happened. The UN created nothing.
Click to expand...


Your continued whining about Resolution 181 is pointless. Why don't you write a strongly worded email (and be sure to include multiple references to _The Zionists_™ or alternately _The Zionist Entity_™) to the UN and express your displeasure. Tell them you demand satisfaction.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Telling lies and calling names does not debunk anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail the lies and name calling please, as your word on these matters is far from trustworthy and believable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understanding this situation requires clear thinking. Your thinking stops at the end of Israeli propaganda. That is why it is confusing to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are deflecting again because you have been found out in yet another of your lies.
> 
> How about details of these alleged Israeli propaganda then, and the proof that they are propaganda. Or will you deflect once again because you are telling yet another lie.
> 
> All you have done is project yourself in this post because you have nothing else to fall back on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that the Jews were given Palestine for the Jewish National Home. Also that the Mandate was to help create that Jewish National home. Here is where your thinking stops. But this raises some questions.
> 
> Why did the Mandate pass the territory to the UNPC and not the Jews?
> 
> Why did the UN propose to divide the territory?
> 
> Why did the Zionists accept this division?
> 
> Why is the West Bank and Gaza still called occupied Palestinian territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didnt it passed to the Jews, it was the mandate that passed to the UNPC
> 
> To try and placate the arab muslims so they would not resort to violence
> 
> To placate the arab muslims so they would not resort to violence
> 
> Because that is what they are according to the islamonazi's, to the rest of society it is called disputed territories.
Click to expand...

You are still stuck on Israeli propaganda.

You provided nothing to prove your points.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES BY PROVING IT IS A LIE USING UNBIASED SOURCES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground prove my point. Nothing in Resolution 181 really happened. The UN created nothing.
Click to expand...







 And that is why you are always wrong because you believe that it is the UN that has to create Israel, it wasnt it was the Jews remit to do that. Also it was not the remit of 181 to create a nation, it was a recommendation of what they would like to see take place.


 Try reading the official versions slowly so you under stand what they say before trying to put your own interpretation on them


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES BY PROVING IT IS A LIE USING UNBIASED SOURCES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground prove my point. Nothing in Resolution 181 really happened. The UN created nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your continued whining about Resolution 181 is pointless. Why don't you write a strongly worded email (and be sure to include multiple references to _The Zionists_™ or alternately _The Zionist Entity_™) to the UN and express your displeasure. Tell them you demand satisfaction.
Click to expand...

Resolution 181 was DOA. What is there to complain about?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Detail the lies and name calling please, as your word on these matters is far from trustworthy and believable
> 
> 
> 
> Understanding this situation requires clear thinking. Your thinking stops at the end of Israeli propaganda. That is why it is confusing to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are deflecting again because you have been found out in yet another of your lies.
> 
> How about details of these alleged Israeli propaganda then, and the proof that they are propaganda. Or will you deflect once again because you are telling yet another lie.
> 
> All you have done is project yourself in this post because you have nothing else to fall back on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that the Jews were given Palestine for the Jewish National Home. Also that the Mandate was to help create that Jewish National home. Here is where your thinking stops. But this raises some questions.
> 
> Why did the Mandate pass the territory to the UNPC and not the Jews?
> 
> Why did the UN propose to divide the territory?
> 
> Why did the Zionists accept this division?
> 
> Why is the West Bank and Gaza still called occupied Palestinian territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didnt it passed to the Jews, it was the mandate that passed to the UNPC
> 
> To try and placate the arab muslims so they would not resort to violence
> 
> To placate the arab muslims so they would not resort to violence
> 
> Because that is what they are according to the islamonazi's, to the rest of society it is called disputed territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are still stuck on Israeli propaganda.
> 
> You provided nothing to prove your points.
Click to expand...






 Get awa from calling everything that disproves your claims as Israeli propaganda, it is verified historically correct facts. They have been proven thousands of times and still you ignore them because you dont want the truth.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> And that is why you are always wrong because you believe that it is the UN that has to create Israel


It was the first sentence in the earlier propaganda piece that was posted.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Understanding this situation requires clear thinking. Your thinking stops at the end of Israeli propaganda. That is why it is confusing to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are deflecting again because you have been found out in yet another of your lies.
> 
> How about details of these alleged Israeli propaganda then, and the proof that they are propaganda. Or will you deflect once again because you are telling yet another lie.
> 
> All you have done is project yourself in this post because you have nothing else to fall back on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that the Jews were given Palestine for the Jewish National Home. Also that the Mandate was to help create that Jewish National home. Here is where your thinking stops. But this raises some questions.
> 
> Why did the Mandate pass the territory to the UNPC and not the Jews?
> 
> Why did the UN propose to divide the territory?
> 
> Why did the Zionists accept this division?
> 
> Why is the West Bank and Gaza still called occupied Palestinian territory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didnt it passed to the Jews, it was the mandate that passed to the UNPC
> 
> To try and placate the arab muslims so they would not resort to violence
> 
> To placate the arab muslims so they would not resort to violence
> 
> Because that is what they are according to the islamonazi's, to the rest of society it is called disputed territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are still stuck on Israeli propaganda.
> 
> You provided nothing to prove your points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get awa from calling everything that disproves your claims as Israeli propaganda, it is verified historically correct facts. They have been proven thousands of times and still you ignore them because you dont want the truth.
Click to expand...

What did you post that disproved my claim?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES BY PROVING IT IS A LIE USING UNBIASED SOURCES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground prove my point. Nothing in Resolution 181 really happened. The UN created nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your continued whining about Resolution 181 is pointless. Why don't you write a strongly worded email (and be sure to include multiple references to _The Zionists_™ or alternately _The Zionist Entity_™) to the UN and express your displeasure. Tell them you demand satisfaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was DOA. What is there to complain about?
Click to expand...

You complain about Resolution 181 in multiple threads on multiple occasions. What is there to complain about?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You say that the Jews were given Palestine for the Jewish National Home.



I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.  The question of this thread is why some believe that the Jewish people -- of all the people given this opportunity at that time and in that place -- have fewer rights than the others under identical circumstances.  

But I would be most interested in your answers to your own questions:



> Why did the UN propose to divide the territory?
> 
> Why did the Zionists accept this division?
> 
> Why is the West Bank and Gaza still called occupied Palestinian territory?



And I'll ask another one:  Is Israel considered occupied Palestinian territory and if yes, why?

And just to show I'm playing fair, I'll answer the questions myself:  To placate the Arabs and end the violence (land for peace).  To placate the Arabs and end the violence (land for peace).  Its largely an egregious misapplication of law to placate the Arabs and end the violence (land for peace).


----------



## montelatici

No other native people were removed/killed to make room for people living somewhere else, in this case, another continent.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why you are always wrong because you believe that it is the UN that has to create Israel
> 
> 
> 
> It was the first sentence in the earlier propaganda piece that was posted.
Click to expand...







 Posted by who, as you have been told that this is the islamonazi POV and not team Israel's. The UN does not have that amount of power, no matter what the islamonazi's claim and so cant create nations. But they can destroy them at a seconds notice, and the way islam is going they will be looking to make an example of one of them.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES BY PROVING IT IS A LIE USING UNBIASED SOURCES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground prove my point. Nothing in Resolution 181 really happened. The UN created nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your continued whining about Resolution 181 is pointless. Why don't you write a strongly worded email (and be sure to include multiple references to _The Zionists_™ or alternately _The Zionist Entity_™) to the UN and express your displeasure. Tell them you demand satisfaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resolution 181 was DOA. What is there to complain about?
Click to expand...







 WRONG it was only DOA in the arab muslims eyes as they thought their refusal would squash it. The UN had very cleverly put in a clause that stated only one party need accept and agree and the resolution would be live till it was acted on. Israel declared independence and so fulfilled the terms of 181. 

 READ THE FULL DETAILS IN THE UN ARCHIVES AND NOT THE ISLAMONAZI VERSIONS OF EVENTS


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why you are always wrong because you believe that it is the UN that has to create Israel
> 
> 
> 
> It was the first sentence in the earlier propaganda piece that was posted.
Click to expand...








 Everything that I post when I disprove your claims, the links you keep asking for and then ignoring because they dont say what you want to see. All the details that you say is Israeli talking points or Israeli propaganda


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> No other native people were removed/killed to make room for people living somewhere else, in this case, another continent.









 Apart from the Americas, India, Africa and Australia, but then this was done by the Catholic church so was not the same


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> The UN had very cleverly put in a clause that stated only one party need accept and agree and the resolution would be live till it was acted on. Israel declared independence and so fulfilled the terms of 181.


Could you quote that passage?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> No other native people were removed/killed to make room for people living somewhere else, in this case, another continent.



Have you gone totally bonkers?  All Muslim countries are stolen countries conquered by force whereby the "native people" were forced to convert, leave or be killed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.


Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.

Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
Click to expand...


As this has been addressed for you countless times, I'm disappointed that you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense. 

The state of Israel was the result of the Jewish people's ability to establish self-determination and effectively control a border in spite of aggression on the part of _The Islamist Entity_™. The point of a gun you rattle on about was the point of the gun from _The Islamist Entity_™ that sought to deny the Jew people a sovereign State. 

_The Islamist Entity_™ occupying the former British Mandate was never able to establish either a functioning government or find the ability to exercise self-determination. That's not surprising as we have Islamist history to consult which delineates thst history as one of feudal warlords and tribal societies constantly at war.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
Click to expand...


The "right" to sovereignty may indeed rest with the people in international law (I'm not convinced that is strictly true, but I'm not going to argue with you about it since we agree in principle.)  But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.  There was the potential for sovereignty, but no actual sovereignty.  

But all this is going off on a rather silly tangent rather than addressing the meat of my post -- which was to answer the questions you, yourself, posed and to address the negation and violation of the rights of the Jewish people to sovereignty just the same as all the others.  

Also, what Hollie said.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had very cleverly put in a clause that stated only one party need accept and agree and the resolution would be live till it was acted on. Israel declared independence and so fulfilled the terms of 181.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you quote that passage?
Click to expand...







 Do you mean the one posted many times in the past that you totally ignore because it destroyed your POV. 

 It was an either/or state of affairs and the arab muslims being greedy decided that it did not mean what it said and so denied the resolution


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
Click to expand...







 It does not say that in the treaty of Lausanne does it, that is the twisted interpretation by an islamonazi propagandist. It says that they would become citizens of the mandatory.

 What rights were those then, as they were set down in 181 and the arab muslims have been in breach of them ever since.

That is why the arab muslims were ignored and barred from having guns

Wasnt this what the arab muslims did in the west bank, Jerusalem and gaza against the UN charter, Geneva conventions and IHL. 

 SO WHY ARE YOU ONLY GETTING ALL HOT AND BOTHERED ABOUT WHAT THE JEWS MIGHT HAVE DONE AND NOT WHAT THE ARAB MUSLIMS DID DO.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> It says that they would become citizens of the mandatory.


Could you quote that passage?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had very cleverly put in a clause that stated only one party need accept and agree and the resolution would be live till it was acted on. Israel declared independence and so fulfilled the terms of 181.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you quote that passage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the one posted many times in the past that you totally ignore because it destroyed your POV.
> 
> It was an either/or state of affairs and the arab muslims being greedy decided that it did not mean what it said and so denied the resolution
Click to expand...

Your usual duck.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.


Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.

That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.
> 
> That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.
Click to expand...

So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance. 

So there's no issue.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.
> 
> That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.
> 
> So there's no issue.
Click to expand...

The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.
> 
> That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.
> 
> So there's no issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
Click to expand...

_Nice dodge™_

As this has been addressed for you countless times, I'm disappointed that you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense.

Your suggestion is "they" did it in your invented "country of Pal'istan". There was no such place. The geographic area of Pal'istan was an area ceded by the Ottomans to the British Mandate.

The Jewish people succeeded in self-governance and sovereignty. The Arabs-Moslems could not and still can not.

Nothing was taken away from the Arab-Moslem squatters.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.
> 
> That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.
> 
> So there's no issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Nice dodge™_
> 
> As this has been addressed for you countless times, I'm disappointed that you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense.
> 
> Your suggestion is "they" did it in your invented "country of Pal'istan". There was no such place. The geographic area of Pal'istan was an area ceded by the Ottomans to the British Mandate.
> 
> The Jewish people succeeded in self-governance and sovereignty. The Arabs-Moslems could not and still can not.
> 
> Nothing was taken away from the Arab-Moslem squatters.
Click to expand...

Palestine is a territory defined by international borders. It was populated by a people who had legal citizenship.

You can throw all the Israeli talking points you like. It changes nothing.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.
> 
> That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.
> 
> So there's no issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Nice dodge™_
> 
> As this has been addressed for you countless times, I'm disappointed that you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense.
> 
> Your suggestion is "they" did it in your invented "country of Pal'istan". There was no such place. The geographic area of Pal'istan was an area ceded by the Ottomans to the British Mandate.
> 
> The Jewish people succeeded in self-governance and sovereignty. The Arabs-Moslems could not and still can not.
> 
> Nothing was taken away from the Arab-Moslem squatters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is a territory defined by international borders. It was populated by a people who had legal citizenship.
> 
> You can throw all the Israeli talking points you like. It changes nothing.
Click to expand...


As this has been addressed for you countless times, I'm disappointed that you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense.

Pal'istan was a territory, yes. It was administered by the British after the Ottoman Turks ceded all rights and title to the territory. 

The Jewish people established a sovereign state within the territory. The Jewish people established independence and self governance while the Arab-Moslem squatters could not. 

Read the above many times. It will save bandwidth not having to write it out for you many more times.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.



They did it in a territory which had TWO peoples seeking self-determination.  

Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.  If you believe that than you must hold it true for both peoples.  If one group has the right to self-determination, then the other group also has the right to self-determination.  

Palestinians do not have the right to violate Jewish rights.  And Jews do not have the right to violate Arab Muslim "Palestinian" rights.


----------



## montelatici

The Jews were living on another continent and invaded Palestine.  The migration of the Europeans to Palestine was a violation of the rights of the native non-Jews, Christians and Muslims.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The Jews were living on another continent and invaded Palestine.  The migration of the Europeans to Palestine was a violation of the rights of the native non-Jews, Christians and Muslims.


There was no invasion of Pal'istan by Jews. You and Tinmore spend too much time cutting and pasting the same goofy slogans while being ignorant of the facts.

You're simply asking excuses for the Arab-Moslem invaders / squatters from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.


----------



## montelatici

Of course there was an invasion.  The Jews were on another continent (Europe) and took over a place inhabited by non-Jews situated in Asia, a different continent.  It's just logic you silly goose.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Of course there was an invasion.  The Jews were on another continent (Europe) and took over a place inhabited by non-Jews situated in Asia, a different continent.  It's just logic you silly goose.


Your silly "Invasion" slogan is a hoot. It's more of the ignorance you promote. It appears that you and our friend Tinmore must cut and paste goofy slogans from the same source.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there was an invasion.  The Jews were on another continent (Europe) and took over a place inhabited by non-Jews situated in Asia, a different continent.  It's just logic you silly goose.
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly "Invasion" slogan is a hoot. It's more of the ignorance you promote. It appears that you and our friend Tinmore must cut and paste goofy slogans from the same source.
Click to expand...

Indeed, actual history.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Pal'istan was a territory, yes. It was administered by the British after the Ottoman Turks ceded all rights and title to the territory.


That is correct.

Palestine was a territory defined by international borders.

Britain did *administer* Palestine but it did not annex or otherwise claim sovereignty.

The territory was ceded to the people who were to have citizenship in their respective states. It is the citizens who have the right to sovereignty.

Look it up.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.
> 
> That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.
> 
> So there's no issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Nice dodge™_
> 
> As this has been addressed for you countless times, I'm disappointed that you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense.
> 
> Your suggestion is "they" did it in your invented "country of Pal'istan". There was no such place. The geographic area of Pal'istan was an area ceded by the Ottomans to the British Mandate.
> 
> The Jewish people succeeded in self-governance and sovereignty. The Arabs-Moslems could not and still can not.
> 
> Nothing was taken away from the Arab-Moslem squatters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is a territory defined by international borders. It was populated by a people who had legal citizenship.
> 
> You can throw all the Israeli talking points you like. It changes nothing.
Click to expand...


LEGAL CITIZENSHIP?  Tell  us more about this Palestinian squatters "legal citizenship"


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.
> 
> That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.
> 
> So there's no issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Nice dodge™_
> 
> As this has been addressed for you countless times, I'm disappointed that you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense.
> 
> Your suggestion is "they" did it in your invented "country of Pal'istan". There was no such place. The geographic area of Pal'istan was an area ceded by the Ottomans to the British Mandate.
> 
> The Jewish people succeeded in self-governance and sovereignty. The Arabs-Moslems could not and still can not.
> 
> Nothing was taken away from the Arab-Moslem squatters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is a territory defined by international borders. It was populated by a people who had legal citizenship.
> 
> You can throw all the Israeli talking points you like. It changes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LEGAL CITIZENSHIP?  Tell  us more about this Palestinian squatters "legal citizenship"
Click to expand...


What we do know is that Israel has a legal right to exist.

Legal Basis of the State of Israel


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says that they would become citizens of the mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you quote that passage?
Click to expand...








 Already been quoted by Myself, Roccor and Yourself hundreds of times, try reading it again without your islamonazi propaganda glasses on


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN had very cleverly put in a clause that stated only one party need accept and agree and the resolution would be live till it was acted on. Israel declared independence and so fulfilled the terms of 181.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you quote that passage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the one posted many times in the past that you totally ignore because it destroyed your POV.
> 
> It was an either/or state of affairs and the arab muslims being greedy decided that it did not mean what it said and so denied the resolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual duck.
Click to expand...







 No my usual reply to you now when you ask for the same link to the same question 20 times a day. If you cant be bothered to read it the first time then why bother a second time


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.
> 
> That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.
Click to expand...







 No what you spout is just one of islams many nazi talking points to confuse the morons like yourself


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.
> 
> That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.
> 
> So there's no issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
Click to expand...






 So you are denying the Jews rights to be palestinians so you can steal their lands and the rest of their rights  ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.
> 
> That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.
> 
> So there's no issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
Click to expand...






 When did this become actual law ?   And how did the violate the Jews rights to a homeland on Jewish land ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> But between the ceding of the territory by the Ottomans and the declaration of independence there was no State and no sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The right to sovereignty does not require a state. It belongs to the people.
> 
> That is just one of Israel's talking points to confuse the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can confirm that sovereignty belongs to the Israeli people who established independence and self governance.
> 
> So there's no issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that they did it in Palestine violating the Palestinian's rights. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Nice dodge™_
> 
> As this has been addressed for you countless times, I'm disappointed that you keep cutting and pasting the same nonsense.
> 
> Your suggestion is "they" did it in your invented "country of Pal'istan". There was no such place. The geographic area of Pal'istan was an area ceded by the Ottomans to the British Mandate.
> 
> The Jewish people succeeded in self-governance and sovereignty. The Arabs-Moslems could not and still can not.
> 
> Nothing was taken away from the Arab-Moslem squatters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is a territory defined by international borders. It was populated by a people who had legal citizenship.
> 
> You can throw all the Israeli talking points you like. It changes nothing.
Click to expand...





 When did this happen and who caused it to happen, you have failed to actually show any concrete evidence of your claims because you read things that are not there. The mandate of palestine is the only palestine that had defined borders according to your one and only link.

 You can throw all the islamionazi lies and propaganda talking points you like they wont change reality and the truth


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Jews were living on another continent and invaded Palestine.  The migration of the Europeans to Palestine was a violation of the rights of the native non-Jews, Christians and Muslims.









 Which were what in 1922 when the treaty was signed giving the arab muslims 78% of palestine and the Jews 22%. Why have the arab muslims refused to abide by the international law they had enacted that Tinman posted only yesterday


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Of course there was an invasion.  The Jews were on another continent (Europe) and took over a place inhabited by non-Jews situated in Asia, a different continent.  It's just logic you silly goose.








 And your people the Roman Catholics took the Jews from their lands that they had inhabited for 2000 years and incarcerated them in slavery. The non Jews then invaded the land of Judea and took it by force contrary to international law, claiming it as their own. The land was then taken from the non Jews as reparations for war and handed back to the Jews as their National home in 1922 by the land then legal owners. The descendants of the Jews taken as slaves by the Roman Catholics returned to their lands under international laws and claimed them. The non Jews had no legal claims to the lands granted to the Jews at any time as their leaders had signed away the lands to the LoN as reparations of war in 1917.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there was an invasion.  The Jews were on another continent (Europe) and took over a place inhabited by non-Jews situated in Asia, a different continent.  It's just logic you silly goose.
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly "Invasion" slogan is a hoot. It's more of the ignorance you promote. It appears that you and our friend Tinmore must cut and paste goofy slogans from the same source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, actual history.
Click to expand...






So which country was behind this invasion then, who planned it and set up the military aspects to enable the invasion. Show the history books that detail all this


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pal'istan was a territory, yes. It was administered by the British after the Ottoman Turks ceded all rights and title to the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> Palestine was a territory defined by international borders.
> 
> Britain did *administer* Palestine but it did not annex or otherwise claim sovereignty.
> 
> The territory was ceded to the people who were to have citizenship in their respective states. It is the citizens who have the right to sovereignty.
> 
> Look it up.
Click to expand...







 WRONG

Even your own link states it is the borders of the mandate of palestine.

It did not need to as that was the LoN remit as sovereign land owners. 

Under which treaty as all the ones you produce never name palestine as a state, just a mandate under administration

I have and this is the reality leaving nothing out or ADDING ANYTHING TO IT


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The Jews were living on another continent and invaded Palestine.  The migration of the Europeans to Palestine was a violation of the rights of the native non-Jews, Christians and Muslims.



The Jewish people who were living in the Mandate of Palestine at the time it was ceded, had the SAME rights as the Arab Muslim and Christian people living in the Mandate of Palestine -- including the right to self-determination and sovereignty.  Two peoples -- each having the same rights.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were living on another continent and invaded Palestine.  The migration of the Europeans to Palestine was a violation of the rights of the native non-Jews, Christians and Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people who were living in the Mandate of Palestine at the time it was ceded, had the SAME rights as the Arab Muslim and Christian people living in the Mandate of Palestine -- including the right to self-determination and sovereignty.  Two peoples -- each having the same rights.
Click to expand...







 But didnt you know that the Jews were not real Jews and had appeared overnight as part of a heavily armed invasion force sent by and funded by the British and Russians. The Roman Catholics and arab muslims who lived in peace with the Jews had ethnically cleansed palestine of all of its indigenous Jews over the years because they had killed God and had more rights to the land than the arab muslims and Roman Catholics


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were living on another continent and invaded Palestine.  The migration of the Europeans to Palestine was a violation of the rights of the native non-Jews, Christians and Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people who were living in the Mandate of Palestine at the time it was ceded, had the SAME rights as the Arab Muslim and Christian people living in the Mandate of Palestine -- including the right to self-determination and sovereignty.  Two peoples -- each having the same rights.
Click to expand...

That is true except they were all one people. The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews were not divided. They were all Palestinians without reference to religion and all had equal rights.

The "two peoples" was created when the Zionist colonial project entered Palestine. They were not the people of the place. They were people from someplace else.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were living on another continent and invaded Palestine.  The migration of the Europeans to Palestine was a violation of the rights of the native non-Jews, Christians and Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people who were living in the Mandate of Palestine at the time it was ceded, had the SAME rights as the Arab Muslim and Christian people living in the Mandate of Palestine -- including the right to self-determination and sovereignty.  Two peoples -- each having the same rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is true except they were all one people. The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews were not divided. They were all Palestinians without reference to religion and all had equal rights.
> 
> The "two peoples" was created when the Zionist colonial project entered Palestine. They were not the people of the place. They were people from someplace else.
Click to expand...









 So the Jews arrived around 2,500 B.C.E. and set up shop. The Romans invaded around 70 C.E.  and  stole the Jews as slaves taking them back to Europe. Then the Romans and Greeks invented Christianity and set up shop. The false prophet with the mental problems invented islam and set about wiping out the Jews. The muslims segragated the people into followers of the true faith and the others. The muslims had rights under this regime, the others had none. The muslims came from far away places to invade the lands and claim them as their own.
 The Jews returned from their enslavem at the request of the land legal sovereign land owners from 1850 and again in 1917. The Jews were the original " PEOPLE OF THE PLACE " the muslims and Christians where from someplace else. All written down in historical records and proven many times over. The name they give themselves proves they are not indigenous, but from arabia, Greece and Rome


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> That is true except they were all one people. The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews were not divided. They were all Palestinians without reference to religion and all had equal rights.
> 
> The "two peoples" was created when the Zionist colonial project entered Palestine. They were not the people of the place. They were people from someplace else.



Timnore, we can argue til we are blue in the face about when or how there came to be two peoples in this territory and the development over time of both Jewish nationalism and Palestinian nationalism.  But what is the point?  There are clearly two distinct peoples now.  

Where's your end game here?  Are you really hoping or thinking that all the "synthetic" Jews will just pick up and leave and we can return to a One State Palestine where there are only a few Jews and they are perfectly happy with their minority dhimmi status?  Its way, way too late for that, man.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were living on another continent and invaded Palestine.  The migration of the Europeans to Palestine was a violation of the rights of the native non-Jews, Christians and Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people who were living in the Mandate of Palestine at the time it was ceded, had the SAME rights as the Arab Muslim and Christian people living in the Mandate of Palestine -- including the right to self-determination and sovereignty.  Two peoples -- each having the same rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is true except they were all one people. The native Muslims, Christians, and Jews were not divided. They were all Palestinians without reference to religion and all had equal rights.
> 
> The "two peoples" was created when the Zionist colonial project entered Palestine. They were not the people of the place. They were people from someplace else.
Click to expand...

Not to throw the brakes on this runaway train full of Pal'istanians, but a bit of contingent reality is in order. First, these invented Pal'istanians from the invented "country of Pal'istan" never existed. Pal'istan was a reference to a geographic area. This may come as a shock to you but your invented "country of Pal'istan" exists only in your imagination. 

We also need to acknowledge that the invented Pal'istanians living in the invented "country of Pal'istan" were not necesssrily holding hands in the park and going on innocuous butterfly hunts. In the early 1920's,  Amin al- Husseini (but you can call him Al), was already stoking the fires of gee-had and promoting that special brand of ialamic inspired Jew hated that began with the invention of Islamism.


----------



## montelatici

It may come to a shock to you, but whether or nor Palestine existed as a nation makes absolutely no difference.  Just as the fact that there was no country known as Pakistan, before the partition of India made no difference, clown. The Palestinians as a people had every right to resist the European Jew invasion of the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years.  

But continue your clown dancing, it is entertaining.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> It may come to a shock to you, but whether or nor Palestine existed as a nation makes absolutely no difference.  Just as the fact that there was no country known as Pakistan, before the partition of India made no difference, clown. The Palestinians as a people had every right to resist the European Jew invasion of the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years.
> 
> But continue your clown dancing, it is entertaining.


Actually, sweetie, you will surprised to discover that facts _do_ make a difference. The fact is, your absurd belief that Pal'istan was a "country" is laughable. We also know that the invasion by Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters / land grabbers refutes your ignorant claim that the Arab invaders "lived there for thousands of years".

It's difficult for you to plead mere ignorance to these facts as they have been delineated for you on multiple occassions. I suppose we will have to agree that you're a mere propagandist.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Well, you have actually made a mistake here.

Actually both India and Pakistan had provisional governments. First Mahatma Gandhi, Jawharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel setup the Provisional Government of India,   And for Pakistan, the Leader of the Indian/Muslim League, Muhammad Ali Jinnah,  as the Governor-General established the first Provisional Government.



montelatici said:


> It may come to a shock to you, but whether or nor Palestine existed as a nation makes absolutely no difference.  Just as the fact that there was no country known as Pakistan, before the partition of India made no difference, clown. The Palestinians as a people had every right to resist the European Jew invasion of the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years.
> 
> But continue your clown dancing, it is entertaining.


*(COMMENT)*


The Indian Independence Act of 1947, of the British Parliament was largely the work of  Prime Minister Clement Attlee and the Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten *(Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia Command)*.  The Independence Act established the two new independent nations of India and Pakistan, under royal decree using a Partition Plan (The Mountbatten Plan).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> It may come to a shock to you, but whether or nor Palestine existed as a nation makes absolutely no difference.  Just as the fact that there was no country known as Pakistan, before the partition of India made no difference ....



You had me up to here.  



> The Palestinians as a people had every right to resist the European Jew invasion of the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years.



But here's the thing.  The Jewish people, having lived on the land for thousands of years, and having been forcefully removed from the land ALSO have the right to "resist" the Arab Muslim invasion, don't they?  Why would one have the right to resist in order to exert their rights and the other not have the right to resist?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> One State Palestine where there are only a few Jews and they are perfectly happy with their minority dhimmi status? Its way, way too late for that, man.


The Ottoman Empire eliminated the dhimmi status years before the creation of Palestine and I have heard no one advocating for its return.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> One State Palestine where there are only a few Jews and they are perfectly happy with their minority dhimmi status? Its way, way too late for that, man.
> 
> 
> 
> The Ottoman Empire eliminated the dhimmi status years before the creation of Palestine and I have heard no one advocating for its return.
Click to expand...


Yes.  I am aware of that.  What I am not aware of is any modern Muslim State which practices full equality.  

But neither here nor there.  What's your end game given that we have two distinct peoples with seemingly incompatible beliefs.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> But what is the point? There are clearly two distinct peoples now.


Indeed, there are the native Muslims, Christians, and Jews and there is the Zionist colonial project.

All of the Palestinians, including the Jews, were opposed to a Jewish state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> In the early 1920's, blah, blah, blah


This was years after the beginning of Zionist colonialism and three years after the colonial project was publicly admitted by the British. Of course there were problems. The problem was not the Jews. The problem was the colonialism.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> All of the Palestinians, including the Jews, were opposed to a Jewish state.



I remain unconvinced that this is true. (Again there was an evolution to Jewish nationalism just as there was to Palestinian nationalism).

But again, what's your end game?  What do you think a fair resolution to the problem is?  I don't even care if your proposed resolution is unrealistic.  If you could have any resolution to the conflict that you wanted -- what would it be?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the early 1920's, blah, blah, blah
> 
> 
> 
> This was years after the beginning of Zionist colonialism and three years after the colonial project was publicly admitted by the British. Of course there were problems. The problem was not the Jews. The problem was the colonialism.
Click to expand...

"Blah, blah, blah" is hardly a convincing argument. I would propose that the problem is Islamist colonialism and Islamist intolerance. As I noted earlier and as I noted you attempted to sidestep, al-Hussein (hereinafter "Al"), was, in the early 1920's, already promoting Arab-Islamist fascism and making appeals to elements of Jew hatreds that are littered throughout Islamist ideology. 

Your invention of some mythical "country of Pal'istan" that never existed has become some invented islamo-Disneyland you promote.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> It may come to a shock to you, but whether or nor Palestine existed as a nation makes absolutely no difference.  Just as the fact that there was no country known as Pakistan, before the partition of India made no difference, clown. The Palestinians as a people had every right to resist the European Jew invasion of the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years.
> 
> But continue your clown dancing, it is entertaining.









 So when the Europeans start to take over Jordan, Egypt, Syria Iraq and Iran they will have an argument, until then it is you clown dancing


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> One State Palestine where there are only a few Jews and they are perfectly happy with their minority dhimmi status? Its way, way too late for that, man.
> 
> 
> 
> The Ottoman Empire eliminated the dhimmi status years before the creation of Palestine and I have heard no one advocating for its return.
Click to expand...








 LIAR    as it was re introduced at a local level by nomadic arab muslim warlords. But when you refuse to read these parts of history there is no hope of you ever fully understanding them.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what is the point? There are clearly two distinct peoples now.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there are the native Muslims, Christians, and Jews and there is the Zionist colonial project.
> 
> All of the Palestinians, including the Jews, were opposed to a Jewish state.
Click to expand...








 Another of your many claims that you refuse to provide evidence for, is this because the cyber islamo's have not written it yet ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the early 1920's, blah, blah, blah
> 
> 
> 
> This was years after the beginning of Zionist colonialism and three years after the colonial project was publicly admitted by the British. Of course there were problems. The problem was not the Jews. The problem was the colonialism.
Click to expand...









 And who funded and enabled this alleged colonialism then. It costs a lot of money to do this thing and you have refused to substantiate your claims repeatedly. Is this because you are LYING again


----------



## RoccoR

Hollie, et al,

You will never be able to convince our friend P F Tinmore that it is a fraudulent claim the Arab Palestinian make to a pre-1988 sovereignty.  

The Israeli counter-claim should be that the Hostile Arab Palestinians withdraw to territory in which Arab Palestinian have had _explicit_ title and rights granted to them by a previous sovereign; OR such territory in which the Arab Palestinian has _demonstrated sovereign powers_ in the last century. 

Absent evidence to the title and rights to a specific territory, or the demonstrated extension of sovereign authority and power over such a territory, the claim made by our friend P F Tinmore and Hostile Arab Palestinians everywhere is an hollow and baseless delusion.  Such claims have the same potential for validity as a homeless person has to a luxury apartment built over land where he once had his cardboard box.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> Hollie, et al,
> 
> You will never be able to convince our friend P F Tinmore that it is a fraudulent claim the Arab Palestinian make to a pre-1988 sovereignty.
> 
> The Israeli counter-claim should be that the Hostile Arab Palestinians withdraw to territory in which Arab Palestinian have had _explicit_ title and rights granted to them by a previous sovereign; OR such territory in which the Arab Palestinian has _demonstrated sovereign powers_ in the last century.
> 
> Absent evidence to the title and rights to a specific territory, or the demonstrated extension of sovereign authority and power over such a territory, the claim made by our friend P F Tinmore and Hostile Arab Palestinians everywhere is an hollow and baseless delusion.  Such claims have the same potential for validity as a homeless person has to a luxury apartment built over land where he once had his cardboard box.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



Yep!  As soon as Israel turned this near wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came hoards of Palestinians to claim "it's their land."


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Hollie, et al,
> 
> You will never be able to convince our friend P F Tinmore that it is a fraudulent claim the Arab Palestinian make to a pre-1988 sovereignty.
> 
> The Israeli counter-claim should be that the Hostile Arab Palestinians withdraw to territory in which Arab Palestinian have had _explicit_ title and rights granted to them by a previous sovereign; OR such territory in which the Arab Palestinian has _demonstrated sovereign powers_ in the last century.
> 
> Absent evidence to the title and rights to a specific territory, or the demonstrated extension of sovereign authority and power over such a territory, the claim made by our friend P F Tinmore and Hostile Arab Palestinians everywhere is an hollow and baseless delusion.  Such claims have the same potential for validity as a homeless person has to a luxury apartment built over land where he once had his cardboard box.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


You have a weird view of history.

The Treaty of Lausanne gave citizenship to the Palestinians, and nobody else, in Palestine.

The British wanted to create a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Palestinians rejected it, and after 30 years of occupation, Britain left failing to accomplish their goal.

The UN proposed partitioning Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan so the UN did not implement it.

The UN states that the Palestinians, *in Palestine,* have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.

Even today the Palestinians, and their supporters around the world, reject Israel's so called right to exist and are demanding Palestinian rights. Israel, and its supporters, have dumped hundreds of millions of dollars and other mass resources to counter this claim.

The Palestinians have fought an uphill battle against Israel and its super power supporters to defend their country. Lesser people would have lost long ago.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, et al,
> 
> You will never be able to convince our friend P F Tinmore that it is a fraudulent claim the Arab Palestinian make to a pre-1988 sovereignty.
> 
> The Israeli counter-claim should be that the Hostile Arab Palestinians withdraw to territory in which Arab Palestinian have had _explicit_ title and rights granted to them by a previous sovereign; OR such territory in which the Arab Palestinian has _demonstrated sovereign powers_ in the last century.
> 
> Absent evidence to the title and rights to a specific territory, or the demonstrated extension of sovereign authority and power over such a territory, the claim made by our friend P F Tinmore and Hostile Arab Palestinians everywhere is an hollow and baseless delusion.  Such claims have the same potential for validity as a homeless person has to a luxury apartment built over land where he once had his cardboard box.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> You have a weird view of history.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne gave citizenship to the Palestinians, and nobody else, in Palestine.
> 
> The British wanted to create a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Palestinians rejected it, and after 30 years of occupation, Britain left failing to accomplish their goal.
> 
> The UN proposed partitioning Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan so the UN did not implement it.
> 
> The UN states that the Palestinians, *in Palestine,* have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Even today the Palestinians, and their supporters around the world, reject Israel's so called right to exist and are demanding Palestinian rights. Israel, and its supporters, have dumped hundreds of millions of dollars and other mass resources to counter this claim.
> 
> The Palestinians have fought an uphill battle against Israel and its super power supporters to defend their country. Lesser people would have lost long ago.
Click to expand...


To quote Tom Petty:

"Why do you want to lay there, revel in your abandon?
Baby, it don't really matter to me
Everybody's had to fight to be free
You don't have to live like a refugee!"


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, et al,
> 
> You will never be able to convince our friend P F Tinmore that it is a fraudulent claim the Arab Palestinian make to a pre-1988 sovereignty.
> 
> The Israeli counter-claim should be that the Hostile Arab Palestinians withdraw to territory in which Arab Palestinian have had _explicit_ title and rights granted to them by a previous sovereign; OR such territory in which the Arab Palestinian has _demonstrated sovereign powers_ in the last century.
> 
> Absent evidence to the title and rights to a specific territory, or the demonstrated extension of sovereign authority and power over such a territory, the claim made by our friend P F Tinmore and Hostile Arab Palestinians everywhere is an hollow and baseless delusion.  Such claims have the same potential for validity as a homeless person has to a luxury apartment built over land where he once had his cardboard box.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> You have a weird view of history.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne gave citizenship to the Palestinians, and nobody else, in Palestine.
> 
> The British wanted to create a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Palestinians rejected it, and after 30 years of occupation, Britain left failing to accomplish their goal.
> 
> The UN proposed partitioning Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan so the UN did not implement it.
> 
> The UN states that the Palestinians, *in Palestine,* have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Even today the Palestinians, and their supporters around the world, reject Israel's so called right to exist and are demanding Palestinian rights. Israel, and its supporters, have dumped hundreds of millions of dollars and other mass resources to counter this claim.
> 
> The Palestinians have fought an uphill battle against Israel and its super power supporters to defend their country. Lesser people would have lost long ago.
Click to expand...

I'm disappointed you have simply cut and pasted the same material you have cut and pasted many times across multiple threads in spite of your cutting and pasting having been addressed many times.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, et al,
> 
> You will never be able to convince our friend P F Tinmore that it is a fraudulent claim the Arab Palestinian make to a pre-1988 sovereignty.
> 
> The Israeli counter-claim should be that the Hostile Arab Palestinians withdraw to territory in which Arab Palestinian have had _explicit_ title and rights granted to them by a previous sovereign; OR such territory in which the Arab Palestinian has _demonstrated sovereign powers_ in the last century.
> 
> Absent evidence to the title and rights to a specific territory, or the demonstrated extension of sovereign authority and power over such a territory, the claim made by our friend P F Tinmore and Hostile Arab Palestinians everywhere is an hollow and baseless delusion.  Such claims have the same potential for validity as a homeless person has to a luxury apartment built over land where he once had his cardboard box.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> You have a weird view of history.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne gave citizenship to the Palestinians, and nobody else, in Palestine.
> 
> The British wanted to create a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Palestinians rejected it, and after 30 years of occupation, Britain left failing to accomplish their goal.
> 
> The UN proposed partitioning Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan so the UN did not implement it.
> 
> The UN states that the Palestinians, *in Palestine,* have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Even today the Palestinians, and their supporters around the world, reject Israel's so called right to exist and are demanding Palestinian rights. Israel, and its supporters, have dumped hundreds of millions of dollars and other mass resources to counter this claim.
> 
> The Palestinians have fought an uphill battle against Israel and its super power supporters to defend their country. Lesser people would have lost long ago.
Click to expand...








 Wrong as it never mentions the palestinian people deliberstely for this reason

Wrong the LoN implemented the creation of the Jewish national home on 22% of palestine, leaving 78% as the arab muslim national home 

Wrong The UN proposed to partition the 22% of palestine clearly designated as the Jewish national home and the arab muslims wanted it all as theirs. So the Jews implemented 181 by declaring independence on less than 20% of the designated lands. The arab muslims had no say in the matter after the Jews had beaten the crap out of them.

Correct, so now they need to designate what is acceptable as their palestine, going with existing international laws it is Jordan and they dont want illegal immigrants fouling their lands. This is what the whole problem boils down to where is arab muslim palestine ?

In doing so they are in breach of international laws, Geneva conventions, UN charter, IHL and state laws. First you need to delineate exactly what rights the arab muslims do have, and then enforce them on the arab muslims. See how they like having to obey laws that give them their rights .


 And when did it pass into their ownership under international treaty or international law. Provide the link that clearly says that the arab muslims living in palestine will have this land granted
 to them as their national home ?

 I have produced this treaty and you ignore it because it leaves out Israel, gaza, west bank and Jerusalem


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, et al,
> 
> You will never be able to convince our friend P F Tinmore that it is a fraudulent claim the Arab Palestinian make to a pre-1988 sovereignty.
> 
> The Israeli counter-claim should be that the Hostile Arab Palestinians withdraw to territory in which Arab Palestinian have had _explicit_ title and rights granted to them by a previous sovereign; OR such territory in which the Arab Palestinian has _demonstrated sovereign powers_ in the last century.
> 
> Absent evidence to the title and rights to a specific territory, or the demonstrated extension of sovereign authority and power over such a territory, the claim made by our friend P F Tinmore and Hostile Arab Palestinians everywhere is an hollow and baseless delusion.  Such claims have the same potential for validity as a homeless person has to a luxury apartment built over land where he once had his cardboard box.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> You have a weird view of history.
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne gave citizenship to the Palestinians, and nobody else, in Palestine.
> 
> The British wanted to create a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Palestinians rejected it, and after 30 years of occupation, Britain left failing to accomplish their goal.
> 
> The UN proposed partitioning Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan so the UN did not implement it.
> 
> The UN states that the Palestinians, *in Palestine,* have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.
> 
> Even today the Palestinians, and their supporters around the world, reject Israel's so called right to exist and are demanding Palestinian rights. Israel, and its supporters, have dumped hundreds of millions of dollars and other mass resources to counter this claim.
> 
> The Palestinians have fought an uphill battle against Israel and its super power supporters to defend their country. Lesser people would have lost long ago.
Click to expand...


"Even today the Palestinians, and their supporters around the world, reject Israel's so called right to exist..."

Oh, well, that clears things up. We wouldn't want to offend the tender sensibilities of Islamic terrorists and their supporters, especially around the world.

Hasn't the UN yet defined "_hurting Moslems feelings"™ a_s _racist_™ and _islamophobic_™ or at the very least, _multiculturally insensitive_™?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think there is a little bit of a delusion here.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne gave citizenship to the Palestinians, and nobody else, in Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

•  Article 16 grants rights and title to the Allied Powers.
•  Nowhere, in the entire Treaty, are the Palestinians mentioned by name...
•  The Treaty dealt with "nationalities," again not specifically mentioning the Palestinians.
•  The Treaty set the authorization to for Mandatories to develop citizenship procedures.
•  The citizenship of all those within the boundary defined by the Mandatory, was established under the criteria of the "Palestine Citizenship Order."



P F Tinmore said:


> The British wanted to create a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Palestinians rejected it, and after 30 years of occupation, Britain left failing to accomplish their goal.
> 
> The UN proposed partitioning Palestine. The Palestinians rejected the plan so the UN did not implement it.


*(COMMENT)*

Success or failure are merely outcome of "an attempt to accomplish."  It has nothing to do with the evaluating an "intent to achieve" as either right or wrong.

The many rejections of the Arab Palestinians to participate in the in the "Article 22(2):  and the "practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage" DOES NOT preclude by estoppel the separate and distinct intention of the Allied Powers to establish a Jewish National Home.



P F Tinmore said:


> The UN states that the Palestinians, *in Palestine,* have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.


*(COMMENT)*

The basic application pertaining to the "right to self determination without external interference" is found in Chapter I or the UN Charter.  It applied to everyone, and is not exclusive to the Arab Palestinian.  This included the Jewish People who, after participation in the Article 22(2) Tutalage in the assistance in the administration of the Government of Palestine (which the Arab Palestinian rejected), Declared Independence. 


P F Tinmore said:


> Even today the Palestinians, and their supporters around the world, reject Israel's so called right to exist and are demanding Palestinian rights. Israel, and its supporters, have dumped hundreds of millions of dollars and other mass resources to counter this claim.


*(COMMENT)*

Rejecting the "so called right to exist" DOES NOT change the reality that the Jewish State of Israel does exist.

•  The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.
•  Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.
•  The PLO (sole representative of the Palestinian People) recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.  (1993)​
It exists and it is over.  Just because you don't like it, does not mean your observation has a legal implication.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians have fought an uphill battle against Israel and its super power supporters to defend their country. Lesser people would have lost long ago.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, this is twisting a bit.  Until 1988, there was no country under the Sovereignty of the Arab Palestinian.

The Arab Palestinian sets their own course in destiny, and define themselves by word and deed.

•  They define themselves as participating in Jihad and Armed Struggle.
•  The HoAP, representing the Arab Palestinian in their Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, have participated in massacres, aircraft hijackings, piracy, suicide attacks, bombing, kidnapping and murder (just to name a few).  And the general population of Arab Palestinians overwhelming support the bloodthirsty culture of the various HoAP; providing financial and material support.​It was never their country to defend.  You keep saying that, but the Arab Palestinians did not exercise  their sovereignty over any territory pre-1988 Declaration of Independence by the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne gave citizenship to the Palestinians, and nobody else, in Palestine.


The act of ensuring a transfer of citizenship from the ceding State to the Mandate did not create a State.  Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.



> The British wanted to create a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Palestinians rejected it, and after 30 years of occupation, Britain left failing to accomplish their goal.


The LoN not only 'wanted' to create a Jewish National Home in Palestine, they entrenched in law the RIGHTS of the Jewish people to a National Home in Palestine.  You can 'reject' international law all you want, but that won't change the fact of it.



> The UN states that the Palestinians, *in Palestine,* have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty.


The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.  The UN has always taken the position that both peoples have those rights.



> ... the Palestinians, and their supporters around the world, reject Israel's so called right to exist ...


As stated above, the right of the Jewish people to a National Homeland is entrenched in law.  To reject it is to reject law.  And, as Rocco also pointed out, Israel exists.  Fighting its existence is an exercise in futility.

But it does confirm what I frequently claim is the source of the conflict and has always been the source of the conflict.  Its about preventing the Jewish people from having self-determination.

Your end game, then, is to have the State of Israel cease to exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> • The Treaty set the authorization to for Mandatories to develop citizenship procedures.


All of the Mandated territories, except Palestine, developed their citizenship through their local representatives. Palestine's was written by a foreign power against their will.

That is a violation of the Palestinian's right to self determination without external interference.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It was never their country to defend. You keep saying that, but the Arab Palestinians did not exercise their sovereignty over any territory pre-1988 Declaration of Independence by the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People.


You are back to Israeli talking points again.

That preventing the Palestinians from exercise their sovereignty at the point of a gun is a violation of their rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> I have produced this treaty and you ignore it because it leaves out Israel, gaza, west bank and Jerusalem


The rules of occupation state that an occupying power does not acquire sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> The act of ensuring a transfer of citizenship from the ceding State to the Mandate did not create a State.


Nobody became the citizens of the Mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.


The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The act of ensuring a transfer of citizenship from the ceding State to the Mandate did not create a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody became the citizens of the Mandate.
Click to expand...


Not my point.  My point is that it did not create a State.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never their country to defend. You keep saying that, but the Arab Palestinians did not exercise their sovereignty over any territory pre-1988 Declaration of Independence by the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People.
> 
> 
> 
> You are back to Israeli talking points again.
> 
> That preventing the Palestinians from exercise their sovereignty at the point of a gun is a violation of their rights.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the above is the same cut and paste nonsense you have dumped into other threads. It's a pointless and unsupported claim. 

Really dear, stop beating this horse. It has joined _Archeohippus _as a Montanan fossil.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!

Please provide a link to that.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Then it could not have created a legal condition which restricted rights of one of the two peoples.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.
Click to expand...


Neither does it even mention Palestine at all.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!
> 
> Please provide a link to that.
Click to expand...

The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Then it could not have created a legal condition which restricted rights of one of the two peoples.
Click to expand...

There weren't two peoples only the Palestinians.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!
> 
> Please provide a link to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
Click to expand...


Wasn't the Partition Plan envisioned by the UN?


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither does it even mention Palestine at all.
Click to expand...

It didn't mention Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, or Iraq either.

Do you have a point?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Then it could not have created a legal condition which restricted rights of one of the two peoples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There weren't two peoples only the Palestinians.
Click to expand...


Well, there are now.  Isn't this debate futile?


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!
> 
> Please provide a link to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't the Partition Plan envisioned by the UN?
Click to expand...

It did and it flopped.

Resolution 181 was never implemented by the Security Council.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!
> 
> Please provide a link to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't the Partition Plan envisioned by the UN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It did and it flopped.
> 
> Resolution 181 was never implemented by the Security Council.
Click to expand...

Hasn't that been addressed for you multiple times now? 

Rhetorical question as the obvious answer is yes. Really, dear, you spam multiple threads with the same cutting and pasting.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Then it could not have created a legal condition which restricted rights of one of the two peoples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There weren't two peoples only the Palestinians.
Click to expand...

".... in the country of Disney.... oops, I mean the country of Pal'istan."


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!
> 
> Please provide a link to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't the Partition Plan envisioned by the UN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It did and it flopped.
> 
> Resolution 181 was never implemented by the Security Council.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hasn't that been addressed for you multiple times now?
> 
> Rhetorical question as the obvious answer is yes. Really, dear, you spam multiple threads with the same cutting and pasting.
Click to expand...

Look it up for yourself.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.



Do you even hear yourself talk?  UNGA 273(III).


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!
> 
> Please provide a link to that.
> 
> 
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't the Partition Plan envisioned by the UN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It did and it flopped.
> 
> Resolution 181 was never implemented by the Security Council.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hasn't that been addressed for you multiple times now?
> 
> Rhetorical question as the obvious answer is yes. Really, dear, you spam multiple threads with the same cutting and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up for yourself.
Click to expand...

I did. There was never a "county of Pal'istan". 

How many more times are you going to spam multiple threads with the same cutting and pasting?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> There weren't two peoples only the Palestinians.



There were.  And are. To claim otherwise is just silly.  

But let's go along with your silly argument for just a minute.  Let's say that all the Jewish people and all the Arab Muslim people are just "Palestinians".  What legal instrument or precedent are you using to claim that after the development of two distinct peoples that only one has the right to self-determination?  And what legal instrument or precedent are you using to claim that Palestine can't be divided into two distinct nations?


----------



## Shusha

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Well, there are now.  Isn't this debate futile?



It is futile.  Because Tinmore's end game is the destruction of the State of Israel.  And that is never going to happen.


----------



## Hollie

Shusha said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are now.  Isn't this debate futile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is futile.  Because Tinmore's end game is the destruction of the State of Israel.  And that is never going to happen.
Click to expand...

It's odd because while Tinmore will deny the precepts of the Hamas charter, he lives and breathes those very precepts.


----------



## Shusha

Hollie said:


> It's odd because while Tinmore will deny the precepts of the Hamas charter, he lives and breathes those very precepts.



I think he publicly denies their methods, but he clearly agrees with their goal.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even hear yourself talk?  UNGA 273(III).
Click to expand...

Israel is in violation of UNGA 273.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are now.  Isn't this debate futile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is futile.  Because Tinmore's end game is the destruction of the State of Israel.  And that is never going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's odd because while Tinmore will deny the precepts of the Hamas charter, he lives and breathes those very precepts.
Click to expand...

Israel occupies Palestine. It is not my thing. It is not a Hamas thing. It is an Israel thing.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even hear yourself talk?  UNGA 273(III).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in violation of UNGA 273.
Click to expand...


Again, not my point.  The UN clearly "mentions" Israel and Israelis.  Don't be daft.  

You are trying to present an argument that Israel has no right to exist and you are failing.  Israel exists.  Israel's right to exist as the Jewish National Homeland is entrenched in international law and treaty.  You have absolutely no case here.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, Shusha,et al,

I have to admit, you are quite adept at twisting the facts.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never their country to defend. You keep saying that, but the Arab Palestinians did not exercise their sovereignty over any territory pre-1988 Declaration of Independence by the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People.
> 
> 
> 
> You are back to Israeli talking points again.
> That preventing the Palestinians from exercise their sovereignty at the point of a gun is a violation of their rights.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Whether or not it is a "Talking Point" is irrelevant to the it validity.   Absolutely no one "prevented" the Arab Palestinians from exercising their right of swkf determination, sovereignty or independence.  I repeat, NO ONE PREVENTED the Arab Palestinians in that regard.   However, the Arab did attempt to prevent the rights of the Jewish Immigrants and citizens in that regard; by force in an invasion by the Arab League.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have produced this treaty and you ignore it because it leaves out Israel, gaza, west bank and Jerusalem
> 
> 
> 
> The rules of occupation state that an occupying power does not acquire sovereignty.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It is customary under law that the Occupation Power does not exercise certain prerogatives _(political transition of territory; Section III  ---  Occupied Territory, Article 47, GCIV)_; but that does not physically prevent the action.  

Israel DID NOT acquire sovereignty by means of Occupation.  Israel declared a limited number of areas as being sovereignly incorporated to the nation.  It did so under the deliberation and vote by the Knesset _(Parliament)_.   It could have done so with or without the Occupation being in place.  When the Jordanian Kingdom cut all ties and abandon certain territories (_Terra Nullius)_, there was no Palestinian Provision Government to assume control (true _Terra Nullius)_.  The only nation exercising ANY control was Israel.  Thus the decision of the status to the territory was in the hands of Israel.

Israel did not annex territory on the basis of "occupation."  The Arab Palestinians have not grievance.  The question remains:  When the Jordanians abandon the territory, what government was in place?



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The act of ensuring a transfer of citizenship from the ceding State to the Mandate did not create a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody became the citizens of the Mandate.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Now you are just toying with words.  This was explained in the First Comment in *Posting #808*:

*(COMMENT)*

• Article 16 grants rights and title to the Allied Powers.
• Nowhere, in the entire Treaty, are the Palestinians mentioned by name...
• The Treaty dealt with "nationalities," again not specifically mentioning the Palestinians.
• The Treaty set the authorization to for Mandatories to develop citizenship procedures.
• The citizenship of all those within the boundary defined by the Mandatory, was established under the criteria of the "Palestine Citizenship Order."​
It remained nearly unchanged from the prcedures outlined in the Palestine Order in Council.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> And what legal instrument or precedent are you using to claim that Palestine can't be divided into two distinct nations?


Maybe it could but it would have to be approved by the majority of the people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> When the Jordanians abandon the territory, what government was in place?


Israeli talking point.

It is the people not a government that has the right to self determination.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Israel did not annex territory on the basis of "occupation."


Then how did Israel "annex" its territory?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,   et al,

This is impossible.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even hear yourself talk?  UNGA 273(III).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in violation of UNGA 273.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

UNGA 273 (III) only has one decision in it; admission.  Are you twisting something here?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Jordanians abandon the territory, what government was in place?
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point.
> 
> It is the people not a government that has the right to self determination.
Click to expand...


No one is arguing that the people don't have a right to self-determination.  (Except you).


----------



## Shusha

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> This is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even hear yourself talk?  UNGA 273(III).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in violation of UNGA 273.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> UNGA 273 (III) only has one decision in it; admission.  Are you twisting something here?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Of course he is.  He is going to try to claim that since Israel doesn't abide by the Charter, she is in violation of 273.

Edited to add that Israel can't be in violation of the 273 since 273 is not a conditional two-party agreement but a unilateral pronouncement of one party to the other.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

First, you are attempting to make an implication that some group of people can declare some determination.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Jordanians abandon the territory, what government was in place?
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point.
> 
> It is the people not a government that has the right to self determination.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

If the people are going to make a determination, then they must have some means to carry it out.  But in this case, there was no determination made, and no means to extend sovereignty.  Thus, if anyone stopped the right of the Arab Palestinians, it was the Arab Palestinians themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Absolutely no one "prevented" the Arab Palestinians from exercising their right of swkf determination, sovereignty or independence.


You're joking, right?

All of the institutions created by the Palestinians for self determination were shut down by Britain. Their leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

You need to read up.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • The Treaty set the authorization to for Mandatories to develop citizenship procedures.
> 
> 
> 
> All of the Mandated territories, except Palestine, developed their citizenship through their local representatives. Palestine's was written by a foreign power against their will.
> 
> That is a violation of the Palestinian's right to self determination without external interference.
Click to expand...


OMG!  You actually wish the Palestinians to have self determination???  Don't that beat all?  Even I could never wish such a punishment upon them.  No way could I ever support such cruelty on them. They would go back to mass killing each other in a power struggle to rule.  And how would they live without sucking off of Israel to provide for them?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> This is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even hear yourself talk?  UNGA 273(III).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in violation of UNGA 273.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> UNGA 273 (III) only has one decision in it; admission.  Are you twisting something here?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he is.  He is going to try to claim that since Israel doesn't abide by the Charter, she is in violation of 273.
> 
> Edited to add that Israel can't be in violation of the 273 since 273 is not a conditional two-party agreement but a unilateral pronouncement of one party to the other.
Click to expand...

*UNITED NATIONS
General Assembly*

A/RES/*273 *(III)

11 May 1949

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

*273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations*

*Having received* the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/

_Noting_ that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

_Noting_ that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

_Noting_ furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/

*Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,*

Israel violates the conditions for admittance into UN​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely no one "prevented" the Arab Palestinians from exercising their right of swkf determination, sovereignty or independence.
> 
> 
> 
> You're joking, right?
> 
> All of the institutions created by the Palestinians for self determination were shut down by Britain. Their leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.
> 
> You need to read up.
Click to expand...

_I blame the Jews_™. Oh, and the British now, too.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> First, you are attempting to make an implication that some group of people can declare some determination.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Jordanians abandon the territory, what government was in place?
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point.
> 
> It is the people not a government that has the right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If the people are going to make a determination, then they must have some means to carry it out.  But in this case, there was no determination made, and no means to extend sovereignty.  Thus, if anyone stopped the right of the Arab Palestinians, it was the Arab Palestinians themselves.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



The Palestinians were stopped by the British.  It is clear in the correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation to London and the British Colonial Office.  To wit:

The Palestinian request in 1922:
_
"Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, *no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."*

If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, *put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country* — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."_

The Colonial Office's answer:

_"Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government *have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people.* He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine."_

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

The British stopped the Palestinian's from asserting self-determination in order to establish a Jewish colony in Palestine.  So Rocco, stop making absurd assertions that have no basis in historical fact.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely no one "prevented" the Arab Palestinians from exercising their right of swkf determination, sovereignty or independence.
> 
> 
> 
> You're joking, right?
> 
> All of the institutions created by the Palestinians for self determination were shut down by Britain. Their leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.
> 
> You need to read up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I blame the Jews_™. Oh, and the British now, too.
Click to expand...

They were in cahoots.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore 

273 (III) reads:

_The General Assembly,

Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

2. *Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.*_


There is nothing conditional about this statement.  It is a direct and clear statement.  There is no way for Israel to violate a statement which says, "The GA decides to admit Israel to membership in the UN."


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely no one "prevented" the Arab Palestinians from exercising their right of swkf determination, sovereignty or independence.
> 
> 
> 
> You're joking, right?
> 
> All of the institutions created by the Palestinians for self determination were shut down by Britain. Their leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.
> 
> You need to read up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I blame the Jews_™. Oh, and the British now, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were in cahoots.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theories are convenient when facts fail, right?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> 273 (III) reads:
> 
> _The General Assembly,
> 
> Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
> 
> 1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
> 
> 2. *Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.*_
> 
> 
> There is nothing conditional about this statement.  It is a direct and clear statement.  There is no way for Israel to violate a statement which says, "The GA decides to admit Israel to membership in the UN."


*Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
*​*BTW, 11 December 1948 is Resolution 194.*


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> First, you are attempting to make an implication that some group of people can declare some determination.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Jordanians abandon the territory, what government was in place?
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point.
> 
> It is the people not a government that has the right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If the people are going to make a determination, then they must have some means to carry it out.  But in this case, there was no determination made, and no means to extend sovereignty.  Thus, if anyone stopped the right of the Arab Palestinians, it was the Arab Palestinians themselves.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were stopped by the British.  It is clear in the correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation to London and the British Colonial Office.  To wit:
> 
> The Palestinian request in 1922:
> _
> "Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, *no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."*
> 
> If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, *put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country* — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."_
> 
> The Colonial Office's answer:
> 
> _"Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government *have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people.* He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine."_
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> The British stopped the Palestinian's from asserting self-determination in order to establish a Jewish colony in Palestine.  So Rocco, stop making absurd assertions that have no basis in historical fact.
Click to expand...


Nothing in that long cut and paste supports your claim that the British prevented the Islamist Entity from seeking self determination for their colonial objectives. 

The poor, helpless, hapless Arabs-Moslems were foiled again by their own incompetence and ineptitude.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The British stopped the Palestinian's from asserting self-determination in order to establish a Jewish (National Home) in Palestine.



Ah.  No.  The British would not endorse a Palestinian national self-determination which denied Jewish national self-determination.  This did not prevent the Palestinians from asserting a self-determination in conjunction with Jewish national self-determination.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,*​


​
This does not make the actual statement of accepting Israel into the UN conditional.  But all this is beside the point anyway, the point of bringing up 273 was to point out that the UN most certainly "mentions" Israel and accepts Israel's right to exist.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British stopped the Palestinian's from asserting self-determination in order to establish a Jewish (National Home) in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  No.  The British would not endorse a Palestinian national self-determination which denied Jewish national self-determination.  This did not prevent the Palestinians from asserting a self-determination in conjunction with Jewish national self-determination.
Click to expand...

Yes it did. Anything and everything Palestinian was shut down.


----------



## RoccoR

P f tinmore, et al,

There is nothing in the Resolution that calls for Israel to do anything in particular.  Even if it did, it is not a binding resolution outside the membership.



P F Tinmore said:


> *UNITED NATIONS
> General Assembly*
> 
> A/RES/*273 *(III)
> 
> 11 May 1949
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations*
> 
> *Having received* the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/
> 
> _Noting_ that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
> 
> _Noting_ that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,
> 
> _Noting_ furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/
> 
> *Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,*
> 
> Israel violates the conditions for admittance into UN​


*(COMMENT)*

1)  Your bolded passage merely "recalls" what was discussed in the debate over membership.  It does not require Israel to take action of any kind.

2)  Membership or the denial of membership in the UN is neither a barrier or a condition of statehood.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, MJB12741,  et al,

In November 1988, the Arab Palestinians DID exercise the right of self-determination.  But that was not the first time.

*(COMMENT)*

Under the Mandate and the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Arab component to the citizenry of the territory to which the Mandate applied, rejected, on at least three occasions prior to 1924, the opportunity to participate in Article 22(2) Tutelage and the direct participation in the development of self-governing institutions.   This, in itself, was a barrier to self-determination.

Again, in January 1948, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the Step Preparatory to Independence.  
In April 1950, the Arab Palestinians DID participate in self-determination by actively  engaging the Jordanian Parliament in the determination as to whether to be annexed or not.

After biting the hand that fed them, the Arab Palestinians announced a Declaration of Independence in November 1988.  this was, another example of self-determination.

Don't pretend that the political bungling of the Arab Palestinian was, for an instant, the fault of the Israelis.  It was not.  If there was a fault in the exercise of self-determination and self-governance, it was the fault of the Arab Palestinian that was not then (from 1920 to 1988) incompetent to make a self-governing state for themselves a reality; when nearly every other adjacent state was able to do so for themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> the citizenry of the territory to which the Mandate applied, rejected, on at least three occasions prior to 1924, the opportunity to participate in Article 22(2)


Indeed, they consistently refused to sign onto the colonial project.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> when nearly every other adjacent state was able to do so for themselves.


Indeed, the other states were not under military occupation.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I understand that you know it all, but in this case, you fall a little short of being correct.  Nowhere in the exchange does the Colonial Secretary prevent the Arab Delegation in the matter of self-determination.  



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If the people are going to make a determination, then they must have some means to carry it out.  But in this case, there was no determination made, and no means to extend sovereignty.  Thus, if anyone stopped the right of the Arab Palestinians, it was the Arab Palestinians themselves.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were stopped by the British.  It is clear in the correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation to London and the British Colonial Office.  To wit:
> 
> _
> "Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, *no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."*
> 
> If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, *put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country* — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."​_
> 
> The Colonial Office's answer:
> 
> _"Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government *have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people.* _​
> The British stopped the Palestinian's from asserting self-determination in order to establish a Jewish colony in Palestine.  So Rocco, stop making absurd assertions that have no basis in historical fact.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It might be interesting to note that what the Colonial Secretary Churchill said did not prevent, in any way, the ability of the Arab Palestinian people to make determinations in their own behalf (self-determination).  But, the determination had to fall inside that acceptable limits of the Allied Powers and its obligations and the Mandatory Authority, and the Mandate itself.

Without regard to the Arab Delegation, the Covenant still established Article 22(2) Tutelage as a criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No matter what the reason may have been, no matter how valid you think the reason was, the fact of the matter is that they declined to activity participate in the process.  That was a consequence of their decision.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> the citizenry of the territory to which the Mandate applied, rejected, on at least three occasions prior to 1924, the opportunity to participate in Article 22(2)
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they consistently refused to sign onto the colonial project.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

While the criteria of the Covenant today is  no longer an issue, it should be noted that another intended criteria, which has never been met, is the Article 22(4) require to reach "such time as they are able to stand alone."   They had not reached that point then, and they have not reached that point even today.

In most compacts, once an opportunity is declined, the further need to request participation, cooperation and assistance _(on either side)_ is no longer required.  It is only by due diligence that the Colonial Office even bothered to ask more than once _(a half-dozen times or more)_.

Every nation has to face the consequences of their decisions.  It is only the Arab Palestinian that want everything and no responsibility for failure or adverse consequence.   TOO Bad!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, they consistently refused to sign onto the colonial project.



The refusal to "sign on to the colonial project" in no way restricts their own self-determination.  In fact, this is the entire fallacy you are constantly chasing.  The acceptance of Jewish self-determination does not deny Palestinian self-determination.  There is no either/or here.  

*Its not a zero sum game.  *


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

All the Mandates were under the same type of administration, whether that have been the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration, the Mandate A type Administration and government, or the post-1948-49 Arab League invasion and occupation.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> when nearly every other adjacent state was able to do so for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the other states were not under military occupation.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Remember, when the 1949 Armistice kicked-in, the Jordanians (Arab League) occupied the West Bank and the Egyptian (Arab League) occupied the Gaza Strip.  That remained until 1967.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> But, the determination had to fall inside that acceptable limits of the Allied Powers and its obligations and the Mandatory Authority, and the Mandate itself.
> 
> Without regard to the Arab Delegation, the Covenant still established Article 22(2) Tutelage as a criteria.


The Palestinians had to legitimize the colonial project in order to participate.

The colonial project conflicted with Article 22.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Article 22(4) require to reach "such time as they are able to stand alone."


Can't happen in a military occupation hell bent on their colonial project.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It is only by due diligence that the Colonial Office even bothered to ask more than once _(a half-dozen times or more)_.


"Colonial Office" is the key.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

That is an independent determination made by the Arab Palestinians.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the determination had to fall inside that acceptable limits of the Allied Powers and its obligations and the Mandatory Authority, and the Mandate itself.
> 
> Without regard to the Arab Delegation, the Covenant still established Article 22(2) Tutelage as a criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians had to legitimize the colonial project in order to participate.
> 
> The colonial project conflicted with Article 22.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

No where in the Covenant do the Authors of the decision to promote the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home, who happen to be the same Authors of the Covenant, draw the same connection that you make here.  In fact, there is no conflict.  That is just Arab Political soup to further their agenda.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> All the Mandates were under the same type of administration, whether that have been the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration, the Mandate A type Administration and government, or the post-1948-49 Arab League invasion and occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> when nearly every other adjacent state was able to do so for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the other states were not under military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, when the 1949 Armistice kicked-in, the Jordanians (Arab League) occupied the West Bank and the Egyptian (Arab League) occupied the Gaza Strip.  That remained until 1967.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You didn't mention that the Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> That is an independent determination made by the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the determination had to fall inside that acceptable limits of the Allied Powers and its obligations and the Mandatory Authority, and the Mandate itself.
> 
> Without regard to the Arab Delegation, the Covenant still established Article 22(2) Tutelage as a criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians had to legitimize the colonial project in order to participate.
> 
> The colonial project conflicted with Article 22.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No where in the Covenant do the Authors of the decision to promote the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home, who happen to be the same Authors of the Covenant, draw the same connection that you make here.  In fact, there is no conflict.  That is just Arab Political soup to further their agenda.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

There is a conflict. You just can't see it through your Israel colored glasses.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just ridiculous.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only by due diligence that the Colonial Office even bothered to ask more than once _(a half-dozen times or more)_.
> 
> 
> 
> "Colonial Office" is the key.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I gather from this you do not understand the reasoning for the Mandates to be placed under the Colonial Office.  But I don't have time to teach you governmental affairs.  Let's just say that the deficiency you exhibit here is the very same reason and a classic example as to why the Arab Palestinian needed Article 22(2) Tutelage.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> and a classic example as to why the Arab Palestinian needed Article 22(2) Tutelage.


And they were not going to get it up against a colonial project. The Palestinians were shoved aside like Britain had been doing to natives all over the world for hundreds of years.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This "CAN'T DO" attitude is very prevalent in the Arab Palestinian world.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 22(4) require to reach "such time as they are able to stand alone."
> 
> 
> 
> Can't happen in a military occupation hell bent on their colonial project.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I've seen this kind of excuse driven failures mouthed quite frequently from the Arab Palestinians.  The greater security countermeasures and barriers are all 21st Century implementations.

The Arab Palestinians wasted 33 years of time when the stricter 21st Century countermeasures were not in place.  But the Arab Palestinians were focused on strictly violence.

As violence increased, the need to develpo more stringent security measures increased.  That is a consequence of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to pursue violence as opposed to positive development projects.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I've seen this kind of excuse driven failures mouthed quite frequently from the Arab Palestinians.


How many minutes has Palestine not been under occupation since 1917?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This "CAN'T DO" attitude is very prevalent in the Arab Palestinian world.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 22(4) require to reach "such time as they are able to stand alone."
> 
> 
> 
> Can't happen in a military occupation hell bent on their colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've seen this kind of excuse driven failures mouthed quite frequently from the Arab Palestinians.  The greater security countermeasures and barriers are all 21st Century implementations.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians wasted 33 years of time when the stricter 21st Century countermeasures were not in place.  But the Arab Palestinians were focused on strictly violence.
> 
> As violence increased, the need to develpo more stringent security measures increased.  That is a consequence of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to pursue violence as opposed to positive development projects.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah, more Israeli talking points.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is another one of those Arab Palestinian Victim complaints.



P F Tinmore said:


> You didn't mention that the Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.


*(COMMENT)*

I did not forget it at all.

BUT REMEMBER!  The Armistice Agreements were a temporary solution to the Arab League Aggressor Attack in contravention to Article 1(2) _*(Self-determination)*_, Article 2(3) _*(Peaceful Settlement of Disputes)*_, and the Article 2(4) _*(use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence)*_.  And the consequence of such aggressor action is the Internatal Defense and Development  under Article 51 *(inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack)*.  

The division were a product of the invading Arab Forces, NOT the defender -- Israel. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

At every offer, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development of self-governing institutions.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> and a classic example as to why the Arab Palestinian needed Article 22(2) Tutelage.
> 
> 
> 
> And they were not going to get it up against a colonial project. The Palestinians were shoved aside like Britain had been doing to natives all over the world for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

They Arab Palestinians declined to participate through the entire Mandate period, and they declined today.

It is who they are... Belligerent, Uncooperative, Abusive and Violent... (BUAV)

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is another one of those Arab Palestinian Victim complaints.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't mention that the Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I did not forget it at all.
> 
> BUT REMEMBER!  The Armistice Agreements were a temporary solution to the Arab League Aggressor Attack in contravention to Article 1(2) _*(Self-determination)*_, Article 2(3) _*(Peaceful Settlement of Disputes)*_, and the Article 2(4) _*(use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence)*_.  And the consequence of such aggressor action is the Internatal Defense and Development  under Article 51 *(inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack)*.
> 
> The division were a product of the invading Arab Forces, NOT the defender -- Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Nice duck.

BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> At every offer, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> and a classic example as to why the Arab Palestinian needed Article 22(2) Tutelage.
> 
> 
> 
> And they were not going to get it up against a colonial project. The Palestinians were shoved aside like Britain had been doing to natives all over the world for hundreds of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> They Arab Palestinians declined to participate through the entire Mandate period, and they declined today.
> 
> It is who they are... Belligerent, Uncooperative, Abusive and Violent... (BUAV)
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The only offer was to be subordinate to the colonial project.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The only offer was to be subordinate to the colonial project.



Its not a zero sum game.  There can be two winners here.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • The Treaty set the authorization to for Mandatories to develop citizenship procedures.
> 
> 
> 
> All of the Mandated territories, except Palestine, developed their citizenship through their local representatives. Palestine's was written by a foreign power against their will.
> 
> That is a violation of the Palestinian's right to self determination without external interference.
Click to expand...






NO  YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN.   That is not even part of the equation.

 The Law says that the people have to show self determination and the ability to stand on their own as a nation governed by themselves. The arab muslims had the same rights to proclaim independence at any time from 1922 ON THE LAND GRANTED TO THEM IN PALESTINE FOR THAT PURPOSE. It did not give them the right to steal land from the Jews and set up shop there because their god told them too. It did not give them the right to invade with foriegn armies intent on mass murder, genocide and pillage because the world had told them to back of and leave. It did not give them the right to proclaim that the land was theirs under treaties that never existed and international laws not written until 70 years later.

 Now two mandates were developed through external representatives who were given the lands to rule by the same people who gave the lands to the Jews. Proving that you are prepared to lie outrageously to win a point. Look at Syria and Jordan that are both ruled by non Syrian/Jordanian heads of state. Did this violate the Syrian/Jordanian rights to self determination. Or is this you altering reality again because you know the evidence is against you all the way.

 Time to enforce the international law you posted last week in regards to no non Jews to be allowed to live in the Jewish national home and no non muslims to be allowed to live in the palestinians national home. This instigated by the arab muslims in 1923 in an attempt at ethnic cleansing of the M.E. legally through international laws.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> At every offer, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> and a classic example as to why the Arab Palestinian needed Article 22(2) Tutelage.
> 
> 
> 
> And they were not going to get it up against a colonial project. The Palestinians were shoved aside like Britain had been doing to natives all over the world for hundreds of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> They Arab Palestinians declined to participate through the entire Mandate period, and they declined today.
> 
> It is who they are... Belligerent, Uncooperative, Abusive and Violent... (BUAV)
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only offer was to be subordinate to the colonial project.
Click to expand...





No the offer was take it or leave it and did not mention any colonial project. They were given 78% of palestine to play in and kill each other to their hearts content, but wanted the world as decreed by their god.

REMEMBER THAT................DECREED BY THEIR GOD

They decided that violence was the answer and have paid a heavy price ever since. So if they want to commit suicide why should we stop them, they want to die so time to say goodbye. BUT DONT BLAME THE JEWS FOR THE MORONS SELF DETERMINATION IN WIPING THEMSELVES OUT


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only offer was to be subordinate to the colonial project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a zero sum game.  There can be two winners here.
Click to expand...







 Which is why the LoN partitioned palestine and used the Jordan as a natural border. Imagine a world were Jordan has access to Israel's ports and can trade with anyone they want, there could only ever be winners


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never their country to defend. You keep saying that, but the Arab Palestinians did not exercise their sovereignty over any territory pre-1988 Declaration of Independence by the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian People.
> 
> 
> 
> You are back to Israeli talking points again.
> 
> That preventing the Palestinians from exercise their sovereignty at the point of a gun is a violation of their rights.
Click to expand...








 And you are back to telling lies as you fail to show just how they are Israeli talking points and then compound it by claiming it was done with a gun at their heads. 
 If that was the case why were they allowed to disagree and deny the mandate. And what rights were violated, something you have repeatedly refused to detail in 2 years of asking.   What lands did they have actual legally recognised sovereignty over from 1917 to 1999 ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have produced this treaty and you ignore it because it leaves out Israel, gaza, west bank and Jerusalem
> 
> 
> 
> The rules of occupation state that an occupying power does not acquire sovereignty.
Click to expand...








* LINK ?*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The act of ensuring a transfer of citizenship from the ceding State to the Mandate did not create a State.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody became the citizens of the Mandate.
Click to expand...







 WRONG as the evidence shows they became citizens of the British mandate of palestine.







Is this clear enough for you, a passport pre 1988 that says BRITISH PALESTINE as required under the citizenship order. Why do you deny the truth when you know it will be thrown in your face ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...






 The UN charter that says* " ALL PEOPLES "   *which includes the Jews who were legal citizens of palestine ( mandate )


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.
Click to expand...







 It did not need to as that was not its purpose, but the LoN mandate did and that was its purpose


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!
> 
> Please provide a link to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
Click to expand...








 The UN mentions    * ALL PEOPLES *in its charter. In the resolution you use and link to it mentions certain peoples as examples only.


 Now how about a LINK to prove your obviously false claim ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Then it could not have created a legal condition which restricted rights of one of the two peoples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There weren't two peoples only the Palestinians.
Click to expand...







 Where does it say that, it has to be precise in its wording or you are manipulating and twisting meanings again


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nor did it create a legal condition whereby the two peoples of the Mandate could not EACH have self-determination and separate.
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention two people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither does it even mention Palestine at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It didn't mention Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan, or Iraq either.
> 
> Do you have a point?
Click to expand...







 Yes    it proves that you are LYING AGAIN and putting in words that never existed. Time to clean up your act and only use what is available on your links


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN does not state that it is ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians which have the right to self-determination in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!
> 
> Please provide a link to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't the Partition Plan envisioned by the UN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It did and it flopped.
> 
> Resolution 181 was never implemented by the Security Council.
Click to expand...







 Yes it did and you have been given the evidence many many many times over, So why do you deny the truth , and the Jews their rights under international law ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously claiming that the UN has made a statement that ONLY the Arab Muslim Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the territory of the Palestinian Mandate?!
> 
> Please provide a link to that.
> 
> 
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't the Partition Plan envisioned by the UN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It did and it flopped.
> 
> Resolution 181 was never implemented by the Security Council.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hasn't that been addressed for you multiple times now?
> 
> Rhetorical question as the obvious answer is yes. Really, dear, you spam multiple threads with the same cutting and pasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look it up for yourself.
Click to expand...







 You make the claim you need to prove it. A refusal or denial shows that you are LYING and have lost the point


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even hear yourself talk?  UNGA 273(III).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in violation of UNGA 273.
Click to expand...






 HOW   produce the evidence of your claim or admit you are just spreading LIES and PROPAGANDA


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are now.  Isn't this debate futile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is futile.  Because Tinmore's end game is the destruction of the State of Israel.  And that is never going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's odd because while Tinmore will deny the precepts of the Hamas charter, he lives and breathes those very precepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel occupies Palestine. It is not my thing. It is not a Hamas thing. It is an Israel thing.
Click to expand...





 How can Israeloccupy what is theirs by international law in the first place. What is your evidence to show that the LoNdid not give 78% of palestine to the arab muslims and 22% to the Jews for their national homes  ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what legal instrument or precedent are you using to claim that Palestine can't be divided into two distinct nations?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it could but it would have to be approved by the majority of the people.
Click to expand...







 Under what law is this the case, can you cite any instance were the elected government has went to the people and demanded they all vote on a particular policy. 

Is this another of your failed attempts at introducing laws for the Jews only so they will always lose ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Jordanians abandon the territory, what government was in place?
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point.
> 
> It is the people not a government that has the right to self determination.
Click to expand...








 NO HISTORICAL FACT THAT YOU DONT WANT TO SEE POSTED. IT WAS ISRAEL AND SO THE SOVEREIGNTY PASSED TO THEM UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

WHY IS IT THAT INTERNATIONAL LAWS ACT IN ISREAL'S FAVOUR MORE THAN THEY DO IN THE ARAB MUSLIMS FAVOUR ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not annex territory on the basis of "occupation."
> 
> 
> 
> Then how did Israel "annex" its territory?
Click to expand...







 Through international law when the arab muslims activated their free determination and lost the civil war when they tried to take over Jordan. The land became ownerless for that short period of time and Israel claimed it as theirs.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely no one "prevented" the Arab Palestinians from exercising their right of swkf determination, sovereignty or independence.
> 
> 
> 
> You're joking, right?
> 
> All of the institutions created by the Palestinians for self determination were shut down by Britain. Their leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.
> 
> You need to read up.
Click to expand...







 NO YOU DO as they were not elements of free determination but elements of violence, intimidation and terrorism. Name one institution that was created that was an element of free determination ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> This is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN mentions the Palestinians, nobody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even hear yourself talk?  UNGA 273(III).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is in violation of UNGA 273.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> UNGA 273 (III) only has one decision in it; admission.  Are you twisting something here?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course he is.  He is going to try to claim that since Israel doesn't abide by the Charter, she is in violation of 273.
> 
> Edited to add that Israel can't be in violation of the 273 since 273 is not a conditional two-party agreement but a unilateral pronouncement of one party to the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *UNITED NATIONS
> General Assembly*
> 
> A/RES/*273 *(III)
> 
> 11 May 1949
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations*
> 
> *Having received* the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/
> 
> _Noting_ that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
> 
> _Noting_ that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,
> 
> _Noting_ furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/
> 
> *Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,*
> 
> Israel violates the conditions for admittance into UN​
Click to expand...





Actually it put it in place if you read the full terms of the  "right of return ". It does not state all arab muslims only those  PREPARED TO ACCEPT THEY MUST LIVE IN PEACE WITH THEIR NEIGHBOURS AND ACT IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE. 20% OF ISREAL'S CITIZENS ARE ARAB MUSLIMS. HOW MANY JEWS ARE PALESTINIAN CITIZENS ?


Your use of hate sites as evidence is noted


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> First, you are attempting to make an implication that some group of people can declare some determination.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Jordanians abandon the territory, what government was in place?
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point.
> 
> It is the people not a government that has the right to self determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If the people are going to make a determination, then they must have some means to carry it out.  But in this case, there was no determination made, and no means to extend sovereignty.  Thus, if anyone stopped the right of the Arab Palestinians, it was the Arab Palestinians themselves.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were stopped by the British.  It is clear in the correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation to London and the British Colonial Office.  To wit:
> 
> The Palestinian request in 1922:
> _
> "Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, *no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable."*
> 
> If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, *put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country* — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."_
> 
> The Colonial Office's answer:
> 
> _"Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government *have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people.* He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine."_
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> The British stopped the Palestinian's from asserting self-determination in order to establish a Jewish colony in Palestine.  So Rocco, stop making absurd assertions that have no basis in historical fact.
Click to expand...







 BULLSHIT   it clearly states that it is the decision of the LoN


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely no one "prevented" the Arab Palestinians from exercising their right of swkf determination, sovereignty or independence.
> 
> 
> 
> You're joking, right?
> 
> All of the institutions created by the Palestinians for self determination were shut down by Britain. Their leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.
> 
> You need to read up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I blame the Jews_™. Oh, and the British now, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were in cahoots.
Click to expand...







 Who makes them then as I have never seen one..............


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> 273 (III) reads:
> 
> _The General Assembly,
> 
> Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
> 
> 1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
> 
> 2. *Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.*_
> 
> 
> There is nothing conditional about this statement.  It is a direct and clear statement.  There is no way for Israel to violate a statement which says, "The GA decides to admit Israel to membership in the UN."
> 
> 
> 
> *Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
> *​*BTW, 11 December 1948 is Resolution 194.*
Click to expand...







 And as you have been shown the right of return was never ratified because the arab muslims would have to give up Mecca and Medina to the Jews. So how are they in breach of a law that never existed ?


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British stopped the Palestinian's from asserting self-determination in order to establish a Jewish (National Home) in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  No.  The British would not endorse a Palestinian national self-determination which denied Jewish national self-determination.  This did not prevent the Palestinians from asserting a self-determination in conjunction with Jewish national self-determination.
Click to expand...







 Or moving the the portion of palestine granted to them for that very purpose, thus freeing the M.E. from endless wars and making it prosperous for all


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British stopped the Palestinian's from asserting self-determination in order to establish a Jewish (National Home) in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  No.  The British would not endorse a Palestinian national self-determination which denied Jewish national self-determination.  This did not prevent the Palestinians from asserting a self-determination in conjunction with Jewish national self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it did. Anything and everything Palestinian was shut down.
Click to expand...







 Everything and anything illegal or contrary to the LoN mandate was shut down, get it right. And this was mostly arab muslim extremist groups, terror cells and violent gangs


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> the citizenry of the territory to which the Mandate applied, rejected, on at least three occasions prior to 1924, the opportunity to participate in Article 22(2)
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they consistently refused to sign onto the colonial project.
Click to expand...







 So proving that they were never stopped from showing free determination or that any of their rights were violated.

 Guess you lose again because you are inconsistent in your rants and dont look at the evidence


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> when nearly every other adjacent state was able to do so for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the other states were not under military occupation.
Click to expand...








 Nor was the mandate of palestine. But the other mandates were under military control with the British being centred on Jerusalem and the French in Damascus


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the determination had to fall inside that acceptable limits of the Allied Powers and its obligations and the Mandatory Authority, and the Mandate itself.
> 
> Without regard to the Arab Delegation, the Covenant still established Article 22(2) Tutelage as a criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians had to legitimize the colonial project in order to participate.
> 
> The colonial project conflicted with Article 22.
Click to expand...








No as there was no actual colonial project outside of the fantasy world of the islamonazi stooges and conspiracy loons to justify the arab muslim violence and terrorism. Find one mention in any allied correspondence of the time of a colonial project, something of this magnitude would be hard to cover up or hide for so long


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is only by due diligence that the Colonial Office even bothered to ask more than once _(a half-dozen times or more)_.
> 
> 
> 
> "Colonial Office" is the key.
Click to expand...






As in the Government department to oversee the day to day running of the overseas branches of the government . Like the mandate of palestine or the Commonwealth of the United Kingdom


Now called the Foreign Office


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 22(4) require to reach "such time as they are able to stand alone."
> 
> 
> 
> Can't happen in a military occupation hell bent on their colonial project.
Click to expand...






Once again with your islamonazi propaganda talking points that have no basis in fact


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> All the Mandates were under the same type of administration, whether that have been the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration, the Mandate A type Administration and government, or the post-1948-49 Arab League invasion and occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> when nearly every other adjacent state was able to do so for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the other states were not under military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Remember, when the 1949 Armistice kicked-in, the Jordanians (Arab League) occupied the West Bank and the Egyptian (Arab League) occupied the Gaza Strip.  That remained until 1967.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't mention that the Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.
Click to expand...






 Because it didnt as the land was not occupied by the arab league illegally


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> That is an independent determination made by the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the determination had to fall inside that acceptable limits of the Allied Powers and its obligations and the Mandatory Authority, and the Mandate itself.
> 
> Without regard to the Arab Delegation, the Covenant still established Article 22(2) Tutelage as a criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians had to legitimize the colonial project in order to participate.
> 
> The colonial project conflicted with Article 22.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No where in the Covenant do the Authors of the decision to promote the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home, who happen to be the same Authors of the Covenant, draw the same connection that you make here.  In fact, there is no conflict.  That is just Arab Political soup to further their agenda.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a conflict. You just can't see it through your Israel colored glasses.
Click to expand...







 And you cant see that it is one of arab muslim making because of your islamonazi stooge glassses


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> and a classic example as to why the Arab Palestinian needed Article 22(2) Tutelage.
> 
> 
> 
> And they were not going to get it up against a colonial project. The Palestinians were shoved aside like Britain had been doing to natives all over the world for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...






 The palestinians being the Jews of course ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen this kind of excuse driven failures mouthed quite frequently from the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> How many minutes has Palestine not been under occupation since 1917?
Click to expand...






As in palesti8ne the Jewish area, palestine the Jordanian area or the non existent nation of palestine ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This "CAN'T DO" attitude is very prevalent in the Arab Palestinian world.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 22(4) require to reach "such time as they are able to stand alone."
> 
> 
> 
> Can't happen in a military occupation hell bent on their colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've seen this kind of excuse driven failures mouthed quite frequently from the Arab Palestinians.  The greater security countermeasures and barriers are all 21st Century implementations.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians wasted 33 years of time when the stricter 21st Century countermeasures were not in place.  But the Arab Palestinians were focused on strictly violence.
> 
> As violence increased, the need to develpo more stringent security measures increased.  That is a consequence of the Hostile Arab Palestinian to pursue violence as opposed to positive development projects.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, more Israeli talking points.
Click to expand...







 Again you claim that historical reality is Israeli talking points because you have no valid argument to refute them.

 Are yoiu denying that the arab muslims live to be violent and create violence at the drop of a hat rather than find a productive means of settling disputes that does not also say because it is all mine or because I say so


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is another one of those Arab Palestinian Victim complaints.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't mention that the Armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I did not forget it at all.
> 
> BUT REMEMBER!  The Armistice Agreements were a temporary solution to the Arab League Aggressor Attack in contravention to Article 1(2) _*(Self-determination)*_, Article 2(3) _*(Peaceful Settlement of Disputes)*_, and the Article 2(4) _*(use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence)*_.  And the consequence of such aggressor action is the Internatal Defense and Development  under Article 51 *(inherent right of individual or collective selfdefense if an armed attack)*.
> 
> The division were a product of the invading Arab Forces, NOT the defender -- Israel.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
Click to expand...







 Yes you can if you read the laws governing occupied territories, and this is real laws not red cross school lessons


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> At every offer, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> and a classic example as to why the Arab Palestinian needed Article 22(2) Tutelage.
> 
> 
> 
> And they were not going to get it up against a colonial project. The Palestinians were shoved aside like Britain had been doing to natives all over the world for hundreds of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> They Arab Palestinians declined to participate through the entire Mandate period, and they declined today.
> 
> It is who they are... Belligerent, Uncooperative, Abusive and Violent... (BUAV)
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only offer was to be subordinate to the colonial project.
Click to expand...






 No the only offer was to act like intelligent adults and agree to talk sensibly about what should be done with the former Ottoman lands. The arab muslims did not want to be seen as intelligent adults it seems, but petulant spoilt children


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.  

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.



P F Tinmore said:


> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.


*(COMMENT)*

••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.

••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..

••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

§  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system. 

§  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
For reference see:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
*ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]* ​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
 (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states: 

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law. ​
In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.

Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Why does Israel even allow the Palestinian squatters to remain where they are, let alone make peace offerings to to them, build a security fence & grant their demand for Jew free land, only to be thanked with hatred, jihads & rocket missiles?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does Israel even allow the Palestinian squatters to remain where they are, let alone make peace offerings to to them, build a security fence & grant their demand for Jew free land, only to be thanked with hatred, jihads & rocket missiles?
Click to expand...


The squatters are the Jews who arrived from elsewhere, from other continents and stole the land from the native Christians and Muslims.  Let's get that straight first.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


So, you would agree that the Germans were justified in killing French Jews for their involvement in the killing of German security forces.  They were convicted by military tribunals after all.








T_he Nazis arrested Resistance members mainly Communists or Jews arrested in reprisal for the death of German soldiers – and sentenced them to death in military tribunals. The convicted were then driven by military lorries to the isolated fort, west of Paris. _
_
First pictures of French Resistance killed by Nazi firing squad
_
In fact, the German officers and non-commissioned officers involved in these affairs were tried and sentenced to death by French courts after the war.  How can that be Rocco?  Under your interpretation of the law of occupation, they were justified in putting the perpetrators to death.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does Israel even allow the Palestinian squatters to remain where they are, let alone make peace offerings to to them, build a security fence & grant their demand for Jew free land, only to be thanked with hatred, jihads & rocket missiles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The squatters are the Jews who arrived from elsewhere, from other continents and stole the land from the native Christians and Muslims.  Let's get that straight first.
Click to expand...








 Why it is an outright LIE as your forefathers stole the Jews from their lands and took them back to Europe as slaves. They are returning to their homelands and chasing the foriegn invaders back to the arab nations where they came from, You can peddle your islamocatholic LIES all you want it will not make them true. Even your many links have been shown to be opposing your claims when they have been disected and the missing parts replaced


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you would agree that the Germans were justified in killing French Jews for their involvement in the killing of German security forces.  They were convicted by military tribunals after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T_he Nazis arrested Resistance members mainly Communists or Jews arrested in reprisal for the death of German soldiers – and sentenced them to death in military tribunals. The convicted were then driven by military lorries to the isolated fort, west of Paris.
> 
> First pictures of French Resistance killed by Nazi firing squad
> _
> In fact, the German officers and non-commissioned officers involved in these affairs were tried and sentenced to death by French courts after the war.  How can that be Rocco?  Under your interpretation of the law of occupation, they were justified in putting the perpetrators to death.
Click to expand...








 Different set of circumstances and the laws did not exist at that time, you lot always try to use international laws retroactively when you are losing the argument


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al

Climb down off your high horse before you get a nose bleed.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
DEROGATIONS
*ARTICLE 5 [ Link ] *

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.​


montelatici said:


> So, you would agree that the Germans were justified in killing French Jews for their involvement in the killing of German security forces.  They were convicted by military tribunals after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T_he Nazis arrested Resistance members mainly Communists or Jews arrested in reprisal for the death of German soldiers – and sentenced them to death in military tribunals. The convicted were then driven by military lorries to the isolated fort, west of Paris.
> 
> First pictures of French Resistance killed by Nazi firing squad
> _
> In fact, the German officers and non-commissioned officers involved in these affairs were tried and sentenced to death by French courts after the war.  How can that be Rocco?  Under your interpretation of the law of occupation, they were justified in putting the perpetrators to death.


*(COMMENT)*

Sometime the Germans did thing the right way, and some times they did not.  However, your example is wring here.  I believe this is an example of an unauthorized reprisal.  But not having all the facts, I'm not sure of the the legal solution.

You will find that the HoAP lose their "Protected People" status when they raise arms against the Occupation Force.

PLEASE! read the law of the time. (The law today is slightly different.)

Under the traditional laws of war, jus in bello, *a fundamental distinction was drawn between "lawful belligerency" and "unlawful belligerency.*" Individuals were considered to be "lawful combatants," accepting the burdens, and entitled to the benefits, of the laws of war (in particular, the right to be treated as prisoners-of-war upon defeat or capture), if they served in the armed forces -- regular or militia -- of a sovereign state. In addition, four criteria, incorporated into Article I of the 1907 Annex to the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, were required to be satisfied before lawful belligerency was established:

Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:--

(1) To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(2) To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

(3) To carry arms openly; and

(4) To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war [7].​*Individuals who took up arms, or joined an armed force, that did not meet these criteria, were considered to be unlawful belligerents, and were subject to a severe legal regime.*  Unlawful belligerents were considered to be a threat to every civilized state and individuals falling into this category, including spies, saboteurs, and "guerillas" could be summarily punished, up to and including the death penalty. This rule can be traced well back into the 17th century and before.​
Most of the WWII Resistance Fighters were of a covert and clandestine character (Unlawful belligerents).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

Remember, ANYONE (HoAP or not) that owe some loyalty and allegiance to the Solemn Declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, recorded in the Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee (A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948), --- or --- the Palestinian National Charter --- or --- the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) --- or any similar tenant that promotes the idea that "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine;" --- or --- that "Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes" --- or --- "it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised" --- or --- "Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem" --- or --- "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors" --- is in violation of *Article 20* of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights *(ICCPR):  

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​
In effect, I see probable cause to believe that many Pro-HoAP and anti-Semitic personalities on social media demonstrating a depraved indifference to life, peace and security, when they suggest that:

•  It is totally legal and proper to conduct hostile actions against Israel; --- when it is clearly contrary to the ICCPR (International Law).
•  Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence is lawful and morally just when directed against Israel.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does Israel even allow the Palestinian squatters to remain where they are, let alone make peace offerings to to them, build a security fence & grant their demand for Jew free land, only to be thanked with hatred, jihads & rocket missiles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The squatters are the Jews who arrived from elsewhere, from other continents and stole the land from the native Christians and Muslims.  Let's get that straight first.
Click to expand...


OMG!  I didn't know that.  And here I actually believed Solomon's Temple existed long before Christian & Muslim Palestinians.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors what you taught me & those Zionists who also believe that.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al
> 
> Climb down off your high horse before you get a nose bleed.
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> DEROGATIONS
> *ARTICLE 5 [ Link ] *
> 
> Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
> Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
> In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would agree that the Germans were justified in killing French Jews for their involvement in the killing of German security forces.  They were convicted by military tribunals after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T_he Nazis arrested Resistance members mainly Communists or Jews arrested in reprisal for the death of German soldiers – and sentenced them to death in military tribunals. The convicted were then driven by military lorries to the isolated fort, west of Paris.
> 
> First pictures of French Resistance killed by Nazi firing squad
> _
> In fact, the German officers and non-commissioned officers involved in these affairs were tried and sentenced to death by French courts after the war.  How can that be Rocco?  Under your interpretation of the law of occupation, they were justified in putting the perpetrators to death.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sometime the Germans did thing the right way, and some times they did not.  However, your example is wring here.  I believe this is an example of an unauthorized reprisal.  But not having all the facts, I'm not sure of the the legal solution.
> 
> You will find that the HoAP lose their "Protected People" status when they raise arms against the Occupation Force.
> 
> PLEASE! read the law of the time. (The law today is slightly different.)
> Under the traditional laws of war, jus in bello, *a fundamental distinction was drawn between "lawful belligerency" and "unlawful belligerency.*" Individuals were considered to be "lawful combatants," accepting the burdens, and entitled to the benefits, of the laws of war (in particular, the right to be treated as prisoners-of-war upon defeat or capture), if they served in the armed forces -- regular or militia -- of a sovereign state. In addition, four criteria, incorporated into Article I of the 1907 Annex to the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, were required to be satisfied before lawful belligerency was established:
> Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:--
> (1) To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> 
> (2) To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
> 
> (3) To carry arms openly; and
> 
> (4) To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war [7].​*Individuals who took up arms, or joined an armed force, that did not meet these criteria, were considered to be unlawful belligerents, and were subject to a severe legal regime.*  Unlawful belligerents were considered to be a threat to every civilized state and individuals falling into this category, including spies, saboteurs, and "guerillas" could be summarily punished, up to and including the death penalty. This rule can be traced well back into the 17th century and before.​Most of the WWII Resistance Fighters were of a covert and clandestine character (Unlawful belligerents).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The French Resistance had no uniforms, no distinctive emblems and carried out unconventional warfare bombing or otherwise killing both German and Vichy targets.  However, after the war, the Vichy and Germans that convicted and carried out punishment against said "unlawful belligerents" were tracked down were summarily judges and usually put to death.  How does that work Rocco?  If it was so legal to punish "unlawful belligerents" why were the Vichy and Germans pursued and punished?  You haven't a clue, dummy.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does Israel even allow the Palestinian squatters to remain where they are, let alone make peace offerings to to them, build a security fence & grant their demand for Jew free land, only to be thanked with hatred, jihads & rocket missiles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The squatters are the Jews who arrived from elsewhere, from other continents and stole the land from the native Christians and Muslims.  Let's get that straight first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  I didn't know that.  And here I actually believed Solomon's Temple existed long before Christian & Muslim Palestinians.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors what you taught me & those Zionists who also believe that.
Click to expand...


Seriously Monte. That God given piece of wood in your head to think with is making you a laughing stock.  But hey, we thank you for that.


----------



## montelatici

That's old moron, 


MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does Israel even allow the Palestinian squatters to remain where they are, let alone make peace offerings to to them, build a security fence & grant their demand for Jew free land, only to be thanked with hatred, jihads & rocket missiles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The squatters are the Jews who arrived from elsewhere, from other continents and stole the land from the native Christians and Muslims.  Let's get that straight first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  I didn't know that.  And here I actually believed Solomon's Temple existed long before Christian & Muslim Palestinians.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors what you taught me & those Zionists who also believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously Monte. That God given piece of wood in your head to think with is making you a laughing stock.  But hey, we thank you for that.
Click to expand...


No one take you seriously, dimwit.  When you are perplexed by facts, you project, knowing deep down you are the laughing stock with nothing to add to the conversation except for propaganda.  But, thanks for the laughs.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> That's old moron,
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does Israel even allow the Palestinian squatters to remain where they are, let alone make peace offerings to to them, build a security fence & grant their demand for Jew free land, only to be thanked with hatred, jihads & rocket missiles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The squatters are the Jews who arrived from elsewhere, from other continents and stole the land from the native Christians and Muslims.  Let's get that straight first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  I didn't know that.  And here I actually believed Solomon's Temple existed long before Christian & Muslim Palestinians.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors what you taught me & those Zionists who also believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously Monte. That God given piece of wood in your head to think with is making you a laughing stock.  But hey, we thank you for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one take you seriously, dimwit.  When you are perplexed by facts, you project, knowing deep down you are the laughing stock with nothing to add to the conversation except for propaganda.  But, thanks for the laughs.
Click to expand...


Aw c'mon,, lets be good sports.  What's the latest non propaganda news from the Palestine Monitor?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

Again you demonstrate you have a very limited knowledge; even about your own example _(Oradour-sur-Glane in France --- and ---  the reprisal against Italian partisans at the Ardeatine Caves in Italy)_.

You are just trying your best to make a case that I somehow support Nazi Reprisals and Hostage Operations as a means to discredit me; to try and make a relationship between HoAP and the WWII Partisans; which is and insult to those EU Hero's that fought on the side of the Allied Powers.  And simultaneously you are trying your best to prove that crime against the Israelis are somehow illegal and Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence directed against the Israelis in contravention to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* is somehow legal for the terrorist connected Arab Palestinians.



montelatici said:


> The French Resistance had no uniforms, no distinctive emblems and carried out unconventional warfare bombing or otherwise killing both German and Vichy targets.  However, after the war, the Vichy and Germans that convicted and carried out punishment against said "unlawful belligerents" were tracked down were summarily judges and usually put to death.  How does that work Rocco?  If it was so legal to punish "unlawful belligerents" why were the Vichy and Germans pursued and punished?  You haven't a clue, dummy.


*(COMMENT)*

If I am a "dummy" for trying to argue in favor of honesty, integrity, and good moral judgment --- wherein I don't support the century long history of past criminal behavior and incitement to violence, ---- THEN I'll be the dummy any time.  Your constant justification to commit these heinous crimes goes to demonstrate why the Arab Palestinian has been the poster child for terrorism and immorality.  It explains (in part) why the Arab model follows the path it does.  They love death and destruction.

The trial was about "hostages" (Rule 96) – held and executed as reprisals --- Fair-Trail issues (Rule 100) --- and prohibition that no one may be convicted of an offense except on the basis of individual criminal responsibility (Rule 102).   While you might have read a news or academic account of these two event, your comprehension of the specific material is not understood by you.  You will note that there were many, many, many clandestine and covert operatives that were killed between 1939 and May 1945 _(even in the Special Operations Executive)_, not very many war tribunals were held.  

You can believe what you want, and you can spread false and misleading information all you want, but make no mistake, the International Law that I have cited is real and unmistakable. 

*(SIDEBAR)*

I have to wonder how, anyone could considered themselves among the morally justified to support kidnap and murder; armed attacks and suicide bombings; the direct deadly assault on civilian gathers (Weddings, Restaurants, Recreational Beaches, etc); hijackings of civilian aircraft; piracy; the cowardly murder of cripples, the elderly, children and teenagers; the open attack on an Olympic Team,   There has been few cultures in the world that have demonstrated over such a an extended period wherein their fear and excess self-concern override what is a standards of right or exceptionally good conduct; falling completely outside the domain of morality and honor.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Let me tell you something dingbat.  You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis.  You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.

So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them.  You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.


----------



## Eloy

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al
> 
> Climb down off your high horse before you get a nose bleed.
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> DEROGATIONS
> *ARTICLE 5 [ Link ] *
> 
> Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
> Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
> In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would agree that the Germans were justified in killing French Jews for their involvement in the killing of German security forces.  They were convicted by military tribunals after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T_he Nazis arrested Resistance members mainly Communists or Jews arrested in reprisal for the death of German soldiers – and sentenced them to death in military tribunals. The convicted were then driven by military lorries to the isolated fort, west of Paris.
> 
> First pictures of French Resistance killed by Nazi firing squad
> _
> In fact, the German officers and non-commissioned officers involved in these affairs were tried and sentenced to death by French courts after the war.  How can that be Rocco?  Under your interpretation of the law of occupation, they were justified in putting the perpetrators to death.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Sometime the Germans did thing the right way, and some times they did not.  However, your example is wring here.  I believe this is an example of an unauthorized reprisal.  But not having all the facts, I'm not sure of the the legal solution.
> 
> You will find that the HoAP lose their "Protected People" status when they raise arms against the Occupation Force.
> 
> PLEASE! read the law of the time. (The law today is slightly different.)
> Under the traditional laws of war, jus in bello, *a fundamental distinction was drawn between "lawful belligerency" and "unlawful belligerency.*" Individuals were considered to be "lawful combatants," accepting the burdens, and entitled to the benefits, of the laws of war (in particular, the right to be treated as prisoners-of-war upon defeat or capture), if they served in the armed forces -- regular or militia -- of a sovereign state. In addition, four criteria, incorporated into Article I of the 1907 Annex to the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, were required to be satisfied before lawful belligerency was established:
> Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:--
> (1) To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
> 
> (2) To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
> 
> (3) To carry arms openly; and
> 
> (4) To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war [7].​*Individuals who took up arms, or joined an armed force, that did not meet these criteria, were considered to be unlawful belligerents, and were subject to a severe legal regime.*  Unlawful belligerents were considered to be a threat to every civilized state and individuals falling into this category, including spies, saboteurs, and "guerillas" could be summarily punished, up to and including the death penalty. This rule can be traced well back into the 17th century and before.​Most of the WWII Resistance Fighters were of a covert and clandestine character (Unlawful belligerents).
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The French Resistance had no uniforms, no distinctive emblems and carried out unconventional warfare bombing or otherwise killing both German and Vichy targets.  However, after the war, the Vichy and Germans that convicted and carried out punishment against said "unlawful belligerents" were tracked down were summarily judges and usually put to death.  How does that work Rocco?  If it was so legal to punish "unlawful belligerents" why were the Vichy and Germans pursued and punished?  You haven't a clue, dummy.
Click to expand...








If you need to ask then you are not as intelligent as you brag. The victors dictate the rules and they set the punishments under those rules. So if they find one instance of a breach in IHL they will exploit it and make object lessons of the culprits. In this case note not a Jew was involved in bringing the case to court, just the French and their allies.

You can tell when monte is losing the plot and having one of his meltdowns he starts being abusive and arrogant as only an islamocatholic scum can be. He claims he is the fount of all knowledge and no one else knows as much as he does, right up until the evidence is racked up against him and presented to the board. Then he spits out his dummy and has a spoilt brat moment


montelatici said:


> That's old moron,
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does Israel even allow the Palestinian squatters to remain where they are, let alone make peace offerings to to them, build a security fence & grant their demand for Jew free land, only to be thanked with hatred, jihads & rocket missiles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The squatters are the Jews who arrived from elsewhere, from other continents and stole the land from the native Christians and Muslims.  Let's get that straight first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  I didn't know that.  And here I actually believed Solomon's Temple existed long before Christian & Muslim Palestinians.  Please excuse me while I go tell my neighbors what you taught me & those Zionists who also believe that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously Monte. That God given piece of wood in your head to think with is making you a laughing stock.  But hey, we thank you for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one take you seriously, dimwit.  When you are perplexed by facts, you project, knowing deep down you are the laughing stock with nothing to add to the conversation except for propaganda.  But, thanks for the laughs.
Click to expand...












 Meltdown moment, expect the Wagner to be played


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Let me tell you something dingbat.  You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis.  You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.
> 
> So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them.  You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.








 Meltdown again because monte has been proven to be a complete idiot in front of his peers.  Then he tries to justify his anti Jew hatred by claiming thousands of palestinians are killed in reprisals when the facts show they are killed because they are human shields.
 You are the hypocrite as you quote laws that either dont exist or dont say what you claim. In this case the law is very clear any building used for military/terrorist actions is no longer protected. No mention of sons, cousins or other relatives is there.

 So go and get a life, stopbeing a spoilt brat or face being reported for your breaches of the rules until you learn to act like an adult


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.
Click to expand...








 Another moron that reads the law and then ignores what it says. The law says that the occupation lasts as long as it lasts until there has been no violence for 1 year and then international law kicks in and the Israelis must leave. If the arab muslims start any violence then they will be invaded as a defensive measure and occupied all over again

So as you see the solution is in the hands of the arab muslims who can bring an end to the occupation at any time. The solution is that simple, so why dont they do it ?

When Israel occupied the land that law was not in place so does not count, you always use international laws retroactively when you are losing the argument.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Let me tell you something dingbat.  You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis.  You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.
> 
> So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them.  You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.



The obvious response to your whining about the deaths of Islamic terrorists is: Islamic terrorism carries consequences.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..

At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.

Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.

This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..
> 
> At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.
> 
> Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.
> 
> This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.
Click to expand...


Israel is a foreign military power? Come on. Fess' up. You read that slogan on the internet somewhere and thought you would copy and paste it here, right?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..
> 
> At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.
> 
> Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.
> 
> This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.
Click to expand...










 So once again you deny the Jews their rights under international law to their national home. The land is for the Jewish national home and to deny that is to deny the Jews all their rights under all international laws, all treaties and all UN resolutions.

 The attack came in 1967 when Egypt closed the straits as an act of war accepted by the UN as being the case. Then the invasion force from Jordan and Syria mobilising to wipe out the Jews and steal their lands. A pity the arab muslims lost once more and ran like cowards from the lesser Jewish forces.

Israel took full military and civil administration control and set in place the Geneva convention rules of occupation.

So why haven't you posted these rules and designated the parts that Israel is in breach of, or is this because you cant due to them being non existent and the Jews not being in breach of them

All this so you could claim your fantasy phase of Settler colonialism that only exists on the hate sites and your world of substance abuse


----------



## Phoenall

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..
> 
> At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.
> 
> Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.
> 
> This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel is a foreign military power? Come on. Fess' up. You read that slogan on the internet somewhere and thought you would copy and paste it here, right?
Click to expand...








 Didnt you know that Israel is really the capital of Khazaria and was the birthplace of zionist wars against unarmed arab muslim women and children. The armies were led by the military strategist Sampson, the navy by admiral Jonah and the air force by wing commander Moses


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something dingbat.  You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis.  You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.
> 
> So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them.  You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious response to your whining about the deaths of Islamic terrorists is: Islamic terrorism carries consequences.
Click to expand...


3 year old terrorists you disgusting piece of crap.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something dingbat.  You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis.  You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.
> 
> So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them.  You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious response to your whining about the deaths of Islamic terrorists is: Islamic terrorism carries consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 year old terrorists you disgusting piece of crap.
Click to expand...


Now now Monte.  No need to get so vicious with your comments ("piece of crap").  Have you considered taking a course in anger management?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something dingbat.  You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis.  You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.
> 
> So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them.  You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious response to your whining about the deaths of Islamic terrorists is: Islamic terrorism carries consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 year old terrorists you disgusting piece of crap.
Click to expand...







 YES as their mothers strapped the bombs to them as they wheeled them into Israeli hospitals visiting their fathers who had been shot while being terrorists.


----------



## Phoenall

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something dingbat.  You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis.  You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.
> 
> So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them.  You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious response to your whining about the deaths of Islamic terrorists is: Islamic terrorism carries consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 year old terrorists you disgusting piece of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now now Monte.  No need to get so vicious with your comments ("piece of crap").  Have you considered taking a course in anger management?
Click to expand...







 He wrote the book that became the definitive study work


----------



## RoccoR

Eloy,  et al,

Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.



Eloy said:


> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.


*(QUESTIONS)*

••  When is a war over?

**  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?

*(COMMENT)*

This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:

••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name. 
••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established. 
••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip. ​
So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you something dingbat.  You justify and support a long history of past and present criminal behavior on the part of the Israelis, including reprisal killings by when thousands of Palestinian women and children are killed in places such as Gaza while railing at the killing of a few dozen Israelis.  You are a hypocrite, and a murderous one at that. You justify and support Israeli collective punishment when innocent people's homes are destroyed because of the acts of a son, cousin or other relative, completely contrary to Rule 100 and Rule 102, that you cite.
> 
> So get off your high horse you dummy, you may fool some of the people, but not all of them.  You don't know what you are talking about and are just a conditioned propagandist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious response to your whining about the deaths of Islamic terrorists is: Islamic terrorism carries consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 year old terrorists you disgusting piece of crap.
Click to expand...

Oh, such pretentious melodrama.

It's the Cult of islamic ideology that breeds a population so willing to throw their young onto the raging bonfire of hatred.  And, it's Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers like you who cheer them on.

Just be honest, sweetie. You ache for the death of "Pal'istanians" as that is the vehicle that drives your insensate Jew hatreds.


----------



## Eloy

RoccoR said:


> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  When is a war over?
> 
> **  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.
> 
> ••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:
> 
> ••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
> All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established.
> ••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> •∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
> •∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
> •§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.​
> So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?
> 
> Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.
> 
> Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  When is a war over?
> 
> **  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.
> 
> ••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:
> 
> ••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
> All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established.
> ••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> •∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
> •∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
> •§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.​
> So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?
> 
> Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.
> 
> Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.
Click to expand...









 But 242 never said that did it, and that is just the definition used by islamonazi's and the hate sites. The real definition is the one produced by the authors that spells out what each clause means ?


United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  When is a war over?
> 
> **  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.
> 
> ••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:
> 
> ••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
> All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established.
> ••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> •∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
> •∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
> •§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.​
> So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?
> 
> Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.
> 
> Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.
Click to expand...


Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories".  The language was deliberately ambiguous.  In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.



242 requires:  

_(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;_


242 has been largely satisfied. Remember, 242 has nothing at all to do with the Arab Palestinians.  (This can not be stressed enough).  It only concerns itself with the States in the area.  Most of the States in the area (Israel, Jordan and Egypt) have peace treaties and have thus formally terminated all claims or states of belligerency.  The other States (Lebanon and Syria) still have on-going border disputes with Israel.  

Israel has satisfied the requirement to withdraw armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict, in terms of the West Bank, as evidenced by Jordan's acceptance of a peace treaty with her.  The Golan Heights is the only territory still under question.  

Israel's dispute with "Palestine" has nothing at all to do with 242 and is addressed separately in the Oslo Accords, which demand a negotiated treaty between those two parties.


----------



## Shusha

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories".  The language was deliberately ambiguous.



I would go further than that.  The language was designed to deliberately NOT require Israels' withdrawal from all the territories.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..
> 
> At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.
> 
> Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.
> 
> This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So once again you deny the Jews their rights under international law to their national home. The land is for the Jewish national home and to deny that is to deny the Jews all their rights under all international laws, all treaties and all UN resolutions.
> 
> The attack came in 1967 when Egypt closed the straits as an act of war accepted by the UN as being the case. Then the invasion force from Jordan and Syria mobilising to wipe out the Jews and steal their lands. A pity the arab muslims lost once more and ran like cowards from the lesser Jewish forces.
> 
> Israel took full military and civil administration control and set in place the Geneva convention rules of occupation.
> 
> So why haven't you posted these rules and designated the parts that Israel is in breach of, or is this because you cant due to them being non existent and the Jews not being in breach of them
> 
> All this so you could claim your fantasy phase of Settler colonialism that only exists on the hate sites and your world of substance abuse
Click to expand...

The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to
the occupying power. *As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced*
*to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces*
*or give military assistance to the occupying power. *

Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. * Their*
*private property is protected.*

*Collective penalties, measures of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.*

*The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed*
*by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power*
*and the authorities of the occupied territory.* This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which 
might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

*Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian*
*population from occupied territory are prohibited.*

*The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian*
*population into the territory it occupies.*

After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed
forces who have not surrendered, *organized resistance movements and*
*genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.*

*Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing infor-*
*mation or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part*
*in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected*
*against attack.*

As legitimate State authority has now passed into the hands of the occu-
pying power,* the latter must take all measures in its power to restore*
*and ensure, as far as possible, law and order and public safety.*
As a rule, *the occupying power must allow the territory to be adminis-*
*tered as before. It must respect the laws in force in the territory before*
*occupation unless it is absolutely prevented from doing so. *

The occupying power does not acquire ownership of public buildings,
real estate and agricultural estates in occupied territory.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

*Property used for religious purposes, for charity, education, or the arts*
*and sciences,* must be treated as private property even if it belongs to
the State. Here the law is quite clear. *It is forbidden to seize, destroy or*
*wilfully damage such property.* The same applies to historical monuments
and cultural property.

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy
real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private
persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative
organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary
by military operations.

The prohibition does not cover service in the civilian police force, whose
duty is to maintain law and order. Here too, though, *it would be wrong*
*for the occupying power to use members of the population to fight the*
*resistance, even in a policing role. *

The law refers to basic needs and to other
supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population in the occupied
territory. It specifies basic food and medical supplies as well as clothing,
bedding and means of shelter.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf


----------



## Phoenall

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  When is a war over?
> 
> **  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.
> 
> ••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:
> 
> ••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
> All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established.
> ••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> •∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
> •∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
> •§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.​
> So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?
> 
> Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.
> 
> Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories".  The language was deliberately ambiguous.  In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.
Click to expand...







 Correct and the arab muslims by refusing to lay down their weapons did not comply and are still in breach to this day. Far too many people ignore the sections aimed at the arab muslims, and also ignore the fact that palestine and palestinians are not on the agenda


P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..
> 
> At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.
> 
> Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.
> 
> This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So once again you deny the Jews their rights under international law to their national home. The land is for the Jewish national home and to deny that is to deny the Jews all their rights under all international laws, all treaties and all UN resolutions.
> 
> The attack came in 1967 when Egypt closed the straits as an act of war accepted by the UN as being the case. Then the invasion force from Jordan and Syria mobilising to wipe out the Jews and steal their lands. A pity the arab muslims lost once more and ran like cowards from the lesser Jewish forces.
> 
> Israel took full military and civil administration control and set in place the Geneva convention rules of occupation.
> 
> So why haven't you posted these rules and designated the parts that Israel is in breach of, or is this because you cant due to them being non existent and the Jews not being in breach of them
> 
> All this so you could claim your fantasy phase of Settler colonialism that only exists on the hate sites and your world of substance abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to
> the occupying power. *As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced*
> *to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces*
> *or give military assistance to the occupying power. *
> 
> Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
> family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. * Their*
> *private property is protected.*
> 
> *Collective penalties, measures of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.*
> 
> *The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed*
> *by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power*
> *and the authorities of the occupied territory.* This is intended to prevent
> national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which
> might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.
> 
> *Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian*
> *population from occupied territory are prohibited.*
> 
> *The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian*
> *population into the territory it occupies.*
> 
> After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed
> forces who have not surrendered, *organized resistance movements and*
> *genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.*
> 
> *Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing infor-*
> *mation or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part*
> *in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected*
> *against attack.*
> 
> As legitimate State authority has now passed into the hands of the occu-
> pying power,* the latter must take all measures in its power to restore*
> *and ensure, as far as possible, law and order and public safety.*
> As a rule, *the occupying power must allow the territory to be adminis-*
> *tered as before. It must respect the laws in force in the territory before*
> *occupation unless it is absolutely prevented from doing so. *
> 
> The occupying power does not acquire ownership of public buildings,
> real estate and agricultural estates in occupied territory.
> 
> Private property cannot be confiscated.
> 
> *Property used for religious purposes, for charity, education, or the arts*
> *and sciences,* must be treated as private property even if it belongs to
> the State. Here the law is quite clear. *It is forbidden to seize, destroy or*
> *wilfully damage such property.* The same applies to historical monuments
> and cultural property.
> 
> Destruction of property.
> The occupying power is not allowed to destroy
> real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private
> persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative
> organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary
> by military operations.
> 
> The prohibition does not cover service in the civilian police force, whose
> duty is to maintain law and order. Here too, though, *it would be wrong*
> *for the occupying power to use members of the population to fight the*
> *resistance, even in a policing role. *
> 
> The law refers to basic needs and to other
> supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population in the occupied
> territory. It specifies basic food and medical supplies as well as clothing,
> bedding and means of shelter.
> 
> https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
Click to expand...






 This is not the law of occupation at all it is a school lesson by the ICRC. It uses international law that never existed and then uses international law that does out of context and retroactively. The only law of occupation is to be found in the Geneva conventions so try referencing to that and that alone


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  When is a war over?
> 
> **  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.
> 
> ••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:
> 
> ••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
> All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established.
> ••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> •∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
> •∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
> •§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.​
> So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?
> 
> Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.
> 
> Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories".  The language was deliberately ambiguous.  In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct and the arab muslims by refusing to lay down their weapons did not comply and are still in breach to this day. Far too many people ignore the sections aimed at the arab muslims, and also ignore the fact that palestine and palestinians are not on the agenda
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice duck.
> 
> BTW, you can't claim, self defense against occupied territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..
> 
> At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.
> 
> Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.
> 
> This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So once again you deny the Jews their rights under international law to their national home. The land is for the Jewish national home and to deny that is to deny the Jews all their rights under all international laws, all treaties and all UN resolutions.
> 
> The attack came in 1967 when Egypt closed the straits as an act of war accepted by the UN as being the case. Then the invasion force from Jordan and Syria mobilising to wipe out the Jews and steal their lands. A pity the arab muslims lost once more and ran like cowards from the lesser Jewish forces.
> 
> Israel took full military and civil administration control and set in place the Geneva convention rules of occupation.
> 
> So why haven't you posted these rules and designated the parts that Israel is in breach of, or is this because you cant due to them being non existent and the Jews not being in breach of them
> 
> All this so you could claim your fantasy phase of Settler colonialism that only exists on the hate sites and your world of substance abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to
> the occupying power. *As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced*
> *to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces*
> *or give military assistance to the occupying power. *
> 
> Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
> family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. * Their*
> *private property is protected.*
> 
> *Collective penalties, measures of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.*
> 
> *The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed*
> *by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power*
> *and the authorities of the occupied territory.* This is intended to prevent
> national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which
> might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.
> 
> *Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian*
> *population from occupied territory are prohibited.*
> 
> *The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian*
> *population into the territory it occupies.*
> 
> After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed
> forces who have not surrendered, *organized resistance movements and*
> *genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.*
> 
> *Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing infor-*
> *mation or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part*
> *in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected*
> *against attack.*
> 
> As legitimate State authority has now passed into the hands of the occu-
> pying power,* the latter must take all measures in its power to restore*
> *and ensure, as far as possible, law and order and public safety.*
> As a rule, *the occupying power must allow the territory to be adminis-*
> *tered as before. It must respect the laws in force in the territory before*
> *occupation unless it is absolutely prevented from doing so. *
> 
> The occupying power does not acquire ownership of public buildings,
> real estate and agricultural estates in occupied territory.
> 
> Private property cannot be confiscated.
> 
> *Property used for religious purposes, for charity, education, or the arts*
> *and sciences,* must be treated as private property even if it belongs to
> the State. Here the law is quite clear. *It is forbidden to seize, destroy or*
> *wilfully damage such property.* The same applies to historical monuments
> and cultural property.
> 
> Destruction of property.
> The occupying power is not allowed to destroy
> real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private
> persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative
> organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary
> by military operations.
> 
> The prohibition does not cover service in the civilian police force, whose
> duty is to maintain law and order. Here too, though, *it would be wrong*
> *for the occupying power to use members of the population to fight the*
> *resistance, even in a policing role. *
> 
> The law refers to basic needs and to other
> supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population in the occupied
> territory. It specifies basic food and medical supplies as well as clothing,
> bedding and means of shelter.
> 
> https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not the law of occupation at all it is a school lesson by the ICRC. It uses international law that never existed and then uses international law that does out of context and retroactively. The only law of occupation is to be found in the Geneva conventions so try referencing to that and that alone
Click to expand...

Not true, of course.

The first codification of international rules relating to occupation can be
found in the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907, which themselves
were built on customary international law. Many lessons drawn from
the crimes committed in the occupied territories of Europe and the Far
East during the Second World War were subsequently incorporated into
the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention, which codifies a substantial part of 
modern international law applicable to occupation.​


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore and Elroy, et al,

First, a cartoon like handbook, written on the 8th Grade Level, is not the same as the authority documents I presented. 

The Articles of the actual law (GCIV +) trump your interpretation of the handbook.  The handbook may say that a Resistance is possible, but it still must follow the very same rules as any other armed force.​
Second, It is much better to subscribe to the Ideas and authority of the Authors of Resolution 242.  The will tell you that the Resolution does not say what you think it says.

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately.
The resolution does not explicitly require that Israel withdraw to the lines that it occupied on June 5, 1967, before the outbreak of the war.​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> First, a cartoon like handbook, written on the 8th Grade Level, is not the same as the authority documents I presented.


So they used fake information. .


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Did I say that?  No!  You are trying to challenge my discussion by suggesting I lied...



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, a cartoon like handbook, written on the 8th Grade Level, is not the same as the authority documents I presented.
> 
> 
> 
> So they used fake information. .
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The handbook is not written to singularly support the discussion we are having.   Make no mistake, the 8th Grade Handbook is accurate as far as it goes; but is not intended to be used to support those that ARE suspected of, or engaged in, activities hostile to the security of the State _(Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence)_.   Such individual persons or groups shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) as would, if exercised in the favor of to the security of State of Israel.  This is spelled out in Article 5, GCIV.

The general opinion is that convention does not forbid fighting without an official uniform. However, if the combatant (or partisan) does not comply with the provisions of Articles 1, 2 or 3 of the 1907 Hague Regulation, this same combatant (or partisan) cannot claim any of the protections of The Hague Regulation or that of the Fourth Geneva Convention. 

There is a big difference between:

•  "inhabitants of a territory which HAS NOT BEEN occupied" (Article 2, Hague Regulation)​And that of:

•  Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters that operate in the shadows, from densely populated areas, addressed by the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) which specifically reaffirmed the distinction between "lawful" and "unlawful" combatants, where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.​
The level at which the discussion has ascended certainly is much different from that of the handbook.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Did I say that?  No!  You are trying to challenge my discussion by suggesting I lied...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, a cartoon like handbook, written on the 8th Grade Level, is not the same as the authority documents I presented.
> 
> 
> 
> So they used fake information. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The handbook is not written to singularly support the discussion we are having.   Make no mistake, the 8th Grade Handbook is accurate as far as it goes; but is not intended to be used to support those that ARE suspected of, or engaged in, activities hostile to the security of the State _(Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence)_.   Such individual persons or groups shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) as would, if exercised in the favor of to the security of State of Israel.  This is spelled out in Article 5, GCIV.
> 
> The general opinion is that convention does not forbid fighting without an official uniform. However, if the combatant (or partisan) does not comply with the provisions of Articles 1, 2 or 3 of the 1907 Hague Regulation, this same combatant (or partisan) cannot claim any of the protections of The Hague Regulation or that of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
> 
> There is a big difference between:
> 
> •  "inhabitants of a territory which HAS NOT BEEN occupied" (Article 2, Hague Regulation)​And that of:
> 
> •  Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters that operate in the shadows, from densely populated areas, addressed by the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) which specifically reaffirmed the distinction between "lawful" and "unlawful" combatants, where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.​
> The level at which the discussion has ascended certainly is much different from that of the handbook.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

My post was in response to the question of Israel's violations.

If you like, we could discuss The Palestinian's piddly little violations in response to Israel's massive violations.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, this is just camoflage in the dilution of the question.

Are Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) criminally accountable for:

•  Offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?
•  Guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons?​
The answer is yes!  Of course they are.  There is an entire section on how the detain and administer punish in the Geneva Convention.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Don't quibble.  The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied. 

AND the idea you submit that:  "This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism." These ideas are completely separate and independent.  There are many example in which one can point-out an OCCUPATION absent COLONIALISM and vise-versa.



P F Tinmore said:


> The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to the occupying power. *As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced **to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces or give military assistance to the occupying power.*


*(COMMENT)*

I do not see or recall any Israeli effort to conscript Arab Palestinians of the West Bank for the purpose of combating HoAP.  Can you point to the involuntary service for me?



P F Tinmore said:


> Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. * Their **private property is protected.*


*(COMMENT)*

I have not heard of the IDF, Border Police, or Security Services shaking-down Arab Palestinians for money, jewry or other precious assets.  I really don't see major or minor proterties taken outside those necessary for a security advantage.



P F Tinmore said:


> *  Collective penalties, measures of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.*


*(COMMENT)*

I've not seen a violation of this.  This is a protocol for the Palestinian Government that supports and praises 
Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters.

Each State has a duty to defend itself, it citizenry and sovereign integrity and independence.  Israel has all three and the burden of responsibility.  The Arab Palestinians have not yet reach the ability to protect anything of consequence.

The Israeli Occupying Power with the authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.



P F Tinmore said:


> *The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power*
> *and the authorities of the occupied territory.* This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, this is 100% correct.  You just don't make an agreement; that would preclude most Peace Treaties.




P F Tinmore said:


> * Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian *





P F Tinmore said:


> *population from occupied territory are prohibited.  The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.*


*(COMMENT)*

I have not observed this since the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) went into force.



P F Tinmore said:


> After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, *organized resistance movements and **genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.*


*(COMMENT)*

It may, and it must live with both the legal, economic and physical consequence of that decision.  




P F Tinmore said:


> *Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing information or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected against attack.*


*(COMMENT)*

A person is guilty of espionage, or of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offense which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offense were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The words "duty of allegiance" constitute an acknowledgment of the fundamental principle according to which the occupation does not sever the bond existing between the inhabitants and the conquered State. Protected persons must nevertheless obey legitimate orders issued by the Occupying Power.  (See COMMENTARY OF 1958)​


P F Tinmore said:


> As legitimate State authority has now passed into the hands of the occupying power,* the latter must take all measures in its power to restore **and ensure, as far as possible, law and order and public safety.  *As a rule, *the occupying power must allow the territory to be adminis**tered as before. It must respect the laws in force in the territory before*
> *occupation unless it is absolutely prevented from doing so. *


*(COMMENT)*

In many cases, the law (Jordanian and Egyptian) are many times more restrictive that Israeli law.  How were the Arab Palestinians in Black September treated?  How long do Egyptian protestors like the Muslim Brotherhood last in Egypt.

I can go on with each and every point you make, but I think you understand that you must give a little more thought to you position, then to just cut and paste an high-pocket training guide for Sergeants to train their squads.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.


Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.
Click to expand...

What does that mean, "Law free zone?"


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that mean, "Law free zone?"
Click to expand...


Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power


Israel claims that it does not occupy Palestine.

Do those rules apply to settler colonialism?

Or the attack phase before a proper occupation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that mean, "Law free zone?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.
Click to expand...

Must be. I have never seen them in court.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that mean, "Law free zone?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be. I have never seen them in court.
Click to expand...

Explain "Law free zone", Tinmore.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is just camoflage in the dilution of the question.
> 
> Are Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) criminally accountable for:
> 
> •  Offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?
> •  Guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons?​
> The answer is yes!  Of course they are.  There is an entire section on how the detain and administer punish in the Geneva Convention.
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Don't quibble.  The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.
> 
> AND the idea you submit that:  "This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism." These ideas are completely separate and independent.  There are many example in which one can point-out an OCCUPATION absent COLONIALISM and vise-versa.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to the occupying power. *As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced **to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces or give military assistance to the occupying power.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I do not see or recall any Israeli effort to conscript Arab Palestinians of the West Bank for the purpose of combating HoAP.  Can you point to the involuntary service for me?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. * Their **private property is protected.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have not heard of the IDF, Border Police, or Security Services shaking-down Arab Palestinians for money, jewry or other precious assets.  I really don't see major or minor proterties taken outside those necessary for a security advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *  Collective penalties, measures of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've not seen a violation of this.  This is a protocol for the Palestinian Government that supports and praises
> Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters.
> 
> Each State has a duty to defend itself, it citizenry and sovereign integrity and independence.  Israel has all three and the burden of responsibility.  The Arab Palestinians have not yet reach the ability to protect anything of consequence.
> 
> The Israeli Occupying Power with the authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power*
> *and the authorities of the occupied territory.* This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, this is 100% correct.  You just don't make an agreement; that would preclude most Peace Treaties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *population from occupied territory are prohibited.  The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have not observed this since the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) went into force.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, *organized resistance movements and **genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It may, and it must live with both the legal, economic and physical consequence of that decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing information or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected against attack.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A person is guilty of espionage, or of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offense which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offense were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> The words "duty of allegiance" constitute an acknowledgment of the fundamental principle according to which the occupation does not sever the bond existing between the inhabitants and the conquered State. Protected persons must nevertheless obey legitimate orders issued by the Occupying Power.  (See COMMENTARY OF 1958)​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> As legitimate State authority has now passed into the hands of the occupying power,* the latter must take all measures in its power to restore **and ensure, as far as possible, law and order and public safety.  *As a rule, *the occupying power must allow the territory to be adminis**tered as before. It must respect the laws in force in the territory before*
> *occupation unless it is absolutely prevented from doing so. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In many cases, the law (Jordanian and Egyptian) are many times more restrictive that Israeli law.  How were the Arab Palestinians in Black September treated?  How long do Egyptian protestors like the Muslim Brotherhood last in Egypt.
> 
> I can go on with each and every point you make, but I think you understand that you must give a little more thought to you position, then to just cut and paste an high-pocket training guide for Sergeants to train their squads.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. * Their private property is protected.
(COMMENT)*

I have not heard of the IDF, Border Police, or Security Services shaking-down Arab Palestinians for money, jewry or other precious assets. I really don't see major or minor proterties taken outside those necessary for a security advantage.​
Of course not. Israeli propaganda would not report such things.

The destruction of property and the theft of land is the most common. Israel has stolen things like farm equipment and solar panels. Israel even stole sewing machines, cloth, and finished clothing from a girl's orphanage. But destruction of private property is Israel's main gig.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that mean, "Law free zone?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be. I have never seen them in court.
Click to expand...


Courts and due process are not concepts that Islamic terrorists need to concern themselves with.

*Gaza: Hamas killed and tortured, says Amnesty*

Gaza: Hamas killed and tortured, says Amnesty - BBC News

Hamas forces in the Gaza Strip committed serious human rights abuses including abductions, torture and extra-judicial killings of Palestinian civilians in 2014, a report says.

And yes, according to our friend P F Tinmore: "Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. *Their private property is protected."*


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that mean, "Law free zone?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be. I have never seen them in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts and due process are not concepts that Islamic terrorists need to concern themselves with.
> 
> *Gaza: Hamas killed and tortured, says Amnesty*
> 
> Gaza: Hamas killed and tortured, says Amnesty - BBC News
> 
> Hamas forces in the Gaza Strip committed serious human rights abuses including abductions, torture and extra-judicial killings of Palestinian civilians in 2014, a report says.
> 
> And yes, according to our friend P F Tinmore: "Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. *Their private property is protected."*
Click to expand...

And the illegal government in the West Bank is worse. And Israel is worse yet.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

There are no significant violations



P F Tinmore said:


> My post was in response to the question of Israel's violations.
> 
> If you like, we could discuss The Palestinian's piddly little violations in response to Israel's massive violations.


*(COMMENT)*

Since 1950, when the Fourth Geneva Convention went into effect as binding, almost every single military engagement was a causal effect of the depraved indifference to human life by the radical and irrational Arab League leaders and the uncontrollable Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters they invented as proxy warriors opposing any Western Influences.

This horrific and barbaric comparisons of Arab Palestinian causality numbers, and the presentation of the children is contrived to incite emotions and fool outside observers.

The casual connection between the huge difference between the numbers of Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) is based in the fact that it is part of the Horrific and Barbaric HoAP leadership which intentionally placed Launch Sites and other C3I targets in the vicinity densely populated areas.  For the HoAP this strategy is a WIN-WIN.  If the Launch Site is not brought under counter-fire the HoAP win; it becomes a reusable site.  If the Launch Site is answered by counter-fire in a densely populated area, the HoAP win again; and get to parade the dead before the cameras and media.

Like a gambling casino in Las Vegas, at the end of the day, the House wins.

On the smaller scale, in comparison the the millions and millions of dollars the Casino makes, it is largely supported by the smaller players that loose a couple thousands at a time.  So it is with the impact of a few number of small time -- but very notable -- terrorist attack.  Whether it is the Palestinian attacker stabbing just a few random Israelis, or a few Palestinian terrorists that purposefully their cars into lethal weapons.   Of course there is the ever famous attack on the soft target like the family ambushed by Palestinian gunmen as they drove with their four children down the street.  Or when two Palestinian terrorists opened fire in the popular Sarona Market in Tel Aviv.

It is hard to say what the overall impact will be, but I don't think that the Israelis are too concerned anymore by the actions of the Heroic Martyrs that courageously hide behind densely populated areas or come-out only to attack unarmed women and children --- or kidnap and murder teenagers.

I'll tell you right now, you don't want to play that "we are the victim" with me.  You have more casualties simply because you put more people in the bullseye.  I have absolutely no sympathy what so ever for the most unproductive and cowardly culture in the world.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Did I say that?  No!  You are trying to challenge my discussion by suggesting I lied...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, a cartoon like handbook, written on the 8th Grade Level, is not the same as the authority documents I presented.
> 
> 
> 
> So they used fake information. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The handbook is not written to singularly support the discussion we are having.   Make no mistake, the 8th Grade Handbook is accurate as far as it goes; but is not intended to be used to support those that ARE suspected of, or engaged in, activities hostile to the security of the State _(Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence)_.   Such individual persons or groups shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) as would, if exercised in the favor of to the security of State of Israel.  This is spelled out in Article 5, GCIV.
> 
> The general opinion is that convention does not forbid fighting without an official uniform. However, if the combatant (or partisan) does not comply with the provisions of Articles 1, 2 or 3 of the 1907 Hague Regulation, this same combatant (or partisan) cannot claim any of the protections of The Hague Regulation or that of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
> 
> There is a big difference between:
> 
> •  "inhabitants of a territory which HAS NOT BEEN occupied" (Article 2, Hague Regulation)​And that of:
> 
> •  Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters that operate in the shadows, from densely populated areas, addressed by the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) which specifically reaffirmed the distinction between "lawful" and "unlawful" combatants, where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.​
> The level at which the discussion has ascended certainly is much different from that of the handbook.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My post was in response to the question of Israel's violations.
> 
> If you like, we could discuss The Palestinian's piddly little violations in response to Israel's massive violations.
Click to expand...


 Pal'istanian Islamic terrorism carries consequences.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Since 1950, when the Fourth Geneva Convention went into effect as binding, almost every single military engagement was a causal effect of the depraved indifference to human life by the radical and irrational Arab League leaders and the uncontrollable Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile, blah, blah, blah...


You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1950, when the Fourth Geneva Convention went into effect as binding, almost every single military engagement was a causal effect of the depraved indifference to human life by the radical and irrational Arab League leaders and the uncontrollable Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...


I don't know how a Palestinian teen knocking on a stranger's door, and then proceeding to stab a mother in front of her children, can be interpreted to mean defending oneself.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1950, when the Fourth Geneva Convention went into effect as binding, almost every single military engagement was a causal effect of the depraved indifference to human life by the radical and irrational Arab League leaders and the uncontrollable Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

Offensive gee-had is not a defensive measure.


----------



## Hossfly

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that mean, "Law free zone?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be. I have never seen them in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain "Law free zone", Tinmore.
Click to expand...

C'mon P F Tinmore   Don't be bashful


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hossfly said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean, "Law free zone?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be. I have never seen them in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain "Law free zone", Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C'mon P F Tinmore   Don't be bashful
Click to expand...

Accusation of international law violations have been flying around for decades.

I don't recall anyone ever going to court.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

EVERYONE, and I mean everyone has a right to defend oneself from harm from the immediate danger of another.



P F Tinmore said:


> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinian has worked hard are being a danger and menace to themselves and to the world community.

In the case related to the entanglement of the Arab Palestinian and the Israelis, the Arab Palestine hobbles themselves each time they strike-out at the Israelis.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean, "Law free zone?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be. I have never seen them in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain "Law free zone", Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C'mon P F Tinmore   Don't be bashful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Accusation of international law violations have been flying around for decades.
> 
> I don't recall anyone ever going to court.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. If someone commits international law violations then you kill the violators and you won't have to waste money and the courts time. Makes sense to me.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> EVERYONE, and I mean everyone has a right to defend oneself from harm from the immediate danger of another.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian has worked hard are being a danger and menace to themselves and to the world community.
> 
> In the case related to the entanglement of the Arab Palestinian and the Israelis, the Arab Palestine hobbles themselves each time they strike-out at the Israelis.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Palestinians aren't the only ones. Israel shoots itself in the foot time and time again. The attack on Lebanon. The attack on the flotilla. Time and time again in Gaza. And, of course there are all of those illegal settlements.

Every time Israel does something stupid, their support in the world moves over to the Palestinian side.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> EVERYONE, and I mean everyone has a right to defend oneself from harm from the immediate danger of another.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian has worked hard are being a danger and menace to themselves and to the world community.
> 
> In the case related to the entanglement of the Arab Palestinian and the Israelis, the Arab Palestine hobbles themselves each time they strike-out at the Israelis.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians aren't the only ones. Israel shoots itself in the foot time and time again. The attack on Lebanon. The attack on the flotilla. Time and time again in Gaza. And, of course there are all of those illegal settlements.
> 
> Every time Israel does something stupid, their support in the world moves over to the Palestinian side.
Click to expand...


I'm not so sure about that.

The Arab World’s Waning Sympathy for the Palestinians

[T]he Arab and Islamic world, which for years was at the forefront of pushing the notion that the Palestinian issue is the world’s number-one problem, is starting to get fed up with the Palestinians’ utter self-absorption at a time when so many Arabs and Muslims are suffering far worse. . . .


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> EVERYONE, and I mean everyone has a right to defend oneself from harm from the immediate danger of another.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian has worked hard are being a danger and menace to themselves and to the world community.
> 
> In the case related to the entanglement of the Arab Palestinian and the Israelis, the Arab Palestine hobbles themselves each time they strike-out at the Israelis.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians aren't the only ones. Israel shoots itself in the foot time and time again. The attack on Lebanon. The attack on the flotilla. Time and time again in Gaza. And, of course there are all of those illegal settlements.
> 
> Every time Israel does something stupid, their support in the world moves over to the Palestinian side.
Click to expand...

Again Tinmore. What "attacks" on Lebanon and the Turkish flotilla? Update us on those atrocities.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I know that Israel is NOT perfect.  Neither is America for that matter.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians aren't the only ones. Israel shoots itself in the foot time and time again. The attack on Lebanon. The attack on the flotilla. Time and time again in Gaza. And, of course there are all of those illegal settlements.
> 
> Every time Israel does something stupid, their support in the world moves over to the Palestinian side.


*(COMMENT)*

But in these two instances, you are barking-up the wrong tree.

•  Well, it is a matter of who you think was running the al-Bekka Valley at the time.  I think that even the Lebanese Military is afraid of Syrian supported Hezbollah.

•  The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade.  That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.​It was an intentional negative media  event. 

A friend of mine who just retired from the Navy said, it is had been up to him, he would have jammed all communications from the offending fleet and then dropped three MOABs disbursed across the Flotilla.  That is a little extreme, but there are several countries in the world that really don't care what the UN thinks.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Your friend is a murderous piece of shit, like you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> • The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
> It was an intentional negative media event.


Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> EVERYONE, and I mean everyone has a right to defend oneself from harm from the immediate danger of another.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian has worked hard are being a danger and menace to themselves and to the world community.
> 
> In the case related to the entanglement of the Arab Palestinian and the Israelis, the Arab Palestine hobbles themselves each time they strike-out at the Israelis.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians aren't the only ones. Israel shoots itself in the foot time and time again. The attack on Lebanon. The attack on the flotilla. Time and time again in Gaza. And, of course there are all of those illegal settlements.
> 
> Every time Israel does something stupid, their support in the world moves over to the Palestinian side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure about that.
> 
> The Arab World’s Waning Sympathy for the Palestinians
> 
> [T]he Arab and Islamic world, which for years was at the forefront of pushing the notion that the Palestinian issue is the world’s number-one problem, is starting to get fed up with the Palestinians’ utter self-absorption at a time when so many Arabs and Muslims are suffering far worse. . . .
Click to expand...

The main reason is that I was aiming to explain _change_. No nation other than Israel has ever experienced such a dramatic reversal in the way it is perceived and treated by the rest of the world.

Why I Changed My Mind about Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
> It was an intentional negative media event.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.
Click to expand...


I think you're a little befuddled about those events and circumstances. The flotilla gee-had never accomplished running the blockade as the flotilla'ists had intended. The silly publicity stunt actually diminished the credibility of the stunt'ers as the fiasco was simply a monumental waste of time. 

You have noticed that there was no repeat of that disaster, right?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> EVERYONE, and I mean everyone has a right to defend oneself from harm from the immediate danger of another.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian has worked hard are being a danger and menace to themselves and to the world community.
> 
> In the case related to the entanglement of the Arab Palestinian and the Israelis, the Arab Palestine hobbles themselves each time they strike-out at the Israelis.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians aren't the only ones. Israel shoots itself in the foot time and time again. The attack on Lebanon. The attack on the flotilla. Time and time again in Gaza. And, of course there are all of those illegal settlements.
> 
> Every time Israel does something stupid, their support in the world moves over to the Palestinian side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure about that.
> 
> The Arab World’s Waning Sympathy for the Palestinians
> 
> [T]he Arab and Islamic world, which for years was at the forefront of pushing the notion that the Palestinian issue is the world’s number-one problem, is starting to get fed up with the Palestinians’ utter self-absorption at a time when so many Arabs and Muslims are suffering far worse. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main reason is that I was aiming to explain _change_. No nation other than Israel has ever experienced such a dramatic reversal in the way it is perceived and treated by the rest of the world.
> 
> Why I Changed My Mind about Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism
Click to expand...


Why yes, you scoured the web and found an opinion piece. Aren't you clever. 

Yes, a dramatic reversal. In just a few decades, Israel has gone from delivering Arabs-Moslems humiliating defeats as a response to their wars of aggression and progressed to a technologically innovative, first world economy. 

The Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories are still clinging to the UN funded welfare fraud that perpetuates their invented national identity.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
> It was an intentional negative media event.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're a little befuddled about those events and circumstances. The flotilla gee-had never accomplished running the blockade as the flotilla'ists had intended. The silly publicity stunt actually diminished the credibility of the stunt'ers as the fiasco was simply a monumental waste of time.
> 
> You have noticed that there was no repeat of that disaster, right?
Click to expand...

October 5, 2016, 6:55 pm

No violence as Israel intercepts women’s boat to Gaza


----------



## Eloy

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  When is a war over?
> 
> **  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.
> 
> ••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:
> 
> ••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
> All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established.
> ••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> •∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
> •∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
> •§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.​
> So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?
> 
> Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.
> 
> Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories".  The language was deliberately ambiguous.  In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.
Click to expand...

You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> ... Israel even stole sewing machines, cloth, and finished clothing from a girl's orphanage. ....



This just reeks of "there is more to this story".

And it took no more than a few minutes to uncover the truth.  As usual, this is Team Palestine's appeal to emotions, playing the victim and claiming that Israel is hurting poor innocent female children in order to maximize the emotional effect and demonize Israel while neglecting to mention the CAUSE of the problem or the REASON why Israel is acting.  Team Palestine tries to trick us into thinking that Israel is acting in a vacuum out of sheer malice and evil rather correctly placing responsibility on Palestinian provocation.  

Turns out that the orphanage was shut down because the educators at the school had a program of incitement and racism and was teaching the girls to become martyrs.  With songs like this:

"Fasten your bomb belt oh would-be martyr and fill the square with blood ..."

And this is in Hebron, mind you.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.



Palestinians absolutely have the right to defend themselves.  As does every individual and every State.

The problem is that the Palestinians have nothing to defend themselves FROM.  Palestinians are not being attacked.  

The fact that they want political control over more land than they have does not, in any way, constitute an attack.


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> ...
> 242 has been largely satisfied.


No; it hasn't.



Shusha said:


> Remember, 242 has nothing at all to do with the Arab Palestinians.


Of course Resolution 242 is about the Palestinians; they are the people living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza for Pete's sake.



Shusha said:


> (This can not be stressed enough).


You would like that; making the Palestinians disappear. What a nerve you have.



Shusha said:


> It only concerns itself with the States in the area.  Most of the States in the area (Israel, Jordan and Egypt) have peace treaties and have thus formally terminated all claims or states of belligerency.


No land can be acquired through war and this is what the Israelis continue to do for the past half century.



Shusha said:


> The other States (Lebanon and Syria) still have on-going border disputes with Israel.


There is no war being carried on between Israel and Syria although the Israelis continue to illegally occupy the Golan Heights and likewise Israel is not at war with Lebanon although from time to time the Israelis have been involved in belligerence with its neighbor to the north.



Shusha said:


> Israel has satisfied the requirement to withdraw armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict, in terms of the West Bank, as evidenced by Jordan's acceptance of a peace treaty with her.  The Golan Heights is the only territory still under question.


No it hasn't. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza. A peace treaty between Jordan and Israel is not evidence that Israel ceased to occupy the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem was ceded by Jordan to the Palestinians, not the Israelis, in 1988, as you well know. It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.



Shusha said:


> Israel's dispute with "Palestine" has nothing at all to do with 242 and is addressed separately in the Oslo Accords, which demand a negotiated treaty between those two parties.


It has everything to do with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination who have gained nothing by chatting to the Israelis for half a century.


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.



Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."


----------



## Hossfly

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians absolutely have the right to defend themselves.  As does every individual and every State.
> 
> The problem is that the Palestinians have nothing to defend themselves FROM.  Palestinians are not being attacked.
> 
> The fact that they want political control over more land than they have does not, in any way, constitute an attack.
Click to expand...

You need to read up on Israel's settler colonialism.


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."
Click to expand...

Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.
Click to expand...


Feel free to point out to me where 242 mentions the Palestinians or the State of Palestine.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians absolutely have the right to defend themselves.  As does every individual and every State.
> 
> The problem is that the Palestinians have nothing to defend themselves FROM.  Palestinians are not being attacked.
> 
> The fact that they want political control over more land than they have does not, in any way, constitute an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read up on Israel's settler colonialism.
Click to expand...


No worries.  I am quite sure I am at LEAST as read-up as you are.  The presence of Jewish people in a place does NOT constitute an attack.


----------



## Shusha

Eloy 

Your last post went off on so many tangents I can't be bothered to address it point by point.  If there is anything specific you want to address, let me know.  I will say though, that I fully support Palestinian nationalism and self-determination on part of the territory.  Always have.


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out to me where 242 mentions the Palestinians or the State of Palestine.
Click to expand...

As the entire world is aware, the Palestinians were born and live in the occupied territories which Resolution 242 says should be vacated by the Israelis.


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy
> 
> Your last post went off on so many tangents I can't be bothered to address it point by point.  If there is anything specific you want to address, let me know.  I will say though, that I fully support Palestinian nationalism and self-determination on part of the territory.  Always have.


What I wrote was limited to addressing the errors of your previous post. Self-determination of the Palestinians in only part of occupied Palestine is not good enough.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  When is a war over?
> 
> **  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.
> 
> ••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:
> 
> ••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
> All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established.
> ••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> •∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
> •∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
> •§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.​
> So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?
> 
> Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.
> 
> Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories".  The language was deliberately ambiguous.  In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct and the arab muslims by refusing to lay down their weapons did not comply and are still in breach to this day. Far too many people ignore the sections aimed at the arab muslims, and also ignore the fact that palestine and palestinians are not on the agenda
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh this is one of the most ridiculous of claims that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has ever made.  It presupposes that hostile action --- taken by the HoAP --- against the Occupation Forces ---  are NOT crimes punishable by law, because it is somehow legal for the Palestinians to do so.
> 
> NOTHING could be further from the truth.
> 
> There is NO LAW against making a defense in the face of direct criminal activity.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> ••  Protected Persons _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power _*(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*_, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.
> 
> ••  Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where the HoAP is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against military installations of the Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests)*  or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (this includes all people), shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed..
> 
> ••  The Occupying Power *(in this case the Israeli controlled assets and interests) *may impose the death penalty on a Protected Person _*(in this case the HoAP)*_ in cases where such offenses were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> §  The two primary concerns of Bedouin law are incidents of bloodshed and issues regarding women. Bedouin customary law systems reflect the established beliefs and rules which predate the establishment of Islam. Understanding the Bedouin customary law is particularly important because customary laws govern most issues among the Bedouin people in tandem with the state justice system.
> 
> §  Prior to the Israeli Occupation, the West Bank was subject to Jordanian Law when it was abandon in the hands of the Israelis _(Terra Nullius)_.  While Israeli Law is used, cases are also considered in the shadow of Sharia Law and Jordanian Law as references.​
> For reference see:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> *ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]*​It should be remembered that Article 20 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
> (ICCPR), described as being “among the strongest condemnations of hate speech”, states:
> 
> 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
> 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that *constitutes incitement to* discrimination, *hostility or violence* shall be prohibited by law.​
> In the context that perpetuating the erroneous belief that it is some how "legal" for the HoAP to conduct hostile actions and violence against the Occupying Power, encourages the unenlightened to do so ... as done here in you comment ... is a violation of International Human Rights Law.
> 
> Of course I don't expect the HoAP to pay any attention to that, and will just go on believing that they are perfectly entitled and correct to encourage Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  But really, they are in violation of the ICCPR that entry into force 23 March 1976; just by encouraging such.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think people call Israel an occupation for the lack of a better term. It is an occupation in the sense that it is a foreign military power controlling land that is not theirs. You know that an occupation is preceded by the attack phase. This is military attacks on the territory. The occupation begins when the foreign forces take control of the civil administration and the local military is no longer in force..
> 
> At this point the territory is under civil control using local civil laws with few exceptions. Any attacks (resistance) against the occupation is a matter of civilian law enforcement not military action. Life under occupation should be fairly normal for the local population.
> 
> Although Palestine is under military control, Israel has not fully transitioned into the occupation phase. The rules of occupation include the rights of the occupying power (Article 68) and a number of obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of its obligations and restrictions. Israel has not become a "legal" occupation.
> 
> This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So once again you deny the Jews their rights under international law to their national home. The land is for the Jewish national home and to deny that is to deny the Jews all their rights under all international laws, all treaties and all UN resolutions.
> 
> The attack came in 1967 when Egypt closed the straits as an act of war accepted by the UN as being the case. Then the invasion force from Jordan and Syria mobilising to wipe out the Jews and steal their lands. A pity the arab muslims lost once more and ran like cowards from the lesser Jewish forces.
> 
> Israel took full military and civil administration control and set in place the Geneva convention rules of occupation.
> 
> So why haven't you posted these rules and designated the parts that Israel is in breach of, or is this because you cant due to them being non existent and the Jews not being in breach of them
> 
> All this so you could claim your fantasy phase of Settler colonialism that only exists on the hate sites and your world of substance abuse
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to
> the occupying power. *As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced*
> *to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces*
> *or give military assistance to the occupying power. *
> 
> Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour,
> family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. * Their*
> *private property is protected.*
> 
> *Collective penalties, measures of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.*
> 
> *The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed*
> *by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power*
> *and the authorities of the occupied territory.* This is intended to prevent
> national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which
> might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.
> 
> *Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian*
> *population from occupied territory are prohibited.*
> 
> *The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian*
> *population into the territory it occupies.*
> 
> After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed
> forces who have not surrendered, *organized resistance movements and*
> *genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.*
> 
> *Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing infor-*
> *mation or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part*
> *in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected*
> *against attack.*
> 
> As legitimate State authority has now passed into the hands of the occu-
> pying power,* the latter must take all measures in its power to restore*
> *and ensure, as far as possible, law and order and public safety.*
> As a rule, *the occupying power must allow the territory to be adminis-*
> *tered as before. It must respect the laws in force in the territory before*
> *occupation unless it is absolutely prevented from doing so. *
> 
> The occupying power does not acquire ownership of public buildings,
> real estate and agricultural estates in occupied territory.
> 
> Private property cannot be confiscated.
> 
> *Property used for religious purposes, for charity, education, or the arts*
> *and sciences,* must be treated as private property even if it belongs to
> the State. Here the law is quite clear. *It is forbidden to seize, destroy or*
> *wilfully damage such property.* The same applies to historical monuments
> and cultural property.
> 
> Destruction of property.
> The occupying power is not allowed to destroy
> real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private
> persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative
> organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary
> by military operations.
> 
> The prohibition does not cover service in the civilian police force, whose
> duty is to maintain law and order. Here too, though, *it would be wrong*
> *for the occupying power to use members of the population to fight the*
> *resistance, even in a policing role. *
> 
> The law refers to basic needs and to other
> supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population in the occupied
> territory. It specifies basic food and medical supplies as well as clothing,
> bedding and means of shelter.
> 
> https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not the law of occupation at all it is a school lesson by the ICRC. It uses international law that never existed and then uses international law that does out of context and retroactively. The only law of occupation is to be found in the Geneva conventions so try referencing to that and that alone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true, of course.
> 
> The first codification of international rules relating to occupation can be
> found in the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907, which themselves
> were built on customary international law. Many lessons drawn from
> the crimes committed in the occupied territories of Europe and the Far
> East during the Second World War were subsequently incorporated into
> the Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention, which codifies a substantial part of
> modern international law applicable to occupation.​
Click to expand...






And made out of date and no longer valid by the introduction of the Geneva conventions. You cant have two sets of rules for the same action as it just confuses the issue.


And using the red cross school lesson as evidence shows that you are really desperate to start winning arguments. Then to compound the issue you dont give the link to your cut and paste contrary to board rules.   And your cut and paste says what I did that the only extanct law of occupation is that of the Geneva conventions. Or cant you read that part in English because it goes against your POV and brainwashing


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, a cartoon like handbook, written on the 8th Grade Level, is not the same as the authority documents I presented.
> 
> 
> 
> So they used fake information. .
Click to expand...








 No they created fake information and got morons like you to believe it, all down to anti semitism and Jew hatred by people in high places


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out to me where 242 mentions the Palestinians or the State of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the entire world is aware, the Palestinians were born and live in the occupied territories which Resolution 242 says should be vacated by the Israelis.
Click to expand...








 No that is the interpretation of the islamonazis and other hate groups that believe international law should be denied to the Jews.  Does this mean that 6 million palestinians dont have a legal claim to live in Israel because they were not born there but in foriegn lands. And 242 does not say that Israel has to vacate the occupied territories does it.


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out to me where 242 mentions the Palestinians or the State of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the entire world is aware, the Palestinians were born and live in the occupied territories which Resolution 242 says should be vacated by the Israelis.
Click to expand...








 No that is the interpretation of the islamonazis and other hate groups that believe international law should be denied to the Jews.  Does this mean that 6 million palestinians dont have a legal claim to live in Israel because they were not born there but in foriegn lands. And 242 does not say that Israel has to vacate the occupied territories does it.


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy
> 
> Your last post went off on so many tangents I can't be bothered to address it point by point.  If there is anything specific you want to address, let me know.  I will say though, that I fully support Palestinian nationalism and self-determination on part of the territory.  Always have.
> 
> 
> 
> What I wrote was limited to addressing the errors of your previous post. Self-determination of the Palestinians in only part of occupied Palestine is not good enough.
Click to expand...






So what about the self determination of the Jews on the land that is theirs by right of international laws, or are you denying the Jews their rights so you can give the arab muslims rights they are not entitled to under internatinal laws ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Did I say that?  No!  You are trying to challenge my discussion by suggesting I lied...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, a cartoon like handbook, written on the 8th Grade Level, is not the same as the authority documents I presented.
> 
> 
> 
> So they used fake information. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The handbook is not written to singularly support the discussion we are having.   Make no mistake, the 8th Grade Handbook is accurate as far as it goes; but is not intended to be used to support those that ARE suspected of, or engaged in, activities hostile to the security of the State _(Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence)_.   Such individual persons or groups shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) as would, if exercised in the favor of to the security of State of Israel.  This is spelled out in Article 5, GCIV.
> 
> The general opinion is that convention does not forbid fighting without an official uniform. However, if the combatant (or partisan) does not comply with the provisions of Articles 1, 2 or 3 of the 1907 Hague Regulation, this same combatant (or partisan) cannot claim any of the protections of The Hague Regulation or that of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
> 
> There is a big difference between:
> 
> •  "inhabitants of a territory which HAS NOT BEEN occupied" (Article 2, Hague Regulation)​And that of:
> 
> •  Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters that operate in the shadows, from densely populated areas, addressed by the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII) which specifically reaffirmed the distinction between "lawful" and "unlawful" combatants, where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.​
> The level at which the discussion has ascended certainly is much different from that of the handbook.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My post was in response to the question of Israel's violations.
> 
> If you like, we could discuss The Palestinian's piddly little violations in response to Israel's massive violations.
Click to expand...








 And did not address any violations at all, were are the violations of international law by the Israeli's detailed in that school lesson. You fail again by making claims and then not following up with the details.

 Yes lets discuss the many war crimes, crimes against humanity and illegal weapons employed by the palestinians and compare them to the actual international laws that Israel work to in their dealings with the palestinians


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.
Click to expand...








 So you are now saying that the palestinians do not have to comply with international laws, UN resolutions, UN charter or IHL. Does this extend to the Jewish palestinians as well, and will you stop nit picking  when Israel starts acting as you want and ignoring the Geneva conventions


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power
> 
> 
> 
> Israel claims that it does not occupy Palestine.
> 
> Do those rules apply to settler colonialism?
> 
> Or the attack phase before a proper occupation.
Click to expand...








 Here you go again with your made up settler colonialism that cant exist on land you own under international law

 When the arab muslims attack the Israeli's will beat them back and reclaim more of their lands thus ending the settler coloialism by arab muslims


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quibble. The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does that mean, "Law free zone?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be. I have never seen them in court.
Click to expand...







 Do you visit Israeli courts much in your free time. I have seen many reports of arab muslim terrorists being tried and found guilty on this board. The majority want the money for their family so commit suicide by cop and dont get to court.

But here 
is a link for you that you must trust as it is a source you use

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_866_weill.pdf

Since the beginning of the Israeli occupation more than 200,000 cases have been
brought before military courts, where Palestinian civilians have been prosecuted and
judged by the military authorities. However, despite the large number of judicial
decisions, this jurisprudence has not received the attention it merits.

Or this from an isamonazi source

US court orders Palestinians to pay Israeli attack victims more than $218M


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is just camoflage in the dilution of the question.
> 
> Are Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) criminally accountable for:
> 
> •  Offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?
> •  Guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons?​
> The answer is yes!  Of course they are.  There is an entire section on how the detain and administer punish in the Geneva Convention.
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Don't quibble.  The UN and the Security Council have consistently stated the the Geneva Convention applied.
> 
> AND the idea you submit that:  "This "occupation" can only be defined by its true activities. Settler colonialism." These ideas are completely separate and independent.  There are many example in which one can point-out an OCCUPATION absent COLONIALISM and vise-versa.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The civilian population of an occupied territory owes no allegiance to the occupying power. *As we will see in detail later, it cannot be forced **to fight its own country, be involved in any way with the armed forces or give military assistance to the occupying power.*
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I do not see or recall any Israeli effort to conscript Arab Palestinians of the West Bank for the purpose of combating HoAP.  Can you point to the involuntary service for me?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. * Their **private property is protected.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have not heard of the IDF, Border Police, or Security Services shaking-down Arab Palestinians for money, jewry or other precious assets.  I really don't see major or minor proterties taken outside those necessary for a security advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *  Collective penalties, measures of intimidation, terrorism and hostage-taking are prohibited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I've not seen a violation of this.  This is a protocol for the Palestinian Government that supports and praises
> Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters.
> 
> Each State has a duty to defend itself, it citizenry and sovereign integrity and independence.  Israel has all three and the burden of responsibility.  The Arab Palestinians have not yet reach the ability to protect anything of consequence.
> 
> The Israeli Occupying Power with the authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power*
> *and the authorities of the occupied territory.* This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, this is 100% correct.  You just don't make an agreement; that would preclude most Peace Treaties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *population from occupied territory are prohibited.  The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have not observed this since the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) went into force.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> After effective occupation of territory, members of the territory’s armed forces who have not surrendered, *organized resistance movements and **genuine national liberation movements may resist the occupation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It may, and it must live with both the legal, economic and physical consequence of that decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Indirect support for the resistance movement, such as providing information or non-military supplies, does not constitute taking a direct part in hostilities. Those so engaged are civilians and therefore protected against attack.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> A person is guilty of espionage, or of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offense which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offense were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> 
> The words "duty of allegiance" constitute an acknowledgment of the fundamental principle according to which the occupation does not sever the bond existing between the inhabitants and the conquered State. Protected persons must nevertheless obey legitimate orders issued by the Occupying Power.  (See COMMENTARY OF 1958)​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> As legitimate State authority has now passed into the hands of the occupying power,* the latter must take all measures in its power to restore **and ensure, as far as possible, law and order and public safety.  *As a rule, *the occupying power must allow the territory to be adminis**tered as before. It must respect the laws in force in the territory before*
> *occupation unless it is absolutely prevented from doing so. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In many cases, the law (Jordanian and Egyptian) are many times more restrictive that Israeli law.  How were the Arab Palestinians in Black September treated?  How long do Egyptian protestors like the Muslim Brotherhood last in Egypt.
> 
> I can go on with each and every point you make, but I think you understand that you must give a little more thought to you position, then to just cut and paste an high-pocket training guide for Sergeants to train their squads.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. * Their private property is protected.
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> I have not heard of the IDF, Border Police, or Security Services shaking-down Arab Palestinians for money, jewry or other precious assets. I really don't see major or minor proterties taken outside those necessary for a security advantage.​
> Of course not. Israeli propaganda would not report such things.
> 
> The destruction of property and the theft of land is the most common. Israel has stolen things like farm equipment and solar panels. Israel even stole sewing machines, cloth, and finished clothing from a girl's orphanage. But destruction of private property is Israel's main gig.
Click to expand...









 And as international law says once the palestinians use private property for any military purpose it loses its protected status and can be destroyed. For someone that spouts irrelevant international laws you are lacking in any comprehension of relevant international laws. Or is this deliberate because you dont want international laws to work for the Jews and just want to see them wiped out ?

Your only source for these claims is some LYING POS ISLAMONAZI TERRORIST that should never be believed, no back up from an unbiased source making your claims suspect


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Do you visit Israeli courts much in your free time.


I didn't mean Israeli kangaroo courts.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in my lifetime. Palestine is a law free zone.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean, "Law free zone?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be. I have never seen them in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts and due process are not concepts that Islamic terrorists need to concern themselves with.
> 
> *Gaza: Hamas killed and tortured, says Amnesty*
> 
> Gaza: Hamas killed and tortured, says Amnesty - BBC News
> 
> Hamas forces in the Gaza Strip committed serious human rights abuses including abductions, torture and extra-judicial killings of Palestinian civilians in 2014, a report says.
> 
> And yes, according to our friend P F Tinmore: "Civilians are at all times entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions, and manners and customs. *Their private property is protected."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the illegal government in the West Bank is worse. And Israel is worse yet.
Click to expand...








 Your word is worthless so how about a link from an unbiased source ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> And as international law says once the palestinians use private property for any military purpose it loses its protected status and can be destroyed.


OK, what percentage of Palestinian destroyed property was used for military purposes.

Do you have the stats on that or are you just shoveling shit?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since 1950, when the Fourth Geneva Convention went into effect as binding, almost every single military engagement was a causal effect of the depraved indifference to human life by the radical and irrational Arab League leaders and the uncontrollable Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
Click to expand...








 Attacking unarmed women and children is not defending yourself, unless you want the same rules to apply to both sides. But this would mean you would no longer have any argument when the bodies of women and children started to mount up in the streets of gaza and the west bank. What ever you apply to the palestinians MUST be applied to the Israelis until only one group is left


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean, "Law free zone?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like that means the Palestinians can organize & carry out all the terrorism they want without laws to prevent them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be. I have never seen them in court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain "Law free zone", Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C'mon P F Tinmore   Don't be bashful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Accusation of international law violations have been flying around for decades.
> 
> I don't recall anyone ever going to court.
Click to expand...








 Of course you dont as you just ignore such things and wipe them from your memory and computer. To accept them would be to accept that your POV is wrong and a result of brainwashing


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you visit Israeli courts much in your free time.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mean Israeli kangaroo courts.
Click to expand...









 That is only your interpretation based on brainwashing and an inability to accept truth and reality.

 Now how about a link to an unbiased source that proves the Israeli courts are " kangaroo courts "   or is that an impossible task ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as international law says once the palestinians use private property for any military purpose it loses its protected status and can be destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, what percentage of Palestinian destroyed property was used for military purposes.
> 
> Do you have the stats on that or are you just shoveling shit?
Click to expand...






No but I would say 100% have fallen under that criteria, and you need to read ALL the relevant Geneva conventions regarding what constitutes a military purpose to understand that meetting in an under ground car park of a hospital by leaders of hamas is enough to trigger the hospitals demolition, or firing a qassam from the overgrown corner of a school field is enough to carpet bomb the whole area. With modern technology it is easy enough to watch the launching of illegal weapons from gaza in real time, and the subsequent destruction of the area shortly after.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> EVERYONE, and I mean everyone has a right to defend oneself from harm from the immediate danger of another.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian has worked hard are being a danger and menace to themselves and to the world community.
> 
> In the case related to the entanglement of the Arab Palestinian and the Israelis, the Arab Palestine hobbles themselves each time they strike-out at the Israelis.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians aren't the only ones. Israel shoots itself in the foot time and time again. The attack on Lebanon. The attack on the flotilla. Time and time again in Gaza. And, of course there are all of those illegal settlements.
> 
> Every time Israel does something stupid, their support in the world moves over to the Palestinian side.
Click to expand...







 So how is responding to illegal weapons hobbling the Israeli's, or enforcing a legally constituted blockade and legal boarding of vessels on the high seas. The gazan muslims have it in their power to call a halt to the Israeli responces and the lifting of the blockade/occupation by not engaging in any violent activity towards Israel

 The solution is that simple, and yet hamas and fatah refuse to take it on board. How is this Israel's fault when they respond to illegal weapons, war crimes and acts of war ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Your friend is a murderous piece of shit, like you.









 And you are not when you demand the genocide of the worlds Jews


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
> It was an intentional negative media event.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.
Click to expand...








 And came out the other side with a whole herd of prime beef steak when the dust settled. Every official investigation said the same thing the flotilla was trying to run the blockade and was found to be smuggling guns in the process. There have been no more attempts making the act futile and a waste of lives.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
> It was an intentional negative media event.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're a little befuddled about those events and circumstances. The flotilla gee-had never accomplished running the blockade as the flotilla'ists had intended. The silly publicity stunt actually diminished the credibility of the stunt'ers as the fiasco was simply a monumental waste of time.
> 
> You have noticed that there was no repeat of that disaster, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> October 5, 2016, 6:55 pm
> 
> No violence as Israel intercepts women’s boat to Gaza
Click to expand...


A flotilla of one. So yes, we can agree that there has been no repeat of that silly flotilla publicity stunt.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians absolutely have the right to defend themselves.  As does every individual and every State.
> 
> The problem is that the Palestinians have nothing to defend themselves FROM.  Palestinians are not being attacked.
> 
> The fact that they want political control over more land than they have does not, in any way, constitute an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read up on Israel's settler colonialism.
Click to expand...

You need to read up on the pointlessness of silly slogans and clichés.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> EVERYONE, and I mean everyone has a right to defend oneself from harm from the immediate danger of another.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinian has worked hard are being a danger and menace to themselves and to the world community.
> 
> In the case related to the entanglement of the Arab Palestinian and the Israelis, the Arab Palestine hobbles themselves each time they strike-out at the Israelis.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians aren't the only ones. Israel shoots itself in the foot time and time again. The attack on Lebanon. The attack on the flotilla. Time and time again in Gaza. And, of course there are all of those illegal settlements.
> 
> Every time Israel does something stupid, their support in the world moves over to the Palestinian side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure about that.
> 
> The Arab World’s Waning Sympathy for the Palestinians
> 
> [T]he Arab and Islamic world, which for years was at the forefront of pushing the notion that the Palestinian issue is the world’s number-one problem, is starting to get fed up with the Palestinians’ utter self-absorption at a time when so many Arabs and Muslims are suffering far worse. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main reason is that I was aiming to explain _change_. No nation other than Israel has ever experienced such a dramatic reversal in the way it is perceived and treated by the rest of the world.
> 
> Why I Changed My Mind about Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism
Click to expand...








 Just more islamonazi talking points and propaganda that have no basis in reality of the truth.  The Jewish nation has seen changes in the way it is perceived since the Romans claimed they killed their god. Since then the Jews have been victims of mass murder, blood libels and attacks by people just like yourself. Time for the nazi's out there to face the victimisation for once to see how they like it, let them have lies told about them to send world opinion against their very existence. A pity that it no longer works no matter what the hate sites tell you. It is the arab muslims and neo nazi's that are facing the back wash now and they are hating it, so much so that they are making up more fantasy stories like yours to cover  their failures.


 As you are being told repeatedly the answer is simple and it is in the hands of the arab muslims to resolve the issue without going to the negotiation table. Just halt all violence for 12 months and the Jews will leave the occupied territories and lift the blockade. Now is that so hard ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
> It was an intentional negative media event.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're a little befuddled about those events and circumstances. The flotilla gee-had never accomplished running the blockade as the flotilla'ists had intended. The silly publicity stunt actually diminished the credibility of the stunt'ers as the fiasco was simply a monumental waste of time.
> 
> You have noticed that there was no repeat of that disaster, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> October 5, 2016, 6:55 pm
> 
> No violence as Israel intercepts women’s boat to Gaza
Click to expand...







 From your link and it says it all


“In accordance with government directives and after exhausting all diplomatic channels, the Israeli Navy redirected the vessel in order to* prevent breach of the lawful maritime blockade,*” the IDF said in a statement.

“In accordance with international law, the Israeli Navy advised the vessel numerous times to change course prior to the action. Following their refusal the Navy visited and searched the vessel in international waters in order* to prevent their intended breach of the lawful maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip.* The visit and search of the vessel was uneventful,”



 You must agree and accept that this is factual and a true statement of fact, as you brought it to the board. So what is your argument ?   No violence means the IDF did not need to defend against illegal acts by the activists.


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  When is a war over?
> 
> **  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.
> 
> ••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:
> 
> ••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
> All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established.
> ••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> •∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
> •∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
> •§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.​
> So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?
> 
> Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.
> 
> Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories".  The language was deliberately ambiguous.  In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.
Click to expand...








 Where does it say this in res 242 then, as the authors say that it does not say this anywhere in 242. 

 It also says that the other parties have to negotiate peace and mutual borders, stop all violence and belligerence. And at no time does it mention the nation of palestine. By talking peace with Egypt and Jordan these criteria were fulfilled, as was handing back the Sinai and Jordan valley met with the leave occupied territories part.


 Want to prove me wrong ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> the flotilla was trying to run the blockade and was found to be smuggling guns in the process.


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as international law says once the palestinians use private property for any military purpose it loses its protected status and can be destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, what percentage of Palestinian destroyed property was used for military purposes.
> 
> Do you have the stats on that or are you just shoveling shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but I would say 100% have fallen under that criteria, and you need to read ALL the relevant Geneva conventions regarding what constitutes a military purpose to understand that meetting in an under ground car park of a hospital by leaders of hamas is enough to trigger the hospitals demolition, or firing a qassam from the overgrown corner of a school field is enough to carpet bomb the whole area. With modern technology it is easy enough to watch the launching of illegal weapons from gaza in real time, and the subsequent destruction of the area shortly after.
Click to expand...

That is what I thought. You are just shoveling shit.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Just halt all violence for 12 months and the Jews will leave the occupied territories and lift the blockade. Now is that so hard ?


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
> It was an intentional negative media event.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're a little befuddled about those events and circumstances. The flotilla gee-had never accomplished running the blockade as the flotilla'ists had intended. The silly publicity stunt actually diminished the credibility of the stunt'ers as the fiasco was simply a monumental waste of time.
> 
> You have noticed that there was no repeat of that disaster, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> October 5, 2016, 6:55 pm
> 
> No violence as Israel intercepts women’s boat to Gaza
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link and it says it all
> 
> 
> “In accordance with government directives and after exhausting all diplomatic channels, the Israeli Navy redirected the vessel in order to* prevent breach of the lawful maritime blockade,*” the IDF said in a statement.
> 
> “In accordance with international law, the Israeli Navy advised the vessel numerous times to change course prior to the action. Following their refusal the Navy visited and searched the vessel in international waters in order* to prevent their intended breach of the lawful maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip.* The visit and search of the vessel was uneventful,”
> 
> 
> 
> You must agree and accept that this is factual and a true statement of fact, as you brought it to the board. So what is your argument ?   No violence means the IDF did not need to defend against illegal acts by the activists.
Click to expand...

Of course they would say that. It is an Israeli source. It doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 242 has been largely satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> No; it hasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, 242 has nothing at all to do with the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course Resolution 242 is about the Palestinians; they are the people living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza for Pete's sake.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> (This can not be stressed enough).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would like that; making the Palestinians disappear. What a nerve you have.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> It only concerns itself with the States in the area.  Most of the States in the area (Israel, Jordan and Egypt) have peace treaties and have thus formally terminated all claims or states of belligerency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No land can be acquired through war and this is what the Israelis continue to do for the past half century.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other States (Lebanon and Syria) still have on-going border disputes with Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no war being carried on between Israel and Syria although the Israelis continue to illegally occupy the Golan Heights and likewise Israel is not at war with Lebanon although from time to time the Israelis have been involved in belligerence with its neighbor to the north.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has satisfied the requirement to withdraw armed forces from territories occupied in the conflict, in terms of the West Bank, as evidenced by Jordan's acceptance of a peace treaty with her.  The Golan Heights is the only territory still under question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't. Israel continues to occupy the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza. A peace treaty between Jordan and Israel is not evidence that Israel ceased to occupy the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem was ceded by Jordan to the Palestinians, not the Israelis, in 1988, as you well know. It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's dispute with "Palestine" has nothing at all to do with 242 and is addressed separately in the Oslo Accords, which demand a negotiated treaty between those two parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has everything to do with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination who have gained nothing by chatting to the Israelis for half a century.
Click to expand...





Yes it was in every part, find one part that Israel has not fulfilled 

Where does it mention the palestinians then ?   as I cant see it anywhere. And remember that in 1967 the only palestinians happened to be the Jews

Just like you then wanting the true palestinians to disappear from existence all around the world to fulfill your hero's final solution

And this did not apply until 1968 after the war was ended. And I note you say nothing of the arab muslims theft of the land after this date, so very hypocritical of you isnt it ?

So when was the state of war between Israel and Syria rescinded then, as I can find no mention of it on any site. The Golan heights are actually part of the 22% of land granted under the international law you deny and was stolen by Syria in 1949, so does the " no acquisition of land through war not apply here "

Where does it say in res 242 that Israel has to vacate ALL THE TERRITORY as you claim. IT DOESNT AND THIS  ISTHE INTERPRETATION USED BY THE HATE SITES SO THEY CAN JUSTIFY GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER.
 And when did Jordan get the authority to cede another nations land to a third party ?  isnt that illegal under international law. Keep digging that hole as soon you wont be able to escape and then you will have to admit that you were wrong all along

It does not mention the palestinians and is thrown in as a red herring by the Jew haters all the time. They did not exist until 20 years after 242 was written, and so they cant be held up to 242 at any time. Their treaty was Oslo 1 and 2 that they accepted until they saw it relieved them of land they thought was theirs


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."
Click to expand...





 No it is a common ploy by the members of team palestine to silence the truth


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act like the Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians absolutely have the right to defend themselves.  As does every individual and every State.
> 
> The problem is that the Palestinians have nothing to defend themselves FROM.  Palestinians are not being attacked.
> 
> The fact that they want political control over more land than they have does not, in any way, constitute an attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to read up on Israel's settler colonialism.
Click to expand...







 NO YOU DO as you are the only one that sees it in your fantasy world. The only colonialism is that of the pan arab nationalists that is failing due to lack of public support


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.
Click to expand...







 In other words the facts are destroying my argument and credibility will you stop posting them and let me win the debate.


Produce your truth so we can show you are wrong all over again, and try using sites that are unbiased for your ammunition in future


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just halt all violence for 12 months and the Jews will leave the occupied territories and lift the blockade. Now is that so hard ?
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...







 It is in the laws governing occupation that you seem to know so well, why dont you look ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • The 2010 Flotilla actually made a big deal out of the fact that they were going to try and run the blockade. That was the pro-Palestinian activist intent, to create and incident.
> It was an intentional negative media event.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it was brilliant. It put Israel in a lose, lose situation. Should it allow them to break their precious blockade, or get blamed for attacking a civilian aid ship on international waters. Israel gave itself a big black eye on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you're a little befuddled about those events and circumstances. The flotilla gee-had never accomplished running the blockade as the flotilla'ists had intended. The silly publicity stunt actually diminished the credibility of the stunt'ers as the fiasco was simply a monumental waste of time.
> 
> You have noticed that there was no repeat of that disaster, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> October 5, 2016, 6:55 pm
> 
> No violence as Israel intercepts women’s boat to Gaza
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link and it says it all
> 
> 
> “In accordance with government directives and after exhausting all diplomatic channels, the Israeli Navy redirected the vessel in order to* prevent breach of the lawful maritime blockade,*” the IDF said in a statement.
> 
> “In accordance with international law, the Israeli Navy advised the vessel numerous times to change course prior to the action. Following their refusal the Navy visited and searched the vessel in international waters in order* to prevent their intended breach of the lawful maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip.* The visit and search of the vessel was uneventful,”
> 
> 
> 
> You must agree and accept that this is factual and a true statement of fact, as you brought it to the board. So what is your argument ?   No violence means the IDF did not need to defend against illegal acts by the activists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they would say that. It is an Israeli source. It doesn't mean anything.
Click to expand...






 It was your link so you must accept that every word is the truth.


 Now you are saying that the blockade is illegal " COS YOU SAY SO " and that the truth should not be used as evidence. It means everything because you are the only person that is disputing it because it shows you as a LIAR


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out to me where 242 mentions the Palestinians or the State of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the entire world is aware, the Palestinians were born and live in the occupied territories which Resolution 242 says should be vacated by the Israelis.
Click to expand...






 WRONG they are recent illegal immigrants

 WRONG  they mostly live elsewhere in the world as they are cowards

 Wrong as it does not say that at all


 Read the definitive article by the authors that tell you

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia

Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:

It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. *The test was which territories were occupied.* That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.[24]

Lord Caradon also maintained,

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.[76]




Per Lord Caradon, the chief author of the resolution:

It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted.[24]

Lord Caradon also maintained,

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.[76]


----------



## Phoenall

J


Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy
> 
> Your last post went off on so many tangents I can't be bothered to address it point by point.  If there is anything specific you want to address, let me know.  I will say though, that I fully support Palestinian nationalism and self-determination on part of the territory.  Always have.
> 
> 
> 
> What I wrote was limited to addressing the errors of your previous post. Self-determination of the Palestinians in only part of occupied Palestine is not good enough.
Click to expand...





Just as self determination on only part of the Jewish national home because illegal immigrants have stolen the land is also not good enough. So what is the solution ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as international law says once the palestinians use private property for any military purpose it loses its protected status and can be destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, what percentage of Palestinian destroyed property was used for military purposes.
> 
> Do you have the stats on that or are you just shoveling shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No but I would say 100% have fallen under that criteria, and you need to read ALL the relevant Geneva conventions regarding what constitutes a military purpose to understand that meetting in an under ground car park of a hospital by leaders of hamas is enough to trigger the hospitals demolition, or firing a qassam from the overgrown corner of a school field is enough to carpet bomb the whole area. With modern technology it is easy enough to watch the launching of illegal weapons from gaza in real time, and the subsequent destruction of the area shortly after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what I thought. You are just shoveling shit.
Click to expand...








 In other words you cant argue the point as you dont have a point to argue with. so you have a tantrum followed by a meltdown and throw out accusations


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, this was really a special event.



P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have noticed that there was no repeat of that disaster, right?
> 
> 
> 
> October 5, 2016, 6:55 pm
> 
> No violence as Israel intercepts women’s boat to Gaza
Click to expand...

*(HUMOR)*

"The activists put up a website carrying prepared “SOS messages” by those on board alleging they had been “kidnapped” by the IDF."  BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF October 5, 2016

Sometimes you just have to laugh.  This was really Some "kidnapping" --- they still let the 13 people aboard freedom to access mass media.  But (after all) part of being a good activist is being a drama queen.  

*(COMMENT)*

Mairead Maguire is really a delightful person --- but still an aging political activist that is trying to demonstrate that she is still relevant and capable of contributing to controversial causes.  Famous for her activities ≈ 40 years ago, she is still out there taking her stand.

None the less, like other single intruders, the vessel she was on --- was brought into Port (Ashdod) like so many others; without incident.

I think this too was a test of sorts.  Maguire is one of the last great "Olive Oyl" Activists from the Northern Ireland Conflict.  (Priceless)  It is very hard not to come to her rescue.


 ​ 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

Eloy, et al,

This is simply NOT true.  This was an interpretation made by unskilled and uneducated _(in the ways of politics and diplomacy)_ laymen. 



Eloy said:


> You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.


*(COMMENT)*

If you want to know and understand what the Resolutions actually says, GO TO THE SOURCE:

But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.

Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.


*Lord Caradon* (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, _U.N. Security Council Resolution 242_, pg. 13, qtd. in _Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977_, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if *we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend*.

• _Journal of Palestine Studies_, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. *We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line*. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

*Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong*. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

• MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978:

*We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

• _Daily Star_ (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in _Myths and Facts_, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's *why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to* ...

• Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?

A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. *It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be*. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...
​While there were more that 2 dozen Palestinian Terrorist Attacks by Jihadist and Fedayeen, in the year previous to the Arab incited 1967 Six Day War, there were the embryonic development of some serious incidents:

Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by Militants wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
July 14, 1966 - Militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
July 19, 1966 - Militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.
Back in the day, even then, no one wanted another failed Arab State in the Region; politically, economically, or commercially interactive.  And it is still that way today.  And in part, while the main reason to support the Jewish National Home/State of Israel, was the preservation and protection of a complete culture, there was --- lurking in the background --- that even then, Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters were going to become a big problem (with or without Israel).  Better to preserve Israel then to let the Radical Islamist have they way and eventually destroy it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Eloy said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  When is a war over?
> 
> **  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.
> 
> ••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:
> 
> ••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
> All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established.
> ••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> •∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
> •∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
> •§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.​
> So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?
> 
> Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.
> 
> Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories".  The language was deliberately ambiguous.  In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.
Click to expand...


Once again I repeat that the language of the resolution was deliberately left ambiguous.  The fact that the Israelis might need to retain some territory for security reasons was taken into account by the drafters of the resolution.  Therefore, some land swaps can be made in some future peace deal with the Arabs of the west Bank. 

As for Syria and Lebanon, who should Israel give up the strategically important Golan Heights to?  The Syrian Arab savages who are busy slaughtering each other?  If that's what they do to each other, what might they do to the Jews, if given the chance!!  Also, Israel officially withdrew from all of Lebanon.  They only respond sometimes to cross-border raids from the terrorist Hezbollah group, who have already decimated all of Lebanon's Maronite Christians.  Israel lives in a very rough neighborhood.


----------



## MJB12741

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  When is a war over?
> 
> **  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.
> 
> ••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:
> 
> ••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
> All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established.
> ••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> •∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
> •∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
> •§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.​
> So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?
> 
> Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.
> 
> Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories".  The language was deliberately ambiguous.  In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again I repeat that the language of the resolution was deliberately left ambiguous.  The fact that the Israelis might need to retain some territory for security reasons was taken into account by the drafters of the resolution.  Therefore, some land swaps can be made in some future peace deal with the Arabs of the west Bank.
> 
> As for Syria and Lebanon, who should Israel give up the strategically important Golan Heights to?  The Syrian Arab savages who are busy slaughtering each other?  If that's what they do to each other, what might they do to the Jews, if given the chance!!  Also, Israel officially withdrew from all of Lebanon.  They only respond sometimes to cross-border raids from the terrorist Hezbollah group, who have already decimated all of Lebanon's Maronite Christians.  Israel lives in a very rough neighborhood.
Click to expand...


Israel is doing right by leaving Syria's situation to Syria to deal with.as long as Syrians are just killing each other & not Israeli's.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> Eloy, et al,
> 
> This is simply NOT true.  This was an interpretation made by unskilled and uneducated _(in the ways of politics and diplomacy)_ laymen.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you want to know and understand what the Resolutions actually says, GO TO THE SOURCE:
> 
> But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.
> 
> Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.
> 
> 
> *Lord Caradon* (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.
> 
> • Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, _U.N. Security Council Resolution 242_, pg. 13, qtd. in _Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977_, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:
> 
> Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if *we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend*.
> 
> • _Journal of Palestine Studies_, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:
> 
> Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?
> 
> A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. *We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line*. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.
> 
> *Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong*. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.
> 
> Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.
> 
> • MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978:
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> • _Daily Star_ (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in _Myths and Facts_, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:
> 
> It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's *why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to* ...
> 
> • Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
> 
> Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?
> 
> A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. *It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be*. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...
> ​While there were more that 2 dozen Palestinian Terrorist Attacks by Jihadist and Fedayeen, in the year previous to the Arab incited 1967 Six Day War, there were the embryonic development of some serious incidents:
> 
> Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by Militants wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
> May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
> July 14, 1966 - Militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
> July 19, 1966 - Militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
> Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.
> Back in the day, even then, no one wanted another failed Arab State in the Region; politically, economically, or commercially interactive.  And it is still that way today.  And in part, while the main reason to support the Jewish National Home/State of Israel, was the preservation and protection of a complete culture, there was --- lurking in the background --- that even then, Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters were going to become a big problem (with or without Israel).  Better to preserve Israel then to let the Radical Islamist have they way and eventually destroy it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco you are a shabby propagandist and are using the Hasbara playbook to justify the unjustifiable:

First of all, this is nonsense even on its face: the resolution does not say Israel must withdraw from “_the _territories occupied” so we are to understand it to mean Israel must withdraw from only “_some _territories occupied”? Your self-defeating Zionist logic is prima facie nonsense.

In truth, the absence of the article has no effect on the meaning of the resolution inasmuch as the extent of withdraw is concerned. It calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces “from territories occupied”, _plural_. The Syrian Golan Heights, the Egyptian Sinai, and the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and West Bank are all “territories occupied” during the 1967 war and thus territories from which Israel was required to withdraw under the clear and unambiguous wording of Resolution 242.

In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.

As for sub-paragraph (ii), while it does call for the establishment of “secure and recognized borders”, it does not establish this_ as a _precondition for the withdrawal of Israeli forces. It says “both” Israeli withdrawal *and* establishment of such borders are required, neither is conditioned on the other. It certainly was not the Security Council’s intent that a people whose land was occupied be required to negotiate with the occupier over where to draw the border.

You quote Caradon, a supporter of Israel,  from years after the resolution’s passage. UN resolutions are not open to unilateral interpretation, but must be understand according to the will of the Security Council as a whole; and, second, the relevant documentary record for understanding the will of the Council is from prior to and up until the resolution’s adoption.  

As stated, without the article "the" the breadth of the territories in question does not change at all, it is just the typical Zionist technique of trying to change fact.

And turning the documentary record, it is absolutely clear that the Security Council was explicit and unanimous that Resolution 242 required Israel to return to the lines it held prior to June 5, 1967.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy, et al,
> 
> This is simply NOT true.  This was an interpretation made by unskilled and uneducated _(in the ways of politics and diplomacy)_ laymen.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you want to know and understand what the Resolutions actually says, GO TO THE SOURCE:
> 
> But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.
> 
> Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.
> 
> 
> *Lord Caradon* (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.
> 
> • Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, _U.N. Security Council Resolution 242_, pg. 13, qtd. in _Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977_, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:
> 
> Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if *we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend*.
> 
> • _Journal of Palestine Studies_, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:
> 
> Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?
> 
> A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. *We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line*. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.
> 
> *Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong*. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.
> 
> Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.
> 
> • MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978:
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> • _Daily Star_ (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in _Myths and Facts_, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:
> 
> It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's *why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to* ...
> 
> • Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
> 
> Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?
> 
> A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. *It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be*. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...
> ​While there were more that 2 dozen Palestinian Terrorist Attacks by Jihadist and Fedayeen, in the year previous to the Arab incited 1967 Six Day War, there were the embryonic development of some serious incidents:
> 
> Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by Militants wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
> May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
> July 14, 1966 - Militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
> July 19, 1966 - Militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
> Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.
> Back in the day, even then, no one wanted another failed Arab State in the Region; politically, economically, or commercially interactive.  And it is still that way today.  And in part, while the main reason to support the Jewish National Home/State of Israel, was the preservation and protection of a complete culture, there was --- lurking in the background --- that even then, Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters were going to become a big problem (with or without Israel).  Better to preserve Israel then to let the Radical Islamist have they way and eventually destroy it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco you are a shabby propagandist and are using the Hasbara playbook to justify the unjustifiable:
> 
> First of all, this is nonsense even on its face: the resolution does not say Israel must withdraw from “_the _territories occupied” so we are to understand it to mean Israel must withdraw from only “_some _territories occupied”? Your self-defeating Zionist logic is prima facie nonsense.
> 
> In truth, the absence of the article has no effect on the meaning of the resolution inasmuch as the extent of withdraw is concerned. It calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces “from territories occupied”, _plural_. The Syrian Golan Heights, the Egyptian Sinai, and the Palestinian territories of the Gaza Strip and West Bank are all “territories occupied” during the 1967 war and thus territories from which Israel was required to withdraw under the clear and unambiguous wording of Resolution 242.
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> As for sub-paragraph (ii), while it does call for the establishment of “secure and recognized borders”, it does not establish this_ as a _precondition for the withdrawal of Israeli forces. It says “both” Israeli withdrawal *and* establishment of such borders are required, neither is conditioned on the other. It certainly was not the Security Council’s intent that a people whose land was occupied be required to negotiate with the occupier over where to draw the border.
> 
> You quote Caradon, a supporter of Israel,  from years after the resolution’s passage. UN resolutions are not open to unilateral interpretation, but must be understand according to the will of the Security Council as a whole; and, second, the relevant documentary record for understanding the will of the Council is from prior to and up until the resolution’s adoption.
> 
> As stated, without the article "the" the breadth of the territories in question does not change at all, it is just the typical Zionist technique of trying to change fact.
> 
> And turning the documentary record, it is absolutely clear that the Security Council was explicit and unanimous that Resolution 242 required Israel to return to the lines it held prior to June 5, 1967.
Click to expand...






 And monte the "know it all " steps in and proves yet again that he knows nothing, and knows it better than the people who wrote the resolution in the first place.
Can he explain why the authors say that they did not mean all the terrotories, but only those that would procure secure and defensible borders for all sides. Why palestine was never mentioned as one of the parties to the resolution 

Now I come to the part that everyone will like      MONTE YOU ARE A BARE FACED LIAR AS THERE IS NO SUB PARAGRAPH ii THAT SAYS THE ISRAELIS MUST LEAVE ALL THE TERRITORIES AND SECURE BORDERS CAN THEN BE NEGOTIATED. THEY ARE TWO SEPERATE ISSUES AND HAVE A POINT TO THEMSELVES.

Why not quote one of the authors for clarification, after all you quote people when they say things decades after they happened, and they were not even there.
So why has the UN stated that the omision was theirs deliberately so that just this state of affairs would not happen. They had much faith in neo nazi and islamocatholic following of convention even after seeing their denial first hand

WRONG as that is again spelt out by the authors as being islamonazi propaganda and 242 says no such thing


 YOU SIR ARE A LIAR AND A PROPAGANDIST THAT WANTS TO SEE THE JEWS WIPED OUT AND THE MUSLIMS MADE MASTERS OF THE WHOLE WORLD


----------



## Phoenall

S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967



UN resolution 242 in full from the UN archives



*Resolution 242 (1967)*
*of 22 November 1967*


_The Security Council,_

_ Expressing_ its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

_Emphasizing_ the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

_Emphasizing further_ that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

 1. _Affirms_ that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

 (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

 (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

 2. _Affirms further_ the necessity

_(a)_ For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

_(b)_ For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

_(c)_ For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

 3. _Requests_ the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

 4. _Requests_ the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
_Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting._


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.


This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.

How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?



montelatici said:


> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.



Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?


----------



## Hossfly

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's past time for you to quit the sophistry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who reads this as, "Stop using actual facts, I can't keep up."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regrettably, you and about three others do nothing but distort the truth in the hope that you will mislead others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out to me where 242 mentions the Palestinians or the State of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As the entire world is aware, the Palestinians were born and live in the occupied territories which Resolution 242 says should be vacated by the Israelis.
Click to expand...

I imagine that Eloy has never heard of the UN saying that anyone who was in the area for only two years can be considered a refugee.  Being in an area for just two years doesn't make a grown person born there.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
Click to expand...


On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.
Click to expand...

Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.
Click to expand...

It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.
Click to expand...

He snuck back in, Tinmore. He is now a dictator. If they have elections he'll be the single candidate. Then he will be legal and you can quit yer bitchin'. Hokay?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
> 
> Well uh, do you think maybe the Palestinians should stop attacking Israel?  Or will Palestinians always think like Palestinians & wind up losing even more land?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.
Click to expand...

So, are we to understand that your ruling as King, Field Marshal General and Commissar of the Territories is that West Bank islamic terrorists are not to be misconstrued as true Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

Well, I'm sure that I don't have to defend Israel!  They are quite capable of defending themselves.  

As for being :"*Hasbara*" ---  to be mistaken for one of them is actually a complement _(not an insult)_.   I'm quite sure that the Hasbara would want to distance themselves from me.  And I am also quite sure that the Fellowship _(an NGO)_ is much better at making a very Favorable and Positive argument in our debate; --- much more so than I.     They are generally only half my age and express the Israeli experience much more eloquently.   And that's because Israel is a dynamic environment.  Israel is not just about the struggle with the Palestinians or the issue of Holy Place and things of religious significance.  Its about the beauty and wonder of the land --- fun and entertainment.  I'm sure they can say it better than I can.



montelatici said:


> Rocco you are a shabby propagandist and are using the Hasbara playbook to justify the unjustifiable:


*(COMMENT)*

But enough about peace and positive stuff --- let's talk about the ugly side.  

More to the point here.  I don't know where you get your information.  Resolution 242 says what it says.  But going to the source, the authors, and drawing out their intention and meaning is as factual as you can get; no matter what book it is in.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, are we to understand that your ruling as King, Field Marshal General and Commissar of the Territories is that West Bank islamic terrorists are not to be misconstrued as true Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists.
Click to expand...

Ooooo, you played the terrorist card twice in one sentence.

Good boy!


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, I'm sure that I don't have to defend Israel!  They are quite capable of defending themselves.
> 
> As for being :"*Hasbara*" ---  to be mistaken for one of them is actually a complement _(not an insult)_.   I'm quite sure that the Hasbara would want to distance themselves from me.  And I am also quite sure that the Fellowship _(an NGO)_ is much better at making a very Favorable and Positive argument in our debate; --- much more so than I.     They are generally only half my age and express the Israeli experience much more eloquently.   And that's because Israel is a dynamic environment.  Israel is not just about the struggle with the Palestinians or the issue of Holy Place and things of religious significance.  Its about the beauty and wonder of the land --- fun and entertainment.  I'm sure they can say it better than I can.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco you are a shabby propagandist and are using the Hasbara playbook to justify the unjustifiable:
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But enough about peace and positive stuff --- let's talk about the ugly side.
> 
> More to the point here.  I don't know where you get your information.  Resolution 242 says what it says.  But going to the source, the authors, and drawing out their intention and meaning is as factual as you can get; no matter what book it is in.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


It's reading comprehension, intentions are confirmed by what was written in English and French.  All the Hasbara machinations conflating the word "territories" with something else of their own description, are weak attempts to change the meaning of words.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, are we to understand that your ruling as King, Field Marshal General and Commissar of the Territories is that West Bank islamic terrorists are not to be misconstrued as true Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooo, you played the terrorist card twice in one sentence.
> 
> Good boy!
Click to expand...


Or Good gal!  (Isn't Hollie a gal's name?)


----------



## RoccoR

Hollie, et al,

What is generally not understood is that anyone who has voted for any Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) Candidate for any office has lent material support to a terrorist organization; in the eyes of North America and the European Union.



Hollie said:


> So, are we to understand that your ruling as King, Field Marshal General and Commissar of the Territories is that West Bank islamic terrorists are not to be misconstrued as true Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists.


*(COMMENT)*

That is not label that we pinned on the Arab Palestinian, that is a label they pinned on themselves.  They may call themselves anything they want.  But is you voted for HAMAS, you voted for Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters --- better known as terrorist. 

If you live and swim with the fishes, you are some sort of Aquatic life; whatever else you may say you are.

*(WHAT IS SCARY)*

They don't know that kidnapping and murder; attacking citizens with hammers and knifes; using a car to intentionally run-over people; suicide bomb a restaurant; shoot-up the wheelchair bound, the bus full of school children; is wrong.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?



P F Tinmore is 100% correct in this case.  It can not happen.  It did not happen.  It still hasn't happened.  And you sure can't use 242 to make it happen.

The intent of 242 is clear:  

to establish a just and lasting peace
termination of all claims or states of belligerency
recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence of every *STATE* in the area
secure and recognized boundaries for every *STATE* in the area
The States in the area are:  *Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon*.  The requirement that Israel withdraw from territories was a means to an end.  It was the means by which a lasting peace with recognized sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and with secure and recognized boundaries be made.  

Israel, Jordan and Egypt have since signed peace treaties which establish that peace, that recognition, integrity, independence and boundaries.  Therefore, 242 has been satisfied with respect to the West Bank and Gaza.  (Lebanon still has a border dispute with Israel and its seems political events have overtaken the issue with respect to Syria.) 

*242 has nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism.  It does not address Palestinian independent nationalism.  And it can not be retroactively used to create some sort of new sovereignty at a time and in a place where none existed. *


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, are we to understand that your ruling as King, Field Marshal General and Commissar of the Territories is that West Bank islamic terrorists are not to be misconstrued as true Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooo, you played the terrorist card twice in one sentence.
> 
> Good boy!
Click to expand...


Perhaps we should say Good Boy (and also Good Girl to your assistant here).  After all, the both of you are posting practically the entire day.  I hope Hamas is grateful for your loyalty and help..


----------



## Shusha

RoccoR said:


> *(WHAT IS SCARY)*
> 
> They don't know that kidnapping and murder; attacking citizens with hammers and knifes; using a car to intentionally run-over people; suicide bomb a restaurant; shoot-up the wheelchair bound, the bus full of school children; is wrong.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



What is really scary is that some of our own members of Team Palestine don't seem to realize that is it wrong, either.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore is 100% correct in this case.  It can not happen.  It did not happen.  It still hasn't happened.  And you sure can't use 242 to make it happen.
> 
> The intent of 242 is clear:
> 
> to establish a just and lasting peace
> termination of all claims or states of belligerency
> recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence of every *STATE* in the area
> secure and recognized boundaries for every *STATE* in the area
> The States in the area are:  *Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon*.  The requirement that Israel withdraw from territories was a means to an end.  It was the means by which a lasting peace with recognized sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and with secure and recognized boundaries be made.
> 
> Israel, Jordan and Egypt have since signed peace treaties which establish that peace, that recognition, integrity, independence and boundaries.  Therefore, 242 has been satisfied with respect to the West Bank and Gaza.  (Lebanon still has a border dispute with Israel and its seems political events have overtaken the issue with respect to Syria.)
> 
> *242 has nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism.  It does not address Palestinian independent nationalism.  And it can not be retroactively used to create some sort of new sovereignty at a time and in a place where none existed. *
Click to expand...


Israel has left Lebanon completely.  Unless you're speaking of the 7-mile stretch of land called the Shebaa Farms, that Hezbollah suddenly started to call a part of Lebanon.  (The Arabs are never satisfied.)


----------



## montelatici

So, these guys, who did much worse, e.g.attacked Russian built schools educating girls, killing thousands of students, were "freedom fighters" and were supported financially by the U.S. until 9/11, but the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are terrorists.  Rocco logic.


----------



## montelatici

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore is 100% correct in this case.  It can not happen.  It did not happen.  It still hasn't happened.  And you sure can't use 242 to make it happen.
> 
> The intent of 242 is clear:
> 
> to establish a just and lasting peace
> termination of all claims or states of belligerency
> recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence of every *STATE* in the area
> secure and recognized boundaries for every *STATE* in the area
> The States in the area are:  *Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon*.  The requirement that Israel withdraw from territories was a means to an end.  It was the means by which a lasting peace with recognized sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and with secure and recognized boundaries be made.
> 
> Israel, Jordan and Egypt have since signed peace treaties which establish that peace, that recognition, integrity, independence and boundaries.  Therefore, 242 has been satisfied with respect to the West Bank and Gaza.  (Lebanon still has a border dispute with Israel and its seems political events have overtaken the issue with respect to Syria.)
> 
> *242 has nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism.  It does not address Palestinian independent nationalism.  And it can not be retroactively used to create some sort of new sovereignty at a time and in a place where none existed. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has left Lebanon completely.  Unless you're speaking of the 7-mile stretch of land called the Shebaa Farms, that Hezbollah suddenly started to call a part of Lebanon.  (The Arabs are never satisfied.)
Click to expand...


Would you be?  Say you were a Christian living in Haifa, maybe your family owned a citrus farm for several generations and because of the invasion of European Jews your family was forced to flee leaving everything.  Would you be satisfied?


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.



I've always thought this was an interesting and one-sided application of that principle.  How did Jordan acquire territory which was not hers in 1948?  The border between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the remaining slice of Palestine was never in dispute, was it?  That was a clear border made by agreements and treaty.  

So when we apply this principle, isn't it Jordan who can not acquire territory by war?  The war conducted against Israel in 1948? 

And if Jordan did not acquire that territory in 1948 (because it can't due to the principle that one can't acquire territory by war), then how can Israel have taken it from Jordan in 1967?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
Click to expand...




 It didnt though did it as palestine did not exist then, so one side was Israel and the other side was land occupied by Jordan. Why are you bringing up borders when they are not even mentioned, boundaries are not borders they are a line that should not be crossed.

Because they dint as no such law existed then and the land was not owned as such by the arab muslims, remember they denied the existence of the mandate and regretted it ever since


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Would you be?  Say you were a Christian living in Haifa, maybe your family owned a citrus farm for several generations and because of the invasion of European Jews your family was forced to flee leaving everything.  Would you be satisfied?



It wasn't the presence of Jewish immigrants that forced your family to flee.  (Your family was probably a family of immigrants as well.)  It was the violence started by the Arabs.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore is 100% correct in this case.  It can not happen.  It did not happen.  It still hasn't happened.  And you sure can't use 242 to make it happen.
> 
> The intent of 242 is clear:
> 
> to establish a just and lasting peace
> termination of all claims or states of belligerency
> recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence of every *STATE* in the area
> secure and recognized boundaries for every *STATE* in the area
> The States in the area are:  *Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon*.  The requirement that Israel withdraw from territories was a means to an end.  It was the means by which a lasting peace with recognized sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and with secure and recognized boundaries be made.
> 
> Israel, Jordan and Egypt have since signed peace treaties which establish that peace, that recognition, integrity, independence and boundaries.  Therefore, 242 has been satisfied with respect to the West Bank and Gaza.  (Lebanon still has a border dispute with Israel and its seems political events have overtaken the issue with respect to Syria.)
> 
> *242 has nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism.  It does not address Palestinian independent nationalism.  And it can not be retroactively used to create some sort of new sovereignty at a time and in a place where none existed. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has left Lebanon completely.  Unless you're speaking of the 7-mile stretch of land called the Shebaa Farms, that Hezbollah suddenly started to call a part of Lebanon.  (The Arabs are never satisfied.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be?  Say you were a Christian living in Haifa, maybe your family owned a citrus farm for several generations and because of the invasion of European Jews your family was forced to flee leaving everything.  Would you be satisfied?
Click to expand...






 Say you were a Navajo living on the plains following the buffalo herds and a Catholic invasion took place that led to your wife, mother, sister and daughters being raped in the name of Jesus. Then your hogans destroyed and your food stolen  so you had nothing to see you through the winter.   Would you be satisfied ?


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought this was an interesting and one-sided application of that principle.  How did Jordan acquire territory which was not hers in 1948?  The border between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the remaining slice of Palestine was never in dispute, was it?  That was a clear border made by agreements and treaty.
> 
> So when we apply this principle, isn't it Jordan who can not acquire territory by war?  The war conducted against Israel in 1948?
> 
> And if Jordan did not acquire that territory in 1948 (because it can't due to the principle that one can't acquire territory by war), then how can Israel have taken it from Jordan in 1967?
Click to expand...






 Dont confuse the issue by bringing in facts that prove them wrong on so many points, and then shows that they are just here to demonise the Jews and deny them them their legal, civil and religious rights


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.
Click to expand...






And you stop confusing the palestinians with illegal arab muslim migrants that have no legal rights to be there. The real palestinians are the Jews who were named that by the Roman conquerers


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the stupidest argument. The so called '67 borders were never borders. The UN armistice agreements specified that the armistice lines were not to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is this such a big deal in 1967 but nobody questions the territory Israel acquired by war in 1948?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.
Click to expand...







 And that is a matter for the arab muslims to solve, not the members of this board. They should be forcing the issue by demanding the UN step in and hold elections to elect new leaders and politicians, as they were supposed to do after Oslo 2


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the 1967 boundaries are currently being made sacrosanct by the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't confuse the Palestinians with the unelected political elites in Ramallah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. We need reminding that you, and you alone are officially tasked with deciding who is, and who is not a Pal'istanian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not me. It is a matter of history. Abbas was elected under shady circumstances in Jan. of 2005 then he left the government in June of 2007.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, are we to understand that your ruling as King, Field Marshal General and Commissar of the Territories is that West Bank islamic terrorists are not to be misconstrued as true Pal'istanian Islamic terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooo, you played the terrorist card twice in one sentence.
> 
> Good boy!
Click to expand...






What terrorist card is that, if the other arab muslim nations say that arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are terrorists then who are we to complain. Then when the world did the same thing it put the icing on the cake and destroyed your POV. But like a spoilt brat you keep on demanding that you are the only one that is right


----------



## ForeverYoung436

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore is 100% correct in this case.  It can not happen.  It did not happen.  It still hasn't happened.  And you sure can't use 242 to make it happen.
> 
> The intent of 242 is clear:
> 
> to establish a just and lasting peace
> termination of all claims or states of belligerency
> recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence of every *STATE* in the area
> secure and recognized boundaries for every *STATE* in the area
> The States in the area are:  *Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon*.  The requirement that Israel withdraw from territories was a means to an end.  It was the means by which a lasting peace with recognized sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence and with secure and recognized boundaries be made.
> 
> Israel, Jordan and Egypt have since signed peace treaties which establish that peace, that recognition, integrity, independence and boundaries.  Therefore, 242 has been satisfied with respect to the West Bank and Gaza.  (Lebanon still has a border dispute with Israel and its seems political events have overtaken the issue with respect to Syria.)
> 
> *242 has nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism.  It does not address Palestinian independent nationalism.  And it can not be retroactively used to create some sort of new sovereignty at a time and in a place where none existed. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel has left Lebanon completely.  Unless you're speaking of the 7-mile stretch of land called the Shebaa Farms, that Hezbollah suddenly started to call a part of Lebanon.  (The Arabs are never satisfied.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you be?  Say you were a Christian living in Haifa, maybe your family owned a citrus farm for several generations and because of the invasion of European Jews your family was forced to flee leaving everything.  Would you be satisfied?
Click to expand...


I was talking specifically about the Shebaa Farms.  It's a very small stretch of land in the Golan, not Haifa.  When the U.N. determined that Israel left Lebanon completely in the year 2000, Hezbollah suddenly claimed that a very small part of the Syrian Golan, which had been taken by Israel, was really a part of Lebanon.  This strip of land is called the Shebaa Farms, though it is not farmland anymore.  This last dispute between Israel and Lebanon has nothing to do with the Palestinians.

BTW, Haifa is a port city, not farmland.  It also still has a large Arab population in it.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, I'm sure that I don't have to defend Israel!  They are quite capable of defending themselves.
> 
> As for being :"*Hasbara*" ---  to be mistaken for one of them is actually a complement _(not an insult)_.   I'm quite sure that the Hasbara would want to distance themselves from me.  And I am also quite sure that the Fellowship _(an NGO)_ is much better at making a very Favorable and Positive argument in our debate; --- much more so than I.     They are generally only half my age and express the Israeli experience much more eloquently.   And that's because Israel is a dynamic environment.  Israel is not just about the struggle with the Palestinians or the issue of Holy Place and things of religious significance.  Its about the beauty and wonder of the land --- fun and entertainment.  I'm sure they can say it better than I can.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco you are a shabby propagandist and are using the Hasbara playbook to justify the unjustifiable:
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But enough about peace and positive stuff --- let's talk about the ugly side.
> 
> More to the point here.  I don't know where you get your information.  Resolution 242 says what it says.  But going to the source, the authors, and drawing out their intention and meaning is as factual as you can get; no matter what book it is in.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's reading comprehension, intentions are confirmed by what was written in English and French.  All the Hasbara machinations conflating the word "territories" with something else of their own description, are weak attempts to change the meaning of words.
Click to expand...







 The explanation was given by the people who wrote the resolution, so are you saying that they did not understand what they wrote and only you can interpret the words.  The original was written in  English as is UN custom, and then a copy was made in French as is custom. The working copy much to the dismay of the Russians and the muslims was the English one as it left out the second "the" and "all" and the authors were adamant the words would stay the same. It cant have been that bad as the UN passed the resolution with the original wording unanimously. 


 It is you that has the reading comprehension and the arrogance to match that thinks you should be allowed to alter the context to suit your warped POV and anti semitic stance


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> So, these guys, who did much worse, e.g.attacked Russian built schools educating girls, killing thousands of students, were "freedom fighters" and were supported financially by the U.S. until 9/11, but the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are terrorists.  Rocco logic.









 No as he also says these are terrorists and should be dealt with accordingly


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

The US, and especially the EU, evaluate Terrorist Threats, not by religion, not by their manner of dress, and not necessarily on the matter of political following.  The US and the EU _(and the UK and Russian Federation for that matter)_ "most often" but not entirely the consider hostile opponent that unlawfully use force and violence against critical interests for the express purpose of projection intimidation or coercion.  

Most Often, the established pattern of generally unacceptable tactics and behaviors places the hostile opponent in the consideration for terrorism.  Just as the self-determination and announcement of ones organization is a militant movements perceived as an "existentially threat" to the West and its allies _(and the Russian Federation, political/economic trading partners and and Far East/Pacific Rim for that matter)_.  Self proclaimed activities that have identified themselves openly (like jihadist or using jihadist methodologies) as a threat and have demonstrated the capacity to act on those threats may also be considered terrorist organizations.

When a hostile organization projects it influence in such a way as to negatively impact and allied government, the civilian population of critical interest, or political or social objective of particular interest; the hostile organization is so categorized.

Not everyone in a Pakol, Tuban, Dastar, Keffiyeh, or Rezza are terrorists.  That is a matter of word and deed.



montelatici said:


> So, these guys, who did much worse, e.g.attacked Russian built schools educating girls, killing thousands of students, were "freedom fighters" and were supported financially by the U.S. until 9/11, but the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are terrorists.  Rocco logic.


*(COMMENT)*

There is no hard and fast rule for who the US is interested in talking to --- or --- who and why the US may give what assistance to where.   If the White House wanted you to know the who, what, where, when and why of American diplomatic direction --- they would have sent you to Arlington Hall Station _(National Foreign Affairs Training Center)_.  But, as it is, the US National Security Decision Making Process (NSDMP) is a very complex animal.  And the US sometimes looks at Terrorism in increments of the Magnitude of the Threat and the Degree of Capability --- as well as the --- exploitation value.  

The Designation of HAMAS as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in 1997, was was a solution on just the kind of process when the violent resistance characterized by suicide bombings rather than civil disobedience.  THEN is become a matter of "who" do you really want to be your ally?  (The Israelis or the Arab Palestinians.)

Most Respectively,
R


----------



## montelatici

I don't believe you get the point.  When a state, any state, declares an organization a terrorist organization versus a freedom fighting organization, more often than not, it is declared such for political reasons.  Your ranting about Palestinian terrorism is hypocritical when you ignore other organizations that practice terrorism.  I consider Hamas an organization that practices terrorism, but, the use of terrorist tactics on the part of Israel is also terrorism.  The killing of thousands of Palestinian civilian, for the most part women and children, is a terrorist act.  It is designed to terrorize the Palestinians into acceptance of Israeli oppression.  The Contras, for example, were brutal terrorists that killed tens of thousands of Nicaraguan civilians but were classified as freedom fighters.  A very poignant example of how razor thin these determinations are made is when you consider that the Kurdish resistance in Turkey, the PKK, are classified as a terrorist organization, while Kurds in neighboring countries are allies and receive our support.  Notwithstanding the fact that all Kurdish groups are among themselves allies and receive mutual support.  

So, while I agree that Palestinian groups commit egregious terrorist acts, I am not blind to the fact that groups that are considered freedom fighters also commit terrorist acts. You, on the other hand, are blinded by your bias and will justify terrorism when committed by certain groups and will rant when it is committed by the Palestinians, who you have a racial hate for.  I denounce all terrorist acts.

The NFATC was established at Arlington Hall Station in the 90s, long after my separation.  The USASA or INSCOM was there when I was in the service.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Not to take the greater and more important point our friend "Shusha" in Posting 1064, there is one characteristic about the territory on either side of any borders - not necessarily the derivation of the demarcation itself _(anywhere in the world)_.



P F Tinmore said:


> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?


*(ANSWER TO THE QUESTION HOW)*

A demarcation called a "border" marks the limit to a sovereignty.  *IF* --- there is a demarcation, and there is no sovereignty on either side of a demarcation --- *THEN* --- that demarcation can be any number of markings, BUT not a border (boundary) .  *HOWEVER*, IF a given sovereignty enforces its political and territorial controls up to a specific limit; it has established its border by demarcation.  The demarcation then becomes a border limit to the sovereignty of that country.  It does not care what is no the other side of the border.

I'm not sure, but if the Palestinians have any sovereign control at all, on the opposite side of the Israeli border, it certainly would not be very much.

The line itself does not care what you call it.  What matters is that for any given country, they announce by the designation of a demarcation, that they have and maintain control of their territory up to that point.  You may have heard recently that *Saudi Arabia Is Building a 600-Mile Wall Along the Iraq Border*, establishing a firm and physical demarcation.

NOW, the tricky part.  As I said, the demarcation does not care what you call it.  In fact, you do not have to name it at all.   But aircraft that get shot down for a two-minute incursion understand enforcement.

There is a special kind of demarcation, known as a "Demilitarized Zone" (DMZ).  It is not an official border, but you don't want to cross it without coordination. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

You can call yourself anything you want.  But is you are a Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters, you are a "terrorist."  Like HAMAS, *IF* you - by Covenant, define yourself as conducting or advocating Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, *THEN* there is a consequence for that that.  

*IF* one of you pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians (pHoAP) was involved in the recreational beach shooting of Senator Abraham Ribicoff's neice, one of 38 people shot to death by Palestine Liberation Organization terrorists, *THEN* there will be a consequence.



montelatici said:


> I don't believe you get the point.  When a state, any state, declares an organization a terrorist organization versus a freedom fighting organization, more often than not, it is declared such for political reasons.


*(COMMENT)*

I believe I mentioned the "political" interest component.   The one component I did not mention was the degree to which the barbarism and bloodthirsty nature plays in the mix.  Needless to say, whether or not you are identified as a terrorist;  IF one of these righteous freedom fighters gets caught performing the characteristic violent action that the Palestinians are known so well for performing --- *THEN* --- it will be dealt with like any other terrorist that carries out these barbaric and bloodthirsty acts.

Terrorist is not necessarily a synonym of HoAP --- more the species to which the HoAP belongs.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> the use of terrorist tactics on the part of Israel is also terrorism.  The killing of thousands of Palestinian civilian, for the most part women and children, is a terrorist act.  It is designed to terrorize the Palestinians into acceptance of Israeli oppression.



There are so many things wrong with these sentences I hardly know where to start.  There is a difference morally, if not legally, between terrorism and warfare.  Yes, military operations are designed to "break the will" of the opponent as well as destroy their tangible assets.  But this is not equivalent to "terrorism" which is intended to intimidate for the attainment of political goals.

So, no, what Israel does in the context of war (destroying the opponent's ability to physically carry out attacks by eliminating their tangible and intangible assets) is not terrorism.

The deaths of non-combatants in warfare is a result, and responsibility, of both actors.  Both actors have an obligation to limit civilian harm.

The deaths of the 2014 War between Gaza and Israel, as an example, were disproportionally males of fighting age when compared to a broad civilian demographic (9% of the general population and 34% of the fatalities).  Even B'tselem, which is hardly Israel-friendly, places the deaths of civilians (women, children and men over 60-something) at only 40%.  And at least some of those "children" would be between the ages of 14 and 18 and would be considered combatants.  (And that would be an example of terrorism directed at Hamas' own populace -- to have children placed in combat roles).  So, no, the fatalities were not "for the most part women and children".  That is an appeal to emotions not based in facts.  

Israel disengagement from Gaza is the opposite of oppression.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> the use of terrorist tactics on the part of Israel is also terrorism.  The killing of thousands of Palestinian civilian, for the most part women and children, is a terrorist act.  It is designed to terrorize the Palestinians into acceptance of Israeli oppression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many things wrong with these sentences I hardly know where to start.  There is a difference morally, if not legally, between terrorism and warfare.  Yes, military operations are designed to "break the will" of the opponent as well as destroy their tangible assets.  But this is not equivalent to "terrorism" which is intended to intimidate for the attainment of political goals.
> 
> So, no, what Israel does in the context of war (destroying the opponent's ability to physically carry out attacks by eliminating their tangible and intangible assets) is not terrorism.
> 
> The deaths of non-combatants in warfare is a result, and responsibility, of both actors.  Both actors have an obligation to limit civilian harm.
> 
> The deaths of the 2014 War between Gaza and Israel, as an example, were disproportionally males of fighting age when compared to a broad civilian demographic (9% of the general population and 34% of the fatalities).  Even B'tselem, which is hardly Israel-friendly, places the deaths of civilians (women, children and men over 60-something) at only 40%.  And at least some of those "children" would be between the ages of 14 and 18 and would be considered combatants.  (And that would be an example of terrorism directed at Hamas' own populace -- to have children placed in combat roles).  So, no, the fatalities were not "for the most part women and children".  That is an appeal to emotions not based in facts.
> 
> Israel disengagement from Gaza is the opposite of oppression.
Click to expand...


Israel grants the Palestinian request for a Jew free Gaza & the Palestinians thank Israel with jihads & rocket missiles.  Hey I have an idea.  Lets have Israel also give the Palestinians all of the West Bank & all of Jerusalem & just imagine how grateful the Palestinians would then be.  Heh Heh!


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Not to take the greater and more important point our friend "Shusha" in Posting 1064, there is one characteristic about the territory on either side of any borders - not necessarily the derivation of the demarcation itself _(anywhere in the world)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER TO THE QUESTION HOW)*
> 
> A demarcation called a "border" marks the limit to a sovereignty.  *IF* --- there is a demarcation, and there is no sovereignty on either side of a demarcation --- *THEN* --- that demarcation can be any number of markings, BUT not a border (boundary) .  *HOWEVER*, IF a given sovereignty enforces its political and territorial controls up to a specific limit; it has established its border by demarcation.  The demarcation then becomes a border limit to the sovereignty of that country.  It does not care what is no the other side of the border.
> 
> I'm not sure, but if the Palestinians have any sovereign control at all, on the opposite side of the Israeli border, it certainly would not be very much.
> 
> The line itself does not care what you call it.  What matters is that for any given country, they announce by the designation of a demarcation, that they have and maintain control of their territory up to that point.  You may have heard recently that *Saudi Arabia Is Building a 600-Mile Wall Along the Iraq Border*, establishing a firm and physical demarcation.
> 
> NOW, the tricky part.  As I said, the demarcation does not care what you call it.  In fact, you do not have to name it at all.   But aircraft that get shot down for a two-minute incursion understand enforcement.
> 
> There is a special kind of demarcation, known as a "Demilitarized Zone" (DMZ).  It is not an official border, but you don't want to cross it without coordination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Your verbosity missed my point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> I don't believe you get the point. When a state, any state, declares an organization a terrorist organization versus a freedom fighting organization, more often than not, it is declared such for political reasons.


Indeed, I have always considered the terrorist label political name calling. Particularly if it is by those who have a much worse record of violations.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
Click to expand...


I've always thought this was an interesting and one-sided application of that principle.  How did Jordan acquire territory which was not hers in 1948?  The border between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the remaining slice of Palestine was never in dispute, was it?  That was a clear border made by agreements and treaty.​
That was the undisputed international border between Palestine and Jordan. The question I have is how Jordan got to occupy Palestinian territory when the two were not at war?

So when we apply this principle, isn't it Jordan who can not acquire territory by war?  The war conducted against Israel in 1948?​
Indeed, and they did not. Jordan did, however, attempt to annex that territory but it is illegal to annex occupied territory. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory and still is today.

And if Jordan did not acquire that territory in 1948 (because it can't due to the principle that one can't acquire territory by war), then how can Israel have taken it from Jordan in 1967?​
Ahhh, the never answered question. How can Israel win (illegal) Palestinian territory in a war with Jordan? It would take some serious legal chicanery to try to explain that.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> That was the undisputed international border between Palestine and Jordan. The question I have is how Jordan got to occupy Palestinian territory when the two were not at war?



Um.  They invaded.
​


> Ahhh, the never answered question. How can Israel win (illegal) Palestinian territory in a war with Jordan? It would take some serious legal chicanery to try to explain that.



Easy.  The non-Jordan part of Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel).  And we know this to be true because the border between Jordan and the Jewish National Home (aka Israel), by treaty, is exactly where it should be.

It was Oslo which divided the Jewish National Home (aka Israel) into Israel and a hopeful one-day Palestine (aka Areas A, B and C).


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel).


Israeli talking point.

Post a document that mentions "Israel," "Jewish state," or "exclusive rights."


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel).
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point.
> 
> Post a document that mentions "Israel," "Jewish state," or "exclusive rights."
Click to expand...


Irrelevancies.  

1.  Israel is irrelevant to the conversation at hand because a self-determinative sovereign nation can call itself anything it wants.  The Jewish National Homeland was named "Israel" in its Declaration of Independence.  So what?  Are you trying to tell me that there is some sort of international law which holds that States can only come into being with geographical place names already in existence?  That's ridiculous.  But even if its not ridiculous and if you really want to go with that argument:  







2.  Jewish National Home.  You know, like Palestinian National Home.  A sovereign homeland for the Jewish people.  Identical to the concept of a sovereign homeland for the Palestinian people.  Or a sovereign homeland for the French people.  Or a sovereign homeland for the Scottish people.  Or a sovereign homeland for the Kurdish people.  This is not rocket science.  There is nothing morally  wrong with a "Jewish state".  

3.  Where did I mention "exclusive rights"?  Never, EVER, have I mentioned "exclusive rights".  Only Team Palestine calls for "exclusive rights".  And Arab Muslims.  I have always advocated for the rights of BOTH peoples.  You should join me.  



Now, back to the subject of the conversation, which is Israel's right to exist.  And the fact that Palestine is the Jewish National Homeland.  Here it is:

_Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect ... the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country

...such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions ...

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home...

The Zionist organization ... shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

The Administration of Palestine ... shall facilitate Jewish immigration ... and shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
_

Now, you can argue that the Jewish National Homeland was not intended to take up all of the remaining portion of the Mandate for Palestine.  That would be a tough argument.  But marginally defendable.  But to argue that "Palestine", at least in part, was not intended to be a self-governing National Homeland for the Jewish people, in light of the clear and legal indications to the contrary as written above, is just foolish.  Silly.  Patently ridiculous.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> I don't believe you get the point.  When a state, any state, declares an organization a terrorist organization versus a freedom fighting organization, more often than not, it is declared such for political reasons.  Your ranting about Palestinian terrorism is hypocritical when you ignore other organizations that practice terrorism.  I consider Hamas an organization that practices terrorism, but, the use of terrorist tactics on the part of Israel is also terrorism.  The killing of thousands of Palestinian civilian, for the most part women and children, is a terrorist act.  It is designed to terrorize the Palestinians into acceptance of Israeli oppression.  The Contras, for example, were brutal terrorists that killed tens of thousands of Nicaraguan civilians but were classified as freedom fighters.  A very poignant example of how razor thin these determinations are made is when you consider that the Kurdish resistance in Turkey, the PKK, are classified as a terrorist organization, while Kurds in neighboring countries are allies and receive our support.  Notwithstanding the fact that all Kurdish groups are among themselves allies and receive mutual support.
> 
> So, while I agree that Palestinian groups commit egregious terrorist acts, I am not blind to the fact that groups that are considered freedom fighters also commit terrorist acts. You, on the other hand, are blinded by your bias and will justify terrorism when committed by certain groups and will rant when it is committed by the Palestinians, who you have a racial hate for.  I denounce all terrorist acts.
> 
> The NFATC was established at Arlington Hall Station in the 90s, long after my separation.  The USASA or INSCOM was there when I was in the service.








 And the fact that not one of those civilians would have died if they had not elected a terrorist group to lead them and then allowed them to use their property to fire illegal weapons at the Jews. Elect terrorists as your leaders and you end up paying a very heavy price in both lives and acceptability.  Not one of those actions is seen as a terrorist action by the rest of the world, just islamonazi stooges and neo marxist scum, they see it as responding to war crimes, acts of war and illegal weapons. I point out all the time that 50% of gaza is uninhabited open land that the terrorists can fire from to their hearts content, so why do they use schools, hospitals, civilian homes and UN structures in civilian areas ? They know this is against the Geneva conventions as do their supporters yet still they are allowed to breach international laws.


Your comment that you denounce all terrorist acts is an outright LIE as you have stated the arab muslims can use any means to rid Israel of the Jews as your interpretation of a UN resolution says so.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Not to take the greater and more important point our friend "Shusha" in Posting 1064, there is one characteristic about the territory on either side of any borders - not necessarily the derivation of the demarcation itself _(anywhere in the world)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can one side of a non border be Palestine and the other side of a non border be called Israel? How can that happen?
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER TO THE QUESTION HOW)*
> 
> A demarcation called a "border" marks the limit to a sovereignty.  *IF* --- there is a demarcation, and there is no sovereignty on either side of a demarcation --- *THEN* --- that demarcation can be any number of markings, BUT not a border (boundary) .  *HOWEVER*, IF a given sovereignty enforces its political and territorial controls up to a specific limit; it has established its border by demarcation.  The demarcation then becomes a border limit to the sovereignty of that country.  It does not care what is no the other side of the border.
> 
> I'm not sure, but if the Palestinians have any sovereign control at all, on the opposite side of the Israeli border, it certainly would not be very much.
> 
> The line itself does not care what you call it.  What matters is that for any given country, they announce by the designation of a demarcation, that they have and maintain control of their territory up to that point.  You may have heard recently that *Saudi Arabia Is Building a 600-Mile Wall Along the Iraq Border*, establishing a firm and physical demarcation.
> 
> NOW, the tricky part.  As I said, the demarcation does not care what you call it.  In fact, you do not have to name it at all.   But aircraft that get shot down for a two-minute incursion understand enforcement.
> 
> There is a special kind of demarcation, known as a "Demilitarized Zone" (DMZ).  It is not an official border, but you don't want to cross it without coordination.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your verbosity missed my point.
Click to expand...









 No your brain missed the point that was the reply. It does not matter what you call it as long as it is recignised for what it is. And because the arab muslims have no control of the land they lose out, so time for them to declare their ability to stand on their own


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you get the point. When a state, any state, declares an organization a terrorist organization versus a freedom fighting organization, more often than not, it is declared such for political reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, I have always considered the terrorist label political name calling. Particularly if it is by those who have a much worse record of violations.
Click to expand...







 And you can produce the evidence of these records of violations from a neutral source, or do you only have those from the hate sites.


 Responding to hostile acts is not terrorism
 Returning fire during a war is not terrorism
 Obeying the terms of the Geneva conventions is not terrorism

Firing illegal weapons at civilian areas is terrorism
Instigating  war crimes is Terrorism
Breaching the Geneva conventions is terrorism


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, the preface of the section of the resolution emphasized the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible and it is in the context of that emphasized principle that the resolution’s call for Israeli withdrawal must be understood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always thought this was an interesting and one-sided application of that principle.  How did Jordan acquire territory which was not hers in 1948?  The border between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the remaining slice of Palestine was never in dispute, was it?  That was a clear border made by agreements and treaty.​
> That was the undisputed international border between Palestine and Jordan. The question I have is how Jordan got to occupy Palestinian territory when the two were not at war?
> 
> So when we apply this principle, isn't it Jordan who can not acquire territory by war?  The war conducted against Israel in 1948?​
> Indeed, and they did not. Jordan did, however, attempt to annex that territory but it is illegal to annex occupied territory. The West Bank remained occupied Palestinian territory and still is today.
> 
> And if Jordan did not acquire that territory in 1948 (because it can't due to the principle that one can't acquire territory by war), then how can Israel have taken it from Jordan in 1967?​
> Ahhh, the never answered question. How can Israel win (illegal) Palestinian territory in a war with Jordan? It would take some serious legal chicanery to try to explain that.
Click to expand...








 Wrong read your source again as it says the border of trans Jordan and the mandate of palestine. Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine that was allocated to the Jews as their national home that was a foriegn nation to them.

Jordan DID annexe the west bank and Jerusalem, and then proceeded to forcibly evict the Jews living there. Then passed illegal laws stealing the land owned by the Jews and giving it to migrants using post 1950 land titles. So the very things you accuse Israel of doing were actually done by the arab muslims ....................

Very simple as Israel did not acquire land through war, they acquired land through treaty and negotiation after Jordan gave up all rights to the west bank and Jerusalem. The treaty that you claim is null and void because it hurts the arab muslims


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel).
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point.
> 
> Post a document that mentions "Israel," "Jewish state," or "exclusive rights."
Click to expand...








 Mandate of palestine good enough for you, or is it denied because it is kuufar


----------



## Shusha

Phoenall said:


> Very simple as Israel did not acquire land through war, they acquired land through treaty and negotiation after Jordan gave up all rights to the west bank and Jerusalem.



I disagree with this, in part.  Or I disagree with its wording.  Israel's acquisition of sovereignty had NOTHING to do with Jordan or Jordan's actions.  

True -- Israel did not acquire land through war.  She acquired sovereignty over territory in exactly the same way Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon acquired sovereignty -- through the legal instruments and treaties.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel).
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point.
> 
> Post a document that mentions "Israel," "Jewish state," or "exclusive rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevancies.
> 
> 1.  Israel is irrelevant to the conversation at hand because a self-determinative sovereign nation can call itself anything it wants.  The Jewish National Homeland was named "Israel" in its Declaration of Independence.  So what?  Are you trying to tell me that there is some sort of international law which holds that States can only come into being with geographical place names already in existence?  That's ridiculous.  But even if its not ridiculous and if you really want to go with that argument:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Jewish National Home.  You know, like Palestinian National Home.  A sovereign homeland for the Jewish people.  Identical to the concept of a sovereign homeland for the Palestinian people.  Or a sovereign homeland for the French people.  Or a sovereign homeland for the Scottish people.  Or a sovereign homeland for the Kurdish people.  This is not rocket science.  There is nothing morally  wrong with a "Jewish state".
> 
> 3.  Where did I mention "exclusive rights"?  Never, EVER, have I mentioned "exclusive rights".  Only Team Palestine calls for "exclusive rights".  And Arab Muslims.  I have always advocated for the rights of BOTH peoples.  You should join me.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, back to the subject of the conversation, which is Israel's right to exist.  And the fact that Palestine is the Jewish National Homeland.  Here it is:
> 
> _Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect ... the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country
> 
> ...such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions ...
> 
> An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home...
> 
> The Zionist organization ... shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
> 
> The Administration of Palestine ... shall facilitate Jewish immigration ... and shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
> _
> 
> Now, you can argue that the Jewish National Homeland was not intended to take up all of the remaining portion of the Mandate for Palestine.  That would be a tough argument.  But marginally defendable.  But to argue that "Palestine", at least in part, was not intended to be a self-governing National Homeland for the Jewish people, in light of the clear and legal indications to the contrary as written above, is just foolish.  Silly.  Patently ridiculous.
Click to expand...









 Now he will jump up and down laughing  manically as you forgot to remind him that 78% of palestine is already the arab muslim national home. And that is where the arab muslims that do not want to live in peace with the Jews should be living


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple as Israel did not acquire land through war, they acquired land through treaty and negotiation after Jordan gave up all rights to the west bank and Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this, in part.  Or I disagree with its wording.  Israel's acquisition of sovereignty had NOTHING to do with Jordan or Jordan's actions.
> 
> True -- Israel did not acquire land through war.  She acquired sovereignty over territory in exactly the same way Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon acquired sovereignty -- through the legal instruments and treaties.
Click to expand...







 Which is what I said, after Jordan gave up all claims to the west bank and the PLO took control of the negotiations they accepted Oslo 1 and 2 as being the way forward. The arab muslims expected to wage war on Israel and gain back what they gave up at a later date, but found them a tougher nut to crack.  they always overstate their abilities and then moan when they are beaten back


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel).
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point.
> 
> Post a document that mentions "Israel," "Jewish state," or "exclusive rights."
Click to expand...






Why didnt the ones already posted contain enough information for you ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country


Glad to know that Palestine is a country


Shusha said:


> seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to,


Glad to know that Palestine has territory.

Nice deflection, though.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> And because the arab muslims have no control of the land they lose out,


Not so. The Palestinians still have the right to independence and sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine


Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Very simple as Israel did not acquire land through war, they acquired land through treaty and negotiation


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel).
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point.
> 
> Post a document that mentions "Israel," "Jewish state," or "exclusive rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didnt the ones already posted contain enough information for you ?
Click to expand...

The wrong kind. What I asked for was not mentioned.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple as Israel did not acquire land through war, they acquired land through treaty and negotiation after Jordan gave up all rights to the west bank and Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this, in part.  Or I disagree with its wording.  Israel's acquisition of sovereignty had NOTHING to do with Jordan or Jordan's actions.
> 
> True -- Israel did not acquire land through war.  She acquired sovereignty over territory in exactly the same way Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon acquired sovereignty -- through the legal instruments and treaties.
Click to expand...

The Mandated territories were Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Palestine.

Israel was not on the list.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because the arab muslims have no control of the land they lose out,
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. The Palestinians still have the right to independence and sovereignty.
Click to expand...

They also have the inability to make that happen. But yeah, "I blame the Jews" is a convenient slogan to sidestep around the failure of Islamic terrorists to develop a functioning society.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to know that Palestine is a country
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Glad to know that Palestine has territory.
> 
> Nice deflection, though.
Click to expand...


More of the delusions held by Islamic terrorist Pom Pom flailers.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to know that Palestine is a country
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Glad to know that Palestine has territory.
> 
> Nice deflection, though.
Click to expand...







 Not yet they dont, and they way things are going with the UN they stand to lose everything if they refuse to play ball.

 They have claimed to be a nation in 1988 and have yet to claim any land that is legally available, all they have done is claim land already sovereign under international laws to another nation which has meant they have lost the chance to grow


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because the arab muslims have no control of the land they lose out,
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. The Palestinians still have the right to independence and sovereignty.
Click to expand...






 On the land granted to them by International laws of 1920, 1922 and 1923. So when will they be moving to that land ? That is the only land they can ever have any sovereignty over


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> all they have done is claim land already sovereign under international laws to another nation


Link?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.
Click to expand...









 CONFUSED AGAIN as it was the mandatory that left not the mandate. Two distinct and seperate entities.     Britiain was not the mandate, the mandate was a legal entity


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple as Israel did not acquire land through war, they acquired land through treaty and negotiation
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...







 The oslo accords or dont you read the links given


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is the Jewish National Home (aka Israel).
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point.
> 
> Post a document that mentions "Israel," "Jewish state," or "exclusive rights."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didnt the ones already posted contain enough information for you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The wrong kind. What I asked for was not mentioned.
Click to expand...






 That is your problem to solve not mine. You asked for a link and it was given, because it does not meet with your POV is not for me to solve but you.   For Israel we have to use Jewish national home as that is what it was called from 1917 to 1948.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple as Israel did not acquire land through war, they acquired land through treaty and negotiation after Jordan gave up all rights to the west bank and Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this, in part.  Or I disagree with its wording.  Israel's acquisition of sovereignty had NOTHING to do with Jordan or Jordan's actions.
> 
> True -- Israel did not acquire land through war.  She acquired sovereignty over territory in exactly the same way Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon acquired sovereignty -- through the legal instruments and treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandated territories were Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Palestine.
> 
> Israel was not on the list.
Click to expand...








 And the mandated territories were    Syria, Lebanon, palestine, transjordan and mesopotamia.    Israel as it is now called is on the list as the LoN called it palestine after the area it was in. Under the terms of the mandate the Jewish national home was to be fulfilled in palestine alongside transjordan


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> all they have done is claim land already sovereign under international laws to another nation
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...







 Do you really need to ask for your own links to be thrown in your face. You have posted their claims often enough to know them of by heart.      From the north to the south, from the river to the sea is about as ambiguous as you can get when most of that is already soveriegn land belonging to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and and whole host of other nations spreading out from ramallah in the centre.

 The UN charter spells it out and you are supporting war crimes every time you make the claims


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple as Israel did not acquire land through war, they acquired land through treaty and negotiation after Jordan gave up all rights to the west bank and Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with this, in part.  Or I disagree with its wording.  Israel's acquisition of sovereignty had NOTHING to do with Jordan or Jordan's actions.
> 
> True -- Israel did not acquire land through war.  She acquired sovereignty over territory in exactly the same way Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon acquired sovereignty -- through the legal instruments and treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Mandated territories were Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Palestine.
> 
> Israel was not on the list.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? You are, as usual, unable to further a consistent argument. The mandate (not mandated) territories included the territory of Pal'istan? You have previously assigned statehood to the mythical "country of Pal'istan" that exists only in your furtive imagination.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, 


P F Tinmore said:


> Your verbosity missed my point.


*(Q)*
What is your point?

You asked a question about the borders.  I answered.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

As early as 1922, the British were lying to the Christians and Muslims, even in letters to the Zionist Organization they kept up the charade.


*"The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organisation.*
DOWNING STREET,
3rd _June, _1922.


......These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view.* Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine........ *Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian*, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."

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


----------



## RoccoR

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is confusing.



Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."

•  The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.  

•  The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.​[/indent]

I've seen this argument before.  First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:

•  The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine.  The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.​There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:

•  The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
•  The Mandatory converted into a Commission.​The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:

•  As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).​
Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that.  But there is a true reality:  If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle _(approximately)_ of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel.  Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.




 ​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Eloy

RoccoR said:


> Eloy, et al,
> 
> This is simply NOT true.  This was an interpretation made by unskilled and uneducated _(in the ways of politics and diplomacy)_ laymen.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you want to know and understand what the Resolutions actually says, GO TO THE SOURCE:
> 
> But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.
> 
> Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.
> 
> 
> *Lord Caradon* (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.
> 
> • Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, _U.N. Security Council Resolution 242_, pg. 13, qtd. in _Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977_, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:
> 
> Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if *we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend*.
> 
> • _Journal of Palestine Studies_, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:
> 
> Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?
> 
> A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. *We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line*. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.
> 
> *Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong*. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.
> 
> Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.
> 
> • MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978:
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> • _Daily Star_ (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in _Myths and Facts_, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:
> 
> It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's *why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to* ...
> 
> • Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
> 
> Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?
> 
> A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. *It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be*. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...
> ​While there were more that 2 dozen Palestinian Terrorist Attacks by Jihadist and Fedayeen, in the year previous to the Arab incited 1967 Six Day War, there were the embryonic development of some serious incidents:
> 
> Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by Militants wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
> May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
> July 14, 1966 - Militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
> July 19, 1966 - Militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
> Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.
> Back in the day, even then, no one wanted another failed Arab State in the Region; politically, economically, or commercially interactive.  And it is still that way today.  And in part, while the main reason to support the Jewish National Home/State of Israel, was the preservation and protection of a complete culture, there was --- lurking in the background --- that even then, Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters were going to become a big problem (with or without Israel).  Better to preserve Israel then to let the Radical Islamist have they way and eventually destroy it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I went to the source; the document itself. I have no interest in wasting paragraphs on parsing simple English with someone who will not understand such as yourself.


----------



## Eloy

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  When is a war over?
> 
> **  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.
> 
> ••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:
> 
> ••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
> All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established.
> ••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> •∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
> •∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
> •§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.​
> So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?
> 
> Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.
> 
> Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories".  The language was deliberately ambiguous.  In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again I repeat that the language of the resolution was deliberately left ambiguous.  ...
Click to expand...

Nonsense; English is my native language.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

This is something that was a "view" nearly a century ago.



montelatici said:


> DOWNING STREET,
> 3rd _June, _1922.
> 
> ......These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view.* Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine........ *Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian*, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."


*(COMMENT)*

First, I ask you to review Posting # 1121, the reality.

Then I ask you a question:  What's your Plan?  What's your contingency if there is an outbreak of hostilities?  

•  Do you think that the contemporary Government of Israel (GOI) is just going to walk-up and hand the keys to Israel to you?
•  What (very improbable) sets of events would have to occur that would induce the GOI to surrender their title and rights to self-government and sovereignty?
•  How do you picture this unfolding?​I wonder what would happen if it were the UN that had to hand over its title and rights to self-government and sovereignty --- what would happen?  Would we rain three kinds of hell upon them or four?  Neither the UN or any other powerful body would:  "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter."

*(RATIONAL CONSEQUENCE)*

If the people of the only Jewish Nation in the world  (8 Million = half the worlds Jewish population, including over 30,000 Americans from 36 different states) were to be put at the risk and invokes the inherent right of selfdefense  (Chapter VII Art 51):

•   What do you think the American domestic political backlash would be?
•   Would America go to war with Israel over something America did and could have prevented?
•   What does the Arab League have at risk if the peace and security of Israel was threatened?
•   What assistance do you think Israel would ask of the Russian Federation should the US impose sanctions or embargoes?
•   If it was your country, what lengths would you go to if you were the most civilized and developed country in the world?​
IF you were the Emperor of the Earth, how do you put your plan into action? 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."
> 
> •  The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.
> 
> •  The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.​[/indent]
> 
> I've seen this argument before.  First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:
> 
> •  The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine.  The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.​There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:
> 
> •  The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
> •  The Mandatory converted into a Commission.​The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:
> 
> •  As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).​
> Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that.  But there is a true reality:  If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle _(approximately)_ of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel.  Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.
> 
> View attachment 100504​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Nothing was converted in 1948.  The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."
> 
> •  The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.
> 
> •  The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.​[/indent]
> 
> I've seen this argument before.  First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:
> 
> •  The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine.  The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.​There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:
> 
> •  The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
> •  The Mandatory converted into a Commission.​The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:
> 
> •  As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).​
> Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that.  But there is a true reality:  If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle _(approximately)_ of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel.  Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.
> 
> View attachment 100504​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Indeed, a continuing and almost completed colonial project.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."
> 
> •  The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.
> 
> •  The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.​[/indent]
> 
> I've seen this argument before.  First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:
> 
> •  The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine.  The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.​There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:
> 
> •  The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
> •  The Mandatory converted into a Commission.​The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:
> 
> •  As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).​
> Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that.  But there is a true reality:  If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle _(approximately)_ of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel.  Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.
> 
> View attachment 100504​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing was converted in 1948.  The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.
Click to expand...


Blame the UN for the acquired territory.  Not European Jews.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."
> 
> •  The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.
> 
> •  The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.​[/indent]
> 
> I've seen this argument before.  First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:
> 
> •  The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine.  The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.​There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:
> 
> •  The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
> •  The Mandatory converted into a Commission.​The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:
> 
> •  As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).​
> Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that.  But there is a true reality:  If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle _(approximately)_ of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel.  Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.
> 
> View attachment 100504​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, a continuing and almost completed colonial project.
Click to expand...

The only colonial project that was undertaken was by the Arab-Moslem squatters from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, many of which were absentee landowners who sold the land to the Zionist Entity®. Whining in furtherance of your syndrome of IJH is pointless. look on the positive side, you can spend your life hating the Arab-Moslem invaders, also.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."
> 
> •  The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.
> 
> •  The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.​[/indent]
> 
> I've seen this argument before.  First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:
> 
> •  The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine.  The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.​There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:
> 
> •  The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
> •  The Mandatory converted into a Commission.​The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:
> 
> •  As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).​
> Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that.  But there is a true reality:  If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle _(approximately)_ of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel.  Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.
> 
> View attachment 100504​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing was converted in 1948.  The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.
Click to expand...

Round up your homies from the madrassah and get your gee-had on.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."
> 
> •  The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.
> 
> •  The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.​[/indent]
> 
> I've seen this argument before.  First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:
> 
> •  The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine.  The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.​There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:
> 
> •  The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
> •  The Mandatory converted into a Commission.​The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:
> 
> •  As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).​
> Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that.  But there is a true reality:  If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle _(approximately)_ of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel.  Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.
> 
> View attachment 100504​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing was converted in 1948.  The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blame the UN for the acquired territory.  Not European Jews.
Click to expand...


The European Jews are those that engaged in the armed invasion, not the UN.


----------



## RoccoR

Eloy, et al,

Yes, and we should stipulate the contention here.  



Eloy said:


> Nonsense; English is my native language.


*(COMMENT)*

Like many things in politics, often what you think they said is not what was conveyed.  No one explains this better than British Ambassador Lord Caradon (Author and sponsor of Res 242).

There are so many people that want to believe that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires this or that --- and the Argument has raged on for ≈ a half Century with no clear resolution.

In the half-Century following the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement is signed by Emir Faisal (representing the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz) and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann for Arab–Jewish cooperation in the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, much in the world had changed.  In that time, humanity went from the Barron von Richthofen (Fighter Pilot Ace-of-Aces), his Fokker Triplane and the Flying Circus to Neil Armstrong, Naval Aviator and Fighter Pilot, Test Pilot, Aerospace Engineer,  Astronaut and the First man to Walk on the Moon.  Over time, things changed.​So is the difference between the 1922 White Paper and the 1939 White Paper.

Excerpt From:  
*The Political History of Palestine under British Administration*

52. In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931.. This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt. it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper. Among them were the following:

“The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”

“The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”

“His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish
immigration in any of its categories.”​
One of the problems with taking a 1922 snapshot in time and the trying to interpret it in a 21st Century Context is that you miss all the discussion in between.  In this case, the 1922 White Paper was not the Last word.  A decade later, the 1931 Prime Minister made further the explanation.  The concern, all through the 1930s was that *IF* they (Arabs) were accorded complete self-government, *THEN* they would obviously ignore the obligation to establish a National Home for the Jews.

Oddly enough, that concern and fear has been lurking in the unspoken political background for ≈ a Century.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is something that was a "view" nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> DOWNING STREET,
> 3rd _June, _1922.
> 
> ......These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view.* Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine........ *Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian*, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I ask you to review Posting # 1121, the reality.
> 
> Then I ask you a question:  What's your Plan?  What's your contingency if there is an outbreak of hostilities?
> 
> •  Do you think that the contemporary Government of Israel (GOI) is just going to walk-up and hand the keys to Israel to you?
> •  What (very improbable) sets of events would have to occur that would induce the GOI to surrender their title and rights to self-government and sovereignty?
> •  How do you picture this unfolding?​I wonder what would happen if it were the UN that had to hand over its title and rights to self-government and sovereignty --- what would happen?  Would we rain three kinds of hell upon them or four?  Neither the UN or any other powerful body would:  "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter."
> 
> *(RATIONAL CONSEQUENCE)*
> 
> If the people of the only Jewish Nation in the world  (8 Million = half the worlds Jewish population, including over 30,000 Americans from 36 different states) were to be put at the risk and invokes the inherent right of selfdefense  (Chapter VII Art 51):
> 
> •   What do you think the American domestic political backlash would be?
> •   Would America go to war with Israel over something America did and could have prevented?
> •   What does the Arab League have at risk if the peace and security of Israel was threatened?
> •   What assistance do you think Israel would ask of the Russian Federation should the US impose sanctions or embargoes?
> •   If it was your country, what lengths would you go to if you were the most civilized and developed country in the world?​
> IF you were the Emperor of the Earth, how do you put your plan into action?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I ask you a question.  Given that you now accept that the Christian and Muslims were lied to by the British at the beginning, and the British/UN clearly failed to protect the civil and religious rights of the the non-Jews as promised in the Mandate, why do you appear surprised and constantly criticize the non-Jews when they use violence against the Jews, in response to the violent conquest of the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years, on the part of the European Jews.  

The Palestinians will never be compensated for their loss at the hands of the Jews, we all know that. My problem with you is that you criticize the Palestinians for doing what conquered people under occupation have always done.  Have you ever criticized the Kurds when they carry out terrorist attacks in Iran or Turkey?


----------



## Eloy

RoccoR said:


> Eloy, et al,
> 
> Yes, and we should stipulate the contention here.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense; English is my native language.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Like many things in politics, often what you think they said is not what was conveyed.  No one explains this better than British Ambassador Lord Caradon (Author and sponsor of Res 242).
> 
> There are so many people that want to believe that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires this or that --- and the Argument has raged on for ≈ a half Century with no clear resolution.
> 
> In the half-Century following the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement is signed by Emir Faisal (representing the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz) and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann for Arab–Jewish cooperation in the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, much in the world had changed.  In that time, humanity went from the Barron von Richthofen (Fighter Pilot Ace-of-Aces), his Fokker Triplane and the Flying Circus to Neil Armstrong, Naval Aviator and Fighter Pilot, Test Pilot, Aerospace Engineer,  Astronaut and the First man to Walk on the Moon.  Over time, things changed.​So is the difference between the 1922 White Paper and the 1939 White Paper.
> 
> Excerpt From:
> *The Political History of Palestine under British Administration*
> 
> 52. In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931.. This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt. it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper. Among them were the following:
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish
> immigration in any of its categories.”​
> One of the problems with taking a 1922 snapshot in time and the trying to interpret it in a 21st Century Context is that you miss all the discussion in between.  In this case, the 1922 White Paper was not the Last word.  A decade later, the 1931 Prime Minister made further the explanation.  The concern, all through the 1930s was that *IF* they (Arabs) were accorded complete self-government, *THEN* they would obviously ignore the obligation to establish a National Home for the Jews.
> 
> Oddly enough, that concern and fear has been lurking in the unspoken political background for ≈ a Century.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Forgive me but, unlike the Palestinians, I do not have half a century to chatter with Zionists about the meaning of simple English.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> Eloy, et al,
> 
> Yes, and we should stipulate the contention here.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense; English is my native language.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Like many things in politics, often what you think they said is not what was conveyed.  No one explains this better than British Ambassador Lord Caradon (Author and sponsor of Res 242).
> 
> There are so many people that want to believe that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires this or that --- and the Argument has raged on for ≈ a half Century with no clear resolution.
> 
> In the half-Century following the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement is signed by Emir Faisal (representing the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz) and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann for Arab–Jewish cooperation in the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, much in the world had changed.  In that time, humanity went from the Barron von Richthofen (Fighter Pilot Ace-of-Aces), his Fokker Triplane and the Flying Circus to Neil Armstrong, Naval Aviator and Fighter Pilot, Test Pilot, Aerospace Engineer,  Astronaut and the First man to Walk on the Moon.  Over time, things changed.​So is the difference between the 1922 White Paper and the 1939 White Paper.
> 
> Excerpt From:
> *The Political History of Palestine under British Administration*
> 
> 52. In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931.. This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt. it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper. Among them were the following:
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish
> immigration in any of its categories.”​
> One of the problems with taking a 1922 snapshot in time and the trying to interpret it in a 21st Century Context is that you miss all the discussion in between.  In this case, the 1922 White Paper was not the Last word.  A decade later, the 1931 Prime Minister made further the explanation.  The concern, all through the 1930s was that *IF* they (Arabs) were accorded complete self-government, *THEN* they would obviously ignore the obligation to establish a National Home for the Jews.
> 
> Oddly enough, that concern and fear has been lurking in the unspoken political background for ≈ a Century.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


There you go, an illegal agreement* (Balfour Declaration) caused the British to prevent the Palestinian Christians and Muslims from achieving their goal of self-determination and a state of their own. So, now that you have done some research, research that I had done and used to dispute your assertion that the Palestinians were to blame for for not achieving statehood, was, like most of your assertions, bullshit.  The British would not allow the Palestinian Christians and Muslims to create a state because there too many of them compared to the European Jew population in Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, hence, prior to signing the Covenant the British were bound to "procure its release" from the Balfour Declaration and were required to adhere to ARTICLE 22 which stated in part, "*inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples* " "Such peoples" were the Christian and Muslim natives who represented 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of the signing of the Covenant.  "Such peoples" were not European Jews who wer inhabiting Europe.

*"Covenant of the League of Nations

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

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

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


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> As early as 1922, the British were lying to the Christians and Muslims, even in letters to the Zionist Organization they kept up the charade.
> 
> 
> *"The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organisation.*
> DOWNING STREET,
> 3rd _June, _1922.
> 
> 
> ......These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view.* Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine........ *Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian*, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)









 And who was it denied the LoN mandate and stated they would have nothing to do with it, leading to these letters being written. Once again you use cut and paste tactics out of context to alter the truth


Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy, et al,
> 
> This is simply NOT true.  This was an interpretation made by unskilled and uneducated _(in the ways of politics and diplomacy)_ laymen.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you want to know and understand what the Resolutions actually says, GO TO THE SOURCE:
> 
> But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.
> 
> Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.
> 
> 
> *Lord Caradon* (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.
> 
> • Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, _U.N. Security Council Resolution 242_, pg. 13, qtd. in _Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977_, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:
> 
> Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if *we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend*.
> 
> • _Journal of Palestine Studies_, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:
> 
> Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?
> 
> A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. *We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line*. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.
> 
> *Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong*. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.
> 
> Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.
> 
> • MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978:
> 
> *We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately*. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.
> 
> • _Daily Star_ (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in _Myths and Facts_, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:
> 
> It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's *why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to* ...
> 
> • Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:
> 
> Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?
> 
> A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. *It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be*. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...
> ​While there were more that 2 dozen Palestinian Terrorist Attacks by Jihadist and Fedayeen, in the year previous to the Arab incited 1967 Six Day War, there were the embryonic development of some serious incidents:
> 
> Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by Militants wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
> May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
> July 14, 1966 - Militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
> July 19, 1966 - Militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
> Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.
> Back in the day, even then, no one wanted another failed Arab State in the Region; politically, economically, or commercially interactive.  And it is still that way today.  And in part, while the main reason to support the Jewish National Home/State of Israel, was the preservation and protection of a complete culture, there was --- lurking in the background --- that even then, Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters were going to become a big problem (with or without Israel).  Better to preserve Israel then to let the Radical Islamist have they way and eventually destroy it.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I went to the source; the document itself. I have no interest in wasting paragraphs on parsing simple English with someone who will not understand such as yourself.
Click to expand...










 And what did it actually say, was it what I posted as a reminder that many people read the resolution wrongly.

 By the way the source is the authors and what they say it means is what it means, not what you or any other jumped up neo nazi stooge says it means


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is a very important point.  --- It is a very important point.
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  When is a war over?
> 
> **  In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.
> 
> ••  What war are you talking about?  AND!  Who were the parties to the war?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is my opportunity to learn something from you.  My understanding was:
> 
> ••  Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody).  There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians.  The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
> ••  Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians.  The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein."  This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.​
> All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved.  Permanent international borders have been established.
> ••  Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
> ••  Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> •∆•  Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
> •∆•  A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
> •§•  Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.​
> So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?
> 
> Nothing was taking from the inhabitance.  If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank,  King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only.  This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.
> 
> Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip.  Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for  the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank _(Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements)_. Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada.  Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process.  The two sides did not resume _(in good faith)_ the Permanent Status negotiations.  One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories".  The language was deliberately ambiguous.  In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again I repeat that the language of the resolution was deliberately left ambiguous.  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense; English is my native language.
Click to expand...





 And you are butchering it to make a point that is not valid. You are adding words and context that were never intended to be there.  It does not say all the territories as you claim it says territories.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."
> 
> •  The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.
> 
> •  The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.​[/indent]
> 
> I've seen this argument before.  First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:
> 
> •  The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine.  The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.​There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:
> 
> •  The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
> •  The Mandatory converted into a Commission.​The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:
> 
> •  As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).​
> Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that.  But there is a true reality:  If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle _(approximately)_ of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel.  Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.
> 
> View attachment 100504​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing was converted in 1948.  The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.
Click to expand...








 Would that be the same Jews that you Roman Catholics stole from Israel and took to Europe as your slaves ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."
> 
> •  The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.
> 
> •  The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.​[/indent]
> 
> I've seen this argument before.  First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:
> 
> •  The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine.  The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.​There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:
> 
> •  The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
> •  The Mandatory converted into a Commission.​The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:
> 
> •  As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).​
> Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that.  But there is a true reality:  If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle _(approximately)_ of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel.  Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.
> 
> View attachment 100504​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, a continuing and almost completed colonial project.
Click to expand...







 NO as the arab muslim colonists are now being evicted and sent back home, much to your dismay


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."
> 
> •  The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.
> 
> •  The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.​[/indent]
> 
> I've seen this argument before.  First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:
> 
> •  The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine.  The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.​There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:
> 
> •  The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
> •  The Mandatory converted into a Commission.​The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:
> 
> •  As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).​
> Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that.  But there is a true reality:  If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle _(approximately)_ of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel.  Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.
> 
> View attachment 100504​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing was converted in 1948.  The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blame the UN for the acquired territory.  Not European Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The European Jews are those that engaged in the armed invasion, not the UN.
Click to expand...








 Not the Jews that your Roman Catholics stole and transported as slaves to Europe took part in any armed invasion. That was the arab muslims once again


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy, et al,
> 
> Yes, and we should stipulate the contention here.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense; English is my native language.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Like many things in politics, often what you think they said is not what was conveyed.  No one explains this better than British Ambassador Lord Caradon (Author and sponsor of Res 242).
> 
> There are so many people that want to believe that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires this or that --- and the Argument has raged on for ≈ a half Century with no clear resolution.
> 
> In the half-Century following the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement is signed by Emir Faisal (representing the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz) and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann for Arab–Jewish cooperation in the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, much in the world had changed.  In that time, humanity went from the Barron von Richthofen (Fighter Pilot Ace-of-Aces), his Fokker Triplane and the Flying Circus to Neil Armstrong, Naval Aviator and Fighter Pilot, Test Pilot, Aerospace Engineer,  Astronaut and the First man to Walk on the Moon.  Over time, things changed.​So is the difference between the 1922 White Paper and the 1939 White Paper.
> 
> Excerpt From:
> *The Political History of Palestine under British Administration*
> 
> 52. In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931.. This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt. it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper. Among them were the following:
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish
> immigration in any of its categories.”​
> One of the problems with taking a 1922 snapshot in time and the trying to interpret it in a 21st Century Context is that you miss all the discussion in between.  In this case, the 1922 White Paper was not the Last word.  A decade later, the 1931 Prime Minister made further the explanation.  The concern, all through the 1930s was that *IF* they (Arabs) were accorded complete self-government, *THEN* they would obviously ignore the obligation to establish a National Home for the Jews.
> 
> Oddly enough, that concern and fear has been lurking in the unspoken political background for ≈ a Century.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forgive me but, unlike the Palestinians, I do not have half a century to chatter with Zionists about the meaning of simple English.
Click to expand...








 Because you know that it is beyond your intelligence, so look for a back door exit


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy, et al,
> 
> Yes, and we should stipulate the contention here.
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense; English is my native language.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Like many things in politics, often what you think they said is not what was conveyed.  No one explains this better than British Ambassador Lord Caradon (Author and sponsor of Res 242).
> 
> There are so many people that want to believe that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires this or that --- and the Argument has raged on for ≈ a half Century with no clear resolution.
> 
> In the half-Century following the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement is signed by Emir Faisal (representing the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz) and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann for Arab–Jewish cooperation in the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, much in the world had changed.  In that time, humanity went from the Barron von Richthofen (Fighter Pilot Ace-of-Aces), his Fokker Triplane and the Flying Circus to Neil Armstrong, Naval Aviator and Fighter Pilot, Test Pilot, Aerospace Engineer,  Astronaut and the First man to Walk on the Moon.  Over time, things changed.​So is the difference between the 1922 White Paper and the 1939 White Paper.
> 
> Excerpt From:
> *The Political History of Palestine under British Administration*
> 
> 52. In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931.. This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt. it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper. Among them were the following:
> 
> “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”
> 
> “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”
> 
> “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish
> immigration in any of its categories.”​
> One of the problems with taking a 1922 snapshot in time and the trying to interpret it in a 21st Century Context is that you miss all the discussion in between.  In this case, the 1922 White Paper was not the Last word.  A decade later, the 1931 Prime Minister made further the explanation.  The concern, all through the 1930s was that *IF* they (Arabs) were accorded complete self-government, *THEN* they would obviously ignore the obligation to establish a National Home for the Jews.
> 
> Oddly enough, that concern and fear has been lurking in the unspoken political background for ≈ a Century.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go, an illegal agreement* (Balfour Declaration) caused the British to prevent the Palestinian Christians and Muslims from achieving their goal of self-determination and a state of their own. So, now that you have done some research, research that I had done and used to dispute your assertion that the Palestinians were to blame for for not achieving statehood, was, like most of your assertions, bullshit.  The British would not allow the Palestinian Christians and Muslims to create a state because there too many of them compared to the European Jew population in Palestine.
> 
> The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, hence, prior to signing the Covenant the British were bound to "procure its release" from the Balfour Declaration and were required to adhere to ARTICLE 22 which stated in part, "*inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples* " "Such peoples" were the Christian and Muslim natives who represented 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of the signing of the Covenant.  "Such peoples" were not European Jews who wer inhabiting Europe.
> 
> *"Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> *ARTICLE 20.*
> The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> *In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."*
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> *To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development *of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
Click to expand...







 Trying to use the LoN covenant retroactively is a no no 


 As for article 22 that was fulfilled by granting the arab muslims 78% of palestine, and then placing the NO JEWS law in place


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is something that was a "view" nearly a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> DOWNING STREET,
> 3rd _June, _1922.
> 
> ......These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." *His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view.* Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine........ *Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian*, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, I ask you to review Posting # 1121, the reality.
> 
> Then I ask you a question:  What's your Plan?  What's your contingency if there is an outbreak of hostilities?
> 
> •  Do you think that the contemporary Government of Israel (GOI) is just going to walk-up and hand the keys to Israel to you?
> •  What (very improbable) sets of events would have to occur that would induce the GOI to surrender their title and rights to self-government and sovereignty?
> •  How do you picture this unfolding?​I wonder what would happen if it were the UN that had to hand over its title and rights to self-government and sovereignty --- what would happen?  Would we rain three kinds of hell upon them or four?  Neither the UN or any other powerful body would:  "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter."
> 
> *(RATIONAL CONSEQUENCE)*
> 
> If the people of the only Jewish Nation in the world  (8 Million = half the worlds Jewish population, including over 30,000 Americans from 36 different states) were to be put at the risk and invokes the inherent right of selfdefense  (Chapter VII Art 51):
> 
> •   What do you think the American domestic political backlash would be?
> •   Would America go to war with Israel over something America did and could have prevented?
> •   What does the Arab League have at risk if the peace and security of Israel was threatened?
> •   What assistance do you think Israel would ask of the Russian Federation should the US impose sanctions or embargoes?
> •   If it was your country, what lengths would you go to if you were the most civilized and developed country in the world?​
> IF you were the Emperor of the Earth, how do you put your plan into action?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ask you a question.  Given that you now accept that the Christian and Muslims were lied to by the British at the beginning, and the British/UN clearly failed to protect the civil and religious rights of the the non-Jews as promised in the Mandate, why do you appear surprised and constantly criticize the non-Jews when they use violence against the Jews, in response to the violent conquest of the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years, on the part of the European Jews.
> 
> The Palestinians will never be compensated for their loss at the hands of the Jews, we all know that. My problem with you is that you criticize the Palestinians for doing what conquered people under occupation have always done.  Have you ever criticized the Kurds when they carry out terrorist attacks in Iran or Turkey?
Click to expand...









 Because the people responsible have refused to do so, and that is the arab league that invited the arab muslims to migrate illegally and take the land by force


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I'm not sure where you get that I "now accept that the Christian and Muslims were lied to by the British" in some lump.  This is some sort of ambush and I don't lean into them.



montelatici said:


> I ask you a question.  Given that you now accept that the Christian and Muslims were lied to by the British at the beginning, and the British/UN clearly failed to protect the civil and religious rights of the the non-Jews as promised in the Mandate, why do you appear surprised and constantly criticize the non-Jews when they use violence against the Jews, in response to the violent conquest of the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years, on the part of the European Jews.
> 
> The Palestinians will never be compensated for their loss at the hands of the Jews, we all know that. My problem with you is that you criticize the Palestinians for doing what conquered people under occupation have always done.  Have you ever criticized the Kurds when they carry out terrorist attacks in Iran or Turkey?


*(YOUR QUESTIONS)*

•   "[W]hy do you appear surprised and constantly criticize the non-Jews when they use violence against the Jews [?]"
Well, I'm really never surprised by the actions of those that either support or follow those that engaged in Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  And I error on the side of caution, I am suspicious of every "Arab" (regardless of their faith), including those that are anti-Government, anti-Semitic, or openly provide direct support or material assistance (tangible or intangible) to those that DO NOT:

§  Practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.
§  Promote the rule of law among nations.
§  Place a great importance on the maintenance of international peace and security.
§  Foster great political, economic, social changes and scientific progress over violence.​YES I heavily criticize the regional non-Jews when they use violence against the Jews AS OPOSED to the progressive development and investment in their nation and culture; starting with:

§  Refraining from actions that threaten Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence against the territorial integrity or political independence of the Jewish State of Israel.
§  Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,​
•  Relative to the statement:  ... "violent conquest of the land" ...

§  I do not advocate violence.  I am a not opposed to the use of violence, especially in the example case of the Jewish People establishing their National Home.  And I am a very strong advocate that once a conflict begins, the military engagement continues until one side or the other capitulates or is annihilate to the point that a regime can replace the aggressor.  There should be a point at which the humanitarian considerations only serve to drag-on the fight unnecessarily.
§  There comes a time when the hostile aggressor must be obliterate to an unrecoverable point.  That moment comes when it is evident that the hostile aggressor is only holding on by donor contributions and a regime adoption to use unlawful and intentional use Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place that would otherwise be protected under imaginary international law.​
•  "[Y]ou criticize the Palestinians for doing what conquered people under occupation have always done.

§  And I advocate that in the absence of a good faith peace process effort, that Israel be allowed to prosecute such military action upon the Hostile Arab Palestinians that their will  ----  to continue the struggle ---  is effectively ended and the post-Conflict reconstruction effort and begin without fear of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.​
_Ceterum censeo Palestinem esse delendam!_​•  "[H]ave you ever criticized the Kurds when they carry out terrorist attacks in Iran or Turkey?"

§  Yes, but that is an Iraqi Failure and another story all together.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

et al,

*(FYI)*

The man who drove a car into a crowd of students at Ohio State University on Monday and then attacked bystanders with a butcher knife, injuring at least 11, has been identified as a student at the university, and officials are investigating whether terrorism was a motive. The attacker, *Abdul Razak Ali Artan*, who authorities said was about 20 years old, was shot and killed by a university police officer who arrived and brought Artan down within a minute, officials said. "This happened right before his eyes," campus Police Chief Craig Stone said of Officer Alan Horujko, 28, who had been in the area on another call. In a previous news conference, Stone said Artan had not "followed" the officer's commands and "the officer did what he had to do to end the threat."

*(Q)*

Does this sound familiar?  _(Always be suspicious!)_

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

So, it is established that you support murderous violence when it is practiced by invading Jews against native Christians and Muslims, but you consider violent resistance, to the Violent Aggressor Jewish Invader (VAJI)   by said native inhabitants, inappropriate hostility.  Notwithstanding the fact that the Jews had every intent to ethnically cleanse as many native non-Jews as possible to make room for yet more European Jews.

Comparing a Somali refugee in the U.S. with the native people of Palestine, under Jew occupation and oppression, makes a whole lot of sense.  

You are just so conditioned you can't help yourself from exposing your irrational bias.


----------



## Meathead

I haven't followed this thread, but it seems to me there need be no legal right to exist. Existence itself makes that idiotic.

Sorry, carry on.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,


Such as?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> So, it is established that you support murderous violence when it is practiced by invading Jews against native Christians and Muslims, but you consider violent resistance, to the Violent Aggressor Jewish Invader (VAJI)   by said native inhabitants, inappropriate hostility.  Notwithstanding the fact that the Jews had every intent to ethnically cleanse as many native non-Jews as possible to make room for yet more European Jews.
> 
> Comparing a Somali refugee in the U.S. with the native people of Palestine, under Jew occupation and oppression, makes a whole lot of sense.
> 
> You are just so conditioned you can't help yourself from exposing your irrational bias.



It's been established that your pathology of IJH and your debilitating Jew paranoia causes you to make these impassioned, strident pleas. 

It's really pretty ugly.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
Click to expand...

Such as Islamic terrorists stabbing Israelis on streets and sidewalks.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as Islamic terrorists stabbing Israelis on streets and sidewalks.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, that wasn't the question.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as Islamic terrorists stabbing Israelis on streets and sidewalks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, that wasn't the question.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, you didn't like the answer.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."
> 
> •  The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.
> 
> •  The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.​[/indent]
> 
> I've seen this argument before.  First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:
> 
> •  The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine.  The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.​There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:
> 
> •  The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
> •  The Mandatory converted into a Commission.​The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:
> 
> •  As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).​
> Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that.  But there is a true reality:  If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle _(approximately)_ of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel.  Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.
> 
> View attachment 100504​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing was converted in 1948.  The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blame the UN for the acquired territory.  Not European Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The European Jews are those that engaged in the armed invasion, not the UN.
Click to expand...


How do ya like that.  And here I actually believed bombardier Begin was defending what the UN granted to the Jews but sure would have preferred he didn't have to.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as Islamic terrorists stabbing Israelis on streets and sidewalks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, that wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, you didn't like the answer.
Click to expand...

Whose question were you answering?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Leaders are a molder of consensus.  There are two adversarial parties involved in this conflict.  The leader of one party speak unequivocally in the name of the people and Knesset.   The leaders of the other country is a contested party chairman.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*
"Jihad is a propagandistic device which, as need be, resorts to armed struggle – two ingredients common to many ideological movements," 
_------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Professor Maxime Rodinson_ ​
I could be a smart ass and say visit "http://www.peace-talks.com/" but low and behold, there is actually a Web Site there for a "Family Mediation Service."  But they only deal with people of some sanity.  That would leave the Palestinians that have already decided to choose Jihad (etc) and armed struggle as the principle means of resolution.

Establish a willingness of the parties to sit down and in good faith open a dialogue intended to reach a beneficial outcome on peace.  

*(EXTERNAL OBSERVATION)*

"Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute."  I do not believe that the capacity rest with the Arab Palestinian Leadership to reach either a compromise of agreement.  They want a solution that was lost to them over have a century ago.

The Arab Palestinians have not signaled any intention of seeking a negotiation.  They want to reset the clock to a time before they chose Jihad and armed struggle as a solution, and they want territorial control concessions even before the process of negotiation begins.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Rocco, was defending the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years a "Jihad"?  And since about 30% of the Palestinians were Christians when the European Jews initiated the invasion, what would you call their efforts to defend themselves from the invading Jews?  A Crusade?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Rocco, was defending the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years a "Jihad"?  And since about 30% of the Palestinians were Christians when the European Jews initiated the invasion, what would you call their efforts to defend themselves from the invading Jews?  A Crusade?


What would you call your silly "Jew invasion" slogan? Meaningless tripe?


----------



## montelatici

When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.


When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.
Click to expand...


The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact.  The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact.  The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid your screeching out of your usual slogans and clichés does little to support such a buffoonish argument.


----------



## montelatici

No screeching dear, just fact.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact.  The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.
Click to expand...


"Native people of Palestine."  You mean the Jews invaded themselves???


----------



## Vikrant

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it is established that you support murderous violence when it is practiced by invading Jews against native Christians and Muslims, but you consider violent resistance, to the Violent Aggressor Jewish Invader (VAJI)   by said native inhabitants, inappropriate hostility.  Notwithstanding the fact that the Jews had every intent to ethnically cleanse as many native non-Jews as possible to make room for yet more European Jews.
> 
> Comparing a Somali refugee in the U.S. with the native people of Palestine, under Jew occupation and oppression, makes a whole lot of sense.
> 
> You are just so conditioned you can't help yourself from exposing your irrational bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT OTHER POSTERS SAY IT IS AGAINST THE RULES, AND YOUR TAME MOD IS NO LONGER HERE TO PROTECT YOU
Click to expand...


You and your ilks are the only liars apart from few others.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact.  The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Native people of Palestine."  You mean the Jews invaded themselves???
Click to expand...


Very cleaver those Zionists.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> No screeching dear, just fact.


I'm afraid your invention of laughable "facts" are not consistent with the historical record you know nothing of.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Leaders are a molder of consensus.  There are two adversarial parties involved in this conflict.  The leader of one party speak unequivocally in the name of the people and Knesset.   The leaders of the other country is a contested party chairman.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> "Jihad is a propagandistic device which, as need be, resorts to armed struggle – two ingredients common to many ideological movements,"
> _------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Professor Maxime Rodinson_ ​
> I could be a smart ass and say visit "http://www.peace-talks.com/" but low and behold, there is actually a Web Site there for a "Family Mediation Service."  But they only deal with people of some sanity.  That would leave the Palestinians that have already decided to choose Jihad (etc) and armed struggle as the principle means of resolution.
> 
> Establish a willingness of the parties to sit down and in good faith open a dialogue intended to reach a beneficial outcome on peace.
> 
> *(EXTERNAL OBSERVATION)*
> 
> "Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute."  I do not believe that the capacity rest with the Arab Palestinian Leadership to reach either a compromise of agreement.  They want a solution that was lost to them over have a century ago.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have not signaled any intention of seeking a negotiation.  They want to reset the clock to a time before they chose Jihad and armed struggle as a solution, and they want territorial control concessions even before the process of negotiation begins.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Do you mean endless talks over how to divide the pizza while one is stuffing his face with it as fast as he can?

BTW, why should people have to negotiate for their rights?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No screeching dear, just fact.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your invention of laughable "facts" are not consistent with the historical record you know nothing of.
Click to expand...

IOW, they do not match Israeli bullshit.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact.  The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Native people of Palestine."  You mean the Jews invaded themselves???
Click to expand...


The European Jews came from Europe.  How could they invade themselves by invading Palestine?


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.



When you are ethnically cleansed from your sovereign land and you return -- its called the reconstitution of your National Homeland.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I almost rest my case.



P F Tinmore said:


> Do you mean endless talks over how to divide the pizza while one is stuffing his face with it as fast as he can?


*(COMMENT)*

*IF* you mean that the Arab Palestinians have already decided that settlement by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, is not going to be attempted --- *THEN* it can be said that the Arab Palestinians are not now interested in any solution other that conflict.



P F Tinmore said:


> BTW, why should people have to negotiate for their rights?


*(COMMENT)*

I did not see one single "right" denied.  I have the right to earn a Million dollars; but, no one is just going to hand it to me.

The Arab Palestinians have lots of "rights;" but, no one is just going to hand it to you.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> ...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?



The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights.  Their rights are inherent and inviolable.  As are Jewish rights.  

The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *IF* you mean that the Arab Palestinians have already decided that settlement by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, is not going to be attempted --- *THEN* it can be said that the Arab Palestinians are not now interested in any solution other that conflict.


Do you mean endless talks while Israel continues to steal land?

BTW, where is the rest of all that stuff?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights.  Their rights are inherent and inviolable.  As are Jewish rights.
> 
> The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.

What is this negotiate boundaries thing?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The Arab Palestinians have what (exactly)???



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights.  Their rights are inherent and inviolable.  As are Jewish rights.
> 
> The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> What is this negotiate boundaries thing?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The "right" to "territorial integrity" does not mean much if you don't have a territory in which to apply it.

The Allied Powers was granted the Title and Rights to a vast territory; one segment of which was the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine was applied.

What territory did the Title and Rights past to the Arab Palestinians.

If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.  Disputes are normally handled through  some peaceful means.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Bleipriester

The UN now demands that the occupied Golan returns to Syria.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.


It is a one sided dispute.

If I say I own your car is that a dispute?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> What is this negotiate boundaries thing?



Oh, its this weird little thing that this the basis for every freaking State in the world.  No biggie.  Shrug.

What you are really asking is why your imaginary Palestine has to give up part of what you (and they) mistakenly believe is "theirs".  The answer is simple -- self-determination is an inherent, inviolable right which belongs to everyone and not just some people.  

If Quebec wants to leave Canada; if Catalonia wants to leave Spain; if Scotland wants to leave the UK; or if any one of a dozen or more national movements wish to self-govern -- they have the right to do so.  

It doesn't even matter if you subscribe to the notion that all of the remaining portion of the geographical area of Palestine is Israel (my view) or if its all "Palestine" (your view -- though fundamentally flawed and incorrect).  The reality is that there are two distinct national movements in the territory.  And they are fundamentally incompatible with one another.  And they BOTH have the right to self-determination.  

Again, it isn't a zero sum game.  

And its especially problematic for Arab Palestinians to try to make it a zero sum game.  They are losing.  They are losing badly.  On so many levels.


----------



## RoccoR

Bleipriester, et al,

Yeah, this is one-hell-of-a subject.  It really kicks in on skills in formal presentations.  And this particular question (The Case of the Golan Heights) is a compound and complex question; if nothing else.

In the Original Posting - "Israel's Legal Right To Exist" - the status of the Golan Heights is irrelevant.  The Golan Heights Issue that starts from a 1981 timeframe.  The question of existance starts from a 1948 timeframe.  *IF* Israel has no "Right" to exist, *THEN* it has not "Right" to hold any territory.  The question, in terms of "Rights" relative to the Golan Heights is moot.

"Rights" + "Title" + "Sovereignty" are all independent concepts in relation to "Reality" (Ground Truth).



Bleipriester said:


> The UN now demands that the occupied Golan returns to Syria.


*(REFERENCES)*

Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967, then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.

A first group of 127 UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) peacekeepers returned Monday to a camp on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights, two years after withdrawing amid clashes with Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels.
United Nations (United States) (AFP)

The UN demanded that Israel comply with the international legitimacy's resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, particularly the Security Council resolution no. 497 of 1981 that *declared Israel's decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the Golan as "null and void and without international legal effect"*. 
Sign of the Times (SOTT)  *Wed, 18 Nov 2015*
UN demands Israel annul illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights

UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) Middle East Conflict (22 Nov)
UNSC Resolution 338 (1973) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 Oct)
UNSC Resolution 485 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 May)
UNSC Resolution 493 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (23 Nov)
UNSC Resolution 497 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (17 Dec)

General Assembly A/70/480 (1 DEC 2015) Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources

General Assembly severely criticizes the "Occupying Power" (Israel) and leave the issue of Arab Palestinian wrong doing, Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence completely unadressed as a causation for current outcomes.​
*(DIRECT OBSERVATION)
*

​
*(COMMENT)*

It is unlikely that anything the UN does will actually change the ground truth.  In fact, it is more likely that any enforcement action will trigger open conflict --- which --- will (with greater probability) result (yet again) even greater losses and casualties for the Arab Palestinians to bear.  This would even be more likely if the Arab Palestinians ignite violence in the City of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.  

The UNDOF, much like the UNEF in the Sinai, will not act as a barrier - but step aside at the first sign of trouble just like the UNEF did in 1967.  

Currently, the only military forces (land, sea, or air) in the region (not currently engaging DAESH, another similar radical islamic movement) are pointed towards Israel.  Other than Israel, there are no Allied Forces capable of influencing the battlefield in time to "prevent an armed conflict."  

The regional Arab nations _(in this DAESH turbulant region)_ have to exercise some discretion in the ignition of a conflict.  Should the conflict start in the significant combat loss in Arab Forces, DAESH will not hesitate to take advantage of any weakness.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967,* then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.*


Because it is it is illegal to annex occupied territory. The same problem Jordan had with the West Bank.

Now what was the question?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
Click to expand...







 Meetting at a neutral venue and negotiating a just resolution to the problems. Something the arab muslims are refusing to do


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The UNDOF, much like the UNEF in the Sinai, will not act as a barrier - but step aside at the first sign of trouble just like the UNEF did in 1967.


And the UNPC in 1948.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967,* then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.*
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is it is illegal to annex occupied territory. The same problem Jordan had with the West Bank.
> 
> Now what was the question?
Click to expand...







 Israel's legal right to exist


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UNDOF, much like the UNEF in the Sinai, will not act as a barrier - but step aside at the first sign of trouble just like the UNEF did in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> And the UNPC in 1948.
Click to expand...







 As it was never a military force, and all UN forces are the same unless given the go ahead to use deadly force


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as Islamic terrorists stabbing Israelis on streets and sidewalks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, that wasn't the question.
Click to expand...






 No it was one of the many answers that you could get


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967,* then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.*
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is it is illegal to annex occupied territory. The same problem Jordan had with the West Bank.
> 
> Now what was the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's legal right to exist
Click to expand...

An unsubstantiated Israeli talking point that has never been proven to be true.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Rocco, was defending the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years a "Jihad"?  And since about 30% of the Palestinians were Christians when the European Jews initiated the invasion, what would you call their efforts to defend themselves from the invading Jews?  A Crusade?









 So how come their leaders have stated they are not the people who had lived there for centuries, but recent illegal immigrants. So they cant be defending their land they had lived on for thousands of years can they, and should have left when they were routed by the Jews in 1948.

What country initiated this invasion again as there is no record of a European Jewish nation in existence, could you mean Turkey as it was the Ottomans that invited the Jews to migrate and colonise the land in 1850


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.







 What is it called if you are invited by the sovereign owners of the land ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact.  The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.
Click to expand...






 AND THERE WERE NO JEWS IN PALESTINE AT THAT TIME, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967,* then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.*
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is it is illegal to annex occupied territory. The same problem Jordan had with the West Bank.
> 
> Now what was the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's legal right to exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An unsubstantiated Israeli talking point that has never been proven to be true.
Click to expand...







 Then produce the evidence to show it is an Israeli talking point, when you cant then it means that you are lying.

 As for the right to exist it is in the UN charter and if you deny that then the whole of the M.E. is open to being taken over. Could I have a place at the main entrance to the qibla for my chilli dog stand ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> No screeching dear, just fact.







 No facts dear just your screechings


----------



## Phoenall

Vikrant said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it is established that you support murderous violence when it is practiced by invading Jews against native Christians and Muslims, but you consider violent resistance, to the Violent Aggressor Jewish Invader (VAJI)   by said native inhabitants, inappropriate hostility.  Notwithstanding the fact that the Jews had every intent to ethnically cleanse as many native non-Jews as possible to make room for yet more European Jews.
> 
> Comparing a Somali refugee in the U.S. with the native people of Palestine, under Jew occupation and oppression, makes a whole lot of sense.
> 
> You are just so conditioned you can't help yourself from exposing your irrational bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT OTHER POSTERS SAY IT IS AGAINST THE RULES, AND YOUR TAME MOD IS NO LONGER HERE TO PROTECT YOU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and your ilks are the only liars apart from few others.
Click to expand...






Talking of LIARS and up pops vik the islamomoron from India


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Leaders are a molder of consensus.  There are two adversarial parties involved in this conflict.  The leader of one party speak unequivocally in the name of the people and Knesset.   The leaders of the other country is a contested party chairman.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> "Jihad is a propagandistic device which, as need be, resorts to armed struggle – two ingredients common to many ideological movements,"
> _------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Professor Maxime Rodinson_​
> I could be a smart ass and say visit "http://www.peace-talks.com/" but low and behold, there is actually a Web Site there for a "Family Mediation Service."  But they only deal with people of some sanity.  That would leave the Palestinians that have already decided to choose Jihad (etc) and armed struggle as the principle means of resolution.
> 
> Establish a willingness of the parties to sit down and in good faith open a dialogue intended to reach a beneficial outcome on peace.
> 
> *(EXTERNAL OBSERVATION)*
> 
> "Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute."  I do not believe that the capacity rest with the Arab Palestinian Leadership to reach either a compromise of agreement.  They want a solution that was lost to them over have a century ago.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have not signaled any intention of seeking a negotiation.  They want to reset the clock to a time before they chose Jihad and armed struggle as a solution, and they want territorial control concessions even before the process of negotiation begins.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you mean endless talks over how to divide the pizza while one is stuffing his face with it as fast as he can?
> 
> BTW, why should people have to negotiate for their rights?
Click to expand...






 Because that is how they get them in the first place. Or do you think that "RIGHTS" just appear out of thin air and are magically applied to only a small part of society. Dont forget what ever rights you apply to the arab muslims are also being applied to the Jews, so why do you find it so hard to accept this simple truth. Also why do you try and deny the Jews these rights while demanding they be handed to the arab muslims on a gold plate.

 The Jews have no problems in negotiating for their rights, why do you find it so hard ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No screeching dear, just fact.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid your invention of laughable "facts" are not consistent with the historical record you know nothing of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IOW, they do not match Israeli bullshit.
Click to expand...







 No the do not match reality and the truth, and nothing to do with Israel


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact.  The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Native people of Palestine."  You mean the Jews invaded themselves???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The European Jews came from Europe.  How could they invade themselves by invading Palestine?
Click to expand...







 Because they could not invade what was theirs by right of international law.............


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *IF* you mean that the Arab Palestinians have already decided that settlement by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, is not going to be attempted --- *THEN* it can be said that the Arab Palestinians are not now interested in any solution other that conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean endless talks while Israel continues to steal land?
> 
> BTW, where is the rest of all that stuff?
Click to expand...







 And were has Israel stolen land that was not theirs by right of international laws.   Detail one parcel of land that was never Jewish after 1922 ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights.  Their rights are inherent and inviolable.  As are Jewish rights.
> 
> The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> What is this negotiate boundaries thing?
Click to expand...







 The produce the treaty signed by a representative of the palestinians showing these boundaries. The borders of the mandate of palestine are not applicable


----------



## Phoenall

Bleipriester said:


> The UN now demands that the occupied Golan returns to Syria.









 And Lebanon is demanding they get it so they can fire on Syria. But at the end of the day the land was granted under international law to Israel in 1922


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a one sided dispute.
> 
> If I say I own your car is that a dispute?
Click to expand...






No it is two sided as they both disagree and start hostilities.

Yes as I hold title and you dont, in the US I believe I can shoot you if you try and take my car under those circumstances


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967,* then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.*
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is it is illegal to annex occupied territory. The same problem Jordan had with the West Bank.
> 
> Now what was the question?
Click to expand...




Unless it is the palestinins doing so and then it is allowed............


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have what (exactly)???
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights.  Their rights are inherent and inviolable.  As are Jewish rights.
> 
> The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> What is this negotiate boundaries thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right" to "territorial integrity" does not mean much if you don't have a territory in which to apply it.
> 
> The Allied Powers was granted the Title and Rights to a vast territory; one segment of which was the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine was applied.
> 
> What territory did the Title and Rights past to the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.  Disputes are normally handled through  some peaceful means.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The disagreement is only on the Israeli side. Israel even started their war over their own disagreement. The only problem the Palestinians had was living in Palestine the territory the Zionists wanted for themselves.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a one sided dispute.
> 
> If I say I own your car is that a dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is two sided as they both disagree and start hostilities.
> 
> Yes as I hold title and you dont, in the US I believe I can shoot you if you try and take my car under those circumstances
Click to expand...

The Palestinians want Palestine. Israel wants Palestine.

The so called dispute is one sided.

I agree. The Palestinians can shoot if someone tries to take Palestine.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have what (exactly)???
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights.  Their rights are inherent and inviolable.  As are Jewish rights.
> 
> The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> What is this negotiate boundaries thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right" to "territorial integrity" does not mean much if you don't have a territory in which to apply it.
> 
> The Allied Powers was granted the Title and Rights to a vast territory; one segment of which was the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine was applied.
> 
> What territory did the Title and Rights past to the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.  Disputes are normally handled through  some peaceful means.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


No title or rights were granted to the Allied Powers.  Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations clearly states that the the Mandatories were responsible for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of the colonies and territories, title did not transfer to the Allies. You continue to make things up Rocco, stop it.

"ARTICLE 22.

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


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meetting at a neutral venue and negotiating a just resolution to the problems. Something the arab muslims are refusing to do
Click to expand...

Those worthless pieces of meat (on both sides) have been blabbering on, and on, and on about peace for over 20 years and they keep getting farther away from peace. So far negotiations have been counterproductive.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have what (exactly)???
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights.  Their rights are inherent and inviolable.  As are Jewish rights.
> 
> The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> What is this negotiate boundaries thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right" to "territorial integrity" does not mean much if you don't have a territory in which to apply it.
> 
> The Allied Powers was granted the Title and Rights to a vast territory; one segment of which was the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine was applied.
> 
> What territory did the Title and Rights past to the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.  Disputes are normally handled through  some peaceful means.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No title or rights were granted to the Allied Powers.  Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations clearly states that the the Mandatories were responsible for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of the colonies and territories, title did not transfer to the Allies. You continue to make things up Rocco, stop it.
> 
> "ARTICLE 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
Click to expand...

You have to excuse Rocco. He is an old government person. Those people think funny like that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Leaders are a molder of consensus.  There are two adversarial parties involved in this conflict.  The leader of one party speak unequivocally in the name of the people and Knesset.   The leaders of the other country is a contested party chairman.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> "Jihad is a propagandistic device which, as need be, resorts to armed struggle – two ingredients common to many ideological movements,"
> _------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Professor Maxime Rodinson_​
> I could be a smart ass and say visit "http://www.peace-talks.com/" but low and behold, there is actually a Web Site there for a "Family Mediation Service."  But they only deal with people of some sanity.  That would leave the Palestinians that have already decided to choose Jihad (etc) and armed struggle as the principle means of resolution.
> 
> Establish a willingness of the parties to sit down and in good faith open a dialogue intended to reach a beneficial outcome on peace.
> 
> *(EXTERNAL OBSERVATION)*
> 
> "Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute."  I do not believe that the capacity rest with the Arab Palestinian Leadership to reach either a compromise of agreement.  They want a solution that was lost to them over have a century ago.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have not signaled any intention of seeking a negotiation.  They want to reset the clock to a time before they chose Jihad and armed struggle as a solution, and they want territorial control concessions even before the process of negotiation begins.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you mean endless talks over how to divide the pizza while one is stuffing his face with it as fast as he can?
> 
> BTW, why should people have to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is how they get them in the first place. Or do you think that "RIGHTS" just appear out of thin air and are magically applied to only a small part of society. Dont forget what ever rights you apply to the arab muslims are also being applied to the Jews, so why do you find it so hard to accept this simple truth. Also why do you try and deny the Jews these rights while demanding they be handed to the arab muslims on a gold plate.
> 
> The Jews have no problems in negotiating for their rights, why do you find it so hard ?
Click to expand...

Rights are not given by anybody. They are something a people have without negotiations.

I know, this is all so confusing to you.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact.  The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Native people of Palestine."  You mean the Jews invaded themselves???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The European Jews came from Europe.  How could they invade themselves by invading Palestine?
Click to expand...


How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed the Jews were "native Palestinians" long before there were any Christian, let alone Muslim Palestinians.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,

Nonsense.  This is a timeline failure.



montelatici said:


> No title or rights were granted to the Allied Powers.  Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations clearly states that the the Mandatories were responsible for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of the colonies and territories, title did not transfer to the Allies. You continue to make things up Rocco, stop it.
> 
> "ARTICLE 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."


*(COMMENT)*

The Covenant was signed in 1919 and went into force on 10 January 1920.  The Treaty of Lausanne was a 1924 product.

ARTICLE I6.

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

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
Again, in a direct attempt to discredit the information, they actually use the technique to misdirection.  Pointing to the Covenant.  and it is true, Article 22 of the Covenant does not speak to title and rights.  It makes no reference to Palestine at all.  HOWEVER, the Treaty of Lausanne _(TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE)_ included Article 16 in which the Title and Rights were past to the Allied Powers (not the Arab Palestinians).

You will note that the Article 22 did give objectives to be accomplished that the Arab Palestinians need to participate; "tutelage" and "stand-alone" criteria.  The Arab Palestinians rejected all opportunities to become involved in the process. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you travel from a place to conquer an inhabited  place far away, in this case on another continent, it is called an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact.  The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Native people of Palestine."  You mean the Jews invaded themselves???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The European Jews came from Europe.  How could they invade themselves by invading Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed the Jews were "native Palestinians" long before there were any Christian, let alone Muslim Palestinians.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
Click to expand...


How could people in Europe be Palestinians?  Amazing what can be discerned about MJ's ability to process logic. LOL


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Leaders are a molder of consensus.  There are two adversarial parties involved in this conflict.  The leader of one party speak unequivocally in the name of the people and Knesset.   The leaders of the other country is a contested party chairman.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> "Jihad is a propagandistic device which, as need be, resorts to armed struggle – two ingredients common to many ideological movements,"
> _------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Professor Maxime Rodinson_​
> I could be a smart ass and say visit "http://www.peace-talks.com/" but low and behold, there is actually a Web Site there for a "Family Mediation Service."  But they only deal with people of some sanity.  That would leave the Palestinians that have already decided to choose Jihad (etc) and armed struggle as the principle means of resolution.
> 
> Establish a willingness of the parties to sit down and in good faith open a dialogue intended to reach a beneficial outcome on peace.
> 
> *(EXTERNAL OBSERVATION)*
> 
> "Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute."  I do not believe that the capacity rest with the Arab Palestinian Leadership to reach either a compromise of agreement.  They want a solution that was lost to them over have a century ago.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have not signaled any intention of seeking a negotiation.  They want to reset the clock to a time before they chose Jihad and armed struggle as a solution, and they want territorial control concessions even before the process of negotiation begins.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you mean endless talks over how to divide the pizza while one is stuffing his face with it as fast as he can?
> 
> BTW, why should people have to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is how they get them in the first place. Or do you think that "RIGHTS" just appear out of thin air and are magically applied to only a small part of society. Dont forget what ever rights you apply to the arab muslims are also being applied to the Jews, so why do you find it so hard to accept this simple truth. Also why do you try and deny the Jews these rights while demanding they be handed to the arab muslims on a gold plate.
> 
> The Jews have no problems in negotiating for their rights, why do you find it so hard ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rights are not given by anybody. They are something a people have without negotiations.
> 
> I know, this is all so confusing to you.
Click to expand...

As all of this has been explained to you before, multiple times across multiple threads, it's disappointing you still don't understand. 

The Jewish people exercised their right of self-determination. The Arabs-Moslems could not manage that. In anticipation of your usual whining about your invented Pal'istanians in your invented "country of Pal'istan", let's remind you again... for what, the 100th time that your invented "country of Pal'istan" never existed as the land area called "Pal'istan" was ceded by the Turks. 

How many more times does that need to be explained to you? 

Give us a number.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,
> 
> Nonsense.  This is a timeline failure.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No title or rights were granted to the Allied Powers.  Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations clearly states that the the Mandatories were responsible for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of the colonies and territories, title did not transfer to the Allies. You continue to make things up Rocco, stop it.
> 
> "ARTICLE 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant was signed in 1919 and went into force on 10 January 1920.  The Treaty of Lausanne was a 1924 product.
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
> Again, in a direct attempt to discredit the information, they actually use the technique to misdirection.  Pointing to the Covenant.  and it is true, Article 22 of the Covenant does not speak to title and rights.  It makes no reference to Palestine at all.  HOWEVER, the Treaty of Lausanne _(TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE)_ included Article 16 in which the Title and Rights were past to the Allied Powers (not the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> You will note that the Article 22 did give objectives to be accomplished that the Arab Palestinians need to participate; "tutelage" and "stand-alone" criteria.  The Arab Palestinians rejected all opportunities to become involved in the process.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


No rights or titles were transferred to the allies.  The rights and titles were surrendered by Turkey and transferred provisionally (pursuant to Article 22 para. 5) or held in trust by the League of Nations pursuant to Article 22 paras. 1 and 2,  for the inhabitants.

The British blocked every attempt by the Christians and Muslims from participating  in any tutelage. In fact, the British were unwilling to negotiate with the Christians and Muslims at all and would only negotiate with the Zionist Organization.

To wit:

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

and flatly rejected any possibility of the establishment of any self-government by the Christians and Muslims.

_"...it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people...."_

So stop making things up, Rocco.  
_
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/48A7E5584EE1403485256CD8006C3FBE_


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne did not modify the Covenant of the League of Nations in any way, the future of the territories was settled and no title transferred to the Allies.  The territories, as stated in the Covenant were held in trust by the allies on behalf of the inhabitants.
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact.  The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Native people of Palestine."  You mean the Jews invaded themselves???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The European Jews came from Europe.  How could they invade themselves by invading Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed the Jews were "native Palestinians" long before there were any Christian, let alone Muslim Palestinians.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could people in Europe be Palestinians?  Amazing what can be discerned about MJ's ability to process logic. LOL
Click to expand...

How could squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon be called 'Pal'istanians"?


----------



## montelatici

There were no squatters or invaders except for those from Europe. Stop making things up.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> There were no squatters or invaders except for those from Europe. Stop making things up.


Your_ European Invaders_™ slogan is a hoot. It's hilarious to watch you stutter and mumble as you're tasked with addressing such nonsense.

So, you're now stuttering and mumbling over another comment you're hand to address: How could squatters / invaders from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon be called 'Pal'istanians"?


----------



## montelatici

Projecting doesn't make you appear any less moronic. The Egyptians are from Egypt, the Syrians are from Syria and the Lebanese are from Lebanon.  The Palestinians are from Palestine and the Jews came from Europe invaded Palestine and are now squatting on Christian and Muslim land. Those are the facts.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.


You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.

So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have what (exactly)???
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights.  Their rights are inherent and inviolable.  As are Jewish rights.
> 
> The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> What is this negotiate boundaries thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right" to "territorial integrity" does not mean much if you don't have a territory in which to apply it.
> 
> The Allied Powers was granted the Title and Rights to a vast territory; one segment of which was the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine was applied.
> 
> What territory did the Title and Rights past to the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.  Disputes are normally handled through  some peaceful means.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The disagreement is only on the Israeli side. Israel even started their war over their own disagreement. The only problem the Palestinians had was living in Palestine the territory the Zionists wanted for themselves.
Click to expand...








 So the arab muslims did not disagree with the legal aspects of the mandate system, or was it only the Jewish national home legally created under international law that they disagreed with because it took away dar al islam and introduced dar al harb.   Is this the problem the 7C religion and its commands to the muslims to rule the world and never give up one grain of sand.


 Now what disagreement is only on the Israeli side as they have constantly asked to live in peace, and the arab muslims have constantly attacked the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a one sided dispute.
> 
> If I say I own your car is that a dispute?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is two sided as they both disagree and start hostilities.
> 
> Yes as I hold title and you dont, in the US I believe I can shoot you if you try and take my car under those circumstances
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians want Palestine. Israel wants Palestine.
> 
> The so called dispute is one sided.
> 
> I agree. The Palestinians can shoot if someone tries to take Palestine.
Click to expand...







 The palestinians are the Jews who are the legal owners of the land so they can shoot the arab muslims who were Syrians before 1960


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have what (exactly)???
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...hy should people have to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not have to negotiate for their rights.  Their rights are inherent and inviolable.  As are Jewish rights.
> 
> The negotiations are to determine the boundaries within which they are permitted to exercise those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians already have boundaries along with the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> What is this negotiate boundaries thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "right" to "territorial integrity" does not mean much if you don't have a territory in which to apply it.
> 
> The Allied Powers was granted the Title and Rights to a vast territory; one segment of which was the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine was applied.
> 
> What territory did the Title and Rights past to the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> If the Israelis and the Palestinians disagree to the point of open hostilities, that is called a dispute.  Disputes are normally handled through  some peaceful means.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No title or rights were granted to the Allied Powers.  Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations clearly states that the the Mandatories were responsible for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of the colonies and territories, title did not transfer to the Allies. You continue to make things up Rocco, stop it.
> 
> "ARTICLE 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
Click to expand...









 Seeing as yiou have problems understanding English I have translated the piece into Italian for you



Per quelle colonie e territori che, come conseguenza della fine della guerra hanno cessato di essere sotto la sovranità degli Stati che in precedenza li governato e che sono abitate da popoli non ancora in grado di stare da soli in condizioni impegnative del mondo moderno, ci dovrebbe essere applicato il principio che il benessere e lo sviluppo di tali popoli formano una sacra fiducia di civiltà e che i titoli per le prestazioni di questa fiducia devono essere incluse in questo Patto. "



 And also the article in full so that everyone can see how you twist words



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

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

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

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

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

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

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

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


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meetting at a neutral venue and negotiating a just resolution to the problems. Something the arab muslims are refusing to do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those worthless pieces of meat (on both sides) have been blabbering on, and on, and on about peace for over 20 years and they keep getting farther away from peace. So far negotiations have been counterproductive.
Click to expand...







 Only because the arab muslims make demands of pre conditions to stall any talks as they are abject cowards and wont sign up to anything in case they are murdered.


 THAT IS THE PROBLEM WE FACE THE THREATS FROM THE REST OF ISLAM


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Leaders are a molder of consensus.  There are two adversarial parties involved in this conflict.  The leader of one party speak unequivocally in the name of the people and Knesset.   The leaders of the other country is a contested party chairman.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> § Settle their disputes by peaceful means --- such that --- peace and security are not endangered,
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> "Jihad is a propagandistic device which, as need be, resorts to armed struggle – two ingredients common to many ideological movements,"
> _------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Professor Maxime Rodinson_​
> I could be a smart ass and say visit "http://www.peace-talks.com/" but low and behold, there is actually a Web Site there for a "Family Mediation Service."  But they only deal with people of some sanity.  That would leave the Palestinians that have already decided to choose Jihad (etc) and armed struggle as the principle means of resolution.
> 
> Establish a willingness of the parties to sit down and in good faith open a dialogue intended to reach a beneficial outcome on peace.
> 
> *(EXTERNAL OBSERVATION)*
> 
> "Negotiation is a method by which people settle differences. It is a process by which compromise or agreement is reached while avoiding argument and dispute."  I do not believe that the capacity rest with the Arab Palestinian Leadership to reach either a compromise of agreement.  They want a solution that was lost to them over have a century ago.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have not signaled any intention of seeking a negotiation.  They want to reset the clock to a time before they chose Jihad and armed struggle as a solution, and they want territorial control concessions even before the process of negotiation begins.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you mean endless talks over how to divide the pizza while one is stuffing his face with it as fast as he can?
> 
> BTW, why should people have to negotiate for their rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is how they get them in the first place. Or do you think that "RIGHTS" just appear out of thin air and are magically applied to only a small part of society. Dont forget what ever rights you apply to the arab muslims are also being applied to the Jews, so why do you find it so hard to accept this simple truth. Also why do you try and deny the Jews these rights while demanding they be handed to the arab muslims on a gold plate.
> 
> The Jews have no problems in negotiating for their rights, why do you find it so hard ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rights are not given by anybody. They are something a people have without negotiations.
> 
> I know, this is all so confusing to you.
Click to expand...







 No it is confusing to you as you think rights are magic and just appear out of thin air. When did the right to vote happen for women in the UK. When did the right to protest peacefully become entrenched in international law, when did the right to free determination become a universal concept. All came about by negotiations, all came about because people talked sensibly and intelligently.

To get the rights you demand they cant just take from another people their rights, they have to negotiate a settlement as res 242 demands of all parties at the end of the 6 day war


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you're befuddled about historical events, rattling on with absurdities makes you a buffoon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only buffoon is the one that can't accept a simple fact.  The Jews were in Europe and invaded Palestine against the wishes of the native people of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Native people of Palestine."  You mean the Jews invaded themselves???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The European Jews came from Europe.  How could they invade themselves by invading Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed the Jews were "native Palestinians" long before there were any Christian, let alone Muslim Palestinians.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could people in Europe be Palestinians?  Amazing what can be discerned about MJ's ability to process logic. LOL
Click to expand...







 How could Romans be Americans or Peruvians  ?

 By the use of internationasl laws that made them palestinians of course you idiot. The same international laws that made Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqi's, Iranians and Jordanians palestinins when their attempts at invasion failed and they were deserting the armies faster than lightning


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Projecting doesn't make you appear any less moronic. The Egyptians are from Egypt, the Syrians are from Syria and the Lebanese are from Lebanon.  The Palestinians are from Palestine and the Jews came from Europe invaded Palestine and are now squatting on Christian and Muslim land. Those are the facts.








 AND WHEN THEY DESERTED THEIR ARMIES AND STAYED IN PALESTINE THEY BECAME PALESTINIANS .  THE OLD TWO YEAR RULE


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
Click to expand...






 And you have been shown that this does not apply as it does not say what you claim.   And as you deny that the Jews had those rights then so you must deny the arab muslims.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,
> 
> Nonsense.  This is a timeline failure.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No title or rights were granted to the Allied Powers.  Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations clearly states that the the Mandatories were responsible for the well-being and development of the inhabitants of the colonies and territories, title did not transfer to the Allies. You continue to make things up Rocco, stop it.
> 
> "ARTICLE 22.
> 
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant was signed in 1919 and went into force on 10 January 1920.  The Treaty of Lausanne was a 1924 product.
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​
> Again, in a direct attempt to discredit the information, they actually use the technique to misdirection.  Pointing to the Covenant.  and it is true, Article 22 of the Covenant does not speak to title and rights.  It makes no reference to Palestine at all.  HOWEVER, the Treaty of Lausanne _(TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE)_ included Article 16 in which the Title and Rights were past to the Allied Powers (not the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> You will note that the Article 22 did give objectives to be accomplished that the Arab Palestinians need to participate; "tutelage" and "stand-alone" criteria.  The Arab Palestinians rejected all opportunities to become involved in the process.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No rights or titles were transferred to the allies.  The rights and titles were surrendered by Turkey and transferred provisionally (pursuant to Article 22 para. 5) or held in trust by the League of Nations pursuant to Article 22 paras. 1 and 2,  for the inhabitants.
> 
> The British blocked every attempt by the Christians and Muslims from participating  in any tutelage. In fact, the British were unwilling to negotiate with the Christians and Muslims at all and would only negotiate with the Zionist Organization.
> 
> To wit:
> 
> _"while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine..."_
> 
> and flatly rejected any possibility of the establishment of any self-government by the Christians and Muslims.
> 
> _"...it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people...."_
> 
> So stop making things up, Rocco.
> _
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)_
Click to expand...







 Not a legal document as it is only dialogue between the arab muslims and Britain. It did not make any laws and did not address the LoN directly


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> There were no squatters or invaders except for those from Europe. Stop making things up.







 He is not he is detailing the facts as presented many times. even Churchill who you bring up all the time stated that the arab muslims were illegally migrating to palestine


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Projecting doesn't make you appear any less moronic. The Egyptians are from Egypt, the Syrians are from Syria and the Lebanese are from Lebanon.  The Palestinians are from Palestine and the Jews came from Europe invaded Palestine and are now squatting on Christian and Muslim land. Those are the facts.



The problem with your hypocritical point of view, monte, is a Lebanese who moves to Palestine magically becomes a Palestinian whose "ancestors have been living there for thousands of years" while a Jew whose ancestors actually have been there for thousands of years somehow transforms into a European invader.

Not more than a month or so, your partner in crime posted a story about a poor "Palestinian" family who turned out to be Lebanese.

The real facts are that there has been a great deal of immigration into the geographical area known as Palestine in the past two hundred years or so.  Before that, there was an Arab Muslim conquest.  And before that were the indigenous Jewish people.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.



Yep.  The Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians BOTH have the right to sovereignty over a portion of the land.  

Can we get on with negotiating the borders now?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  The Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians BOTH have the right to sovereignty over a portion of the land.
> 
> Can we get on with negotiating the borders now?
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting doesn't make you appear any less moronic. The Egyptians are from Egypt, the Syrians are from Syria and the Lebanese are from Lebanon.  The Palestinians are from Palestine and the Jews came from Europe invaded Palestine and are now squatting on Christian and Muslim land. Those are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your hypocritical point of view, monte, is a Lebanese who moves to Palestine magically becomes a Palestinian whose "ancestors have been living there for thousands of years" while a Jew whose ancestors actually have been there for thousands of years somehow transforms into a European invader.
> 
> Not more than a month or so, your partner in crime posted a story about a poor "Palestinian" family who turned out to be Lebanese.
> 
> The real facts are that there has been a great deal of immigration into the geographical area known as Palestine in the past two hundred years or so.  Before that, there was an Arab Muslim conquest.  And before that were the indigenous Jewish people.
Click to expand...


The descendants of indigenous people, that practiced Judaism, Samaritanism, Roman, Caanite religions etc.,  are still in Palestine, they happen to follow the Christian and Muslim faiths today.  The European Jews were from Europe and were Europeans.  

*Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European

Immigration to Palestine over the past 200 years has been overwhelmingly Jewish.  


*"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."*

A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59

A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University

Conversely:

" *It follows that the Jewish population may now include between 50,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants* who *have settled in Palestine at any time since 1920 when the first Immigration Ordinance was enacted. "*

A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 210, para. 54

A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting doesn't make you appear any less moronic. The Egyptians are from Egypt, the Syrians are from Syria and the Lebanese are from Lebanon.  The Palestinians are from Palestine and the Jews came from Europe invaded Palestine and are now squatting on Christian and Muslim land. Those are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your hypocritical point of view, monte, is a Lebanese who moves to Palestine magically becomes a Palestinian whose "ancestors have been living there for thousands of years" while a Jew whose ancestors actually have been there for thousands of years somehow transforms into a European invader.
> 
> Not more than a month or so, your partner in crime posted a story about a poor "Palestinian" family who turned out to be Lebanese.
> 
> The real facts are that there has been a great deal of immigration into the geographical area known as Palestine in the past two hundred years or so.  Before that, there was an Arab Muslim conquest.  And before that were the indigenous Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The descendants of indigenous people, that practiced Judaism, Samaritanism, Roman, Caanite religions etc.,  are still in Palestine, they happen to follow the Christian and Muslim faiths today.  The European Jews were from Europe and were Europeans.
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Immigration to Palestine over the past 200 years has been overwhelmingly Jewish.
> 
> 
> *"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Conversely:
> 
> " *It follows that the Jewish population may now include between 50,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants* who *have settled in Palestine at any time since 1920 when the first Immigration Ordinance was enacted. "*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 210, para. 54
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
Click to expand...

 On the other hand:

The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library

*A Population Boom*
As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.

The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.


----------



## Bleipriester

RoccoR said:


> Bleipriester, et al,
> 
> Yeah, this is one-hell-of-a subject.  It really kicks in on skills in formal presentations.  And this particular question (The Case of the Golan Heights) is a compound and complex question; if nothing else.
> 
> In the Original Posting - "Israel's Legal Right To Exist" - the status of the Golan Heights is irrelevant.  The Golan Heights Issue that starts from a 1981 timeframe.  The question of existance starts from a 1948 timeframe.  *IF* Israel has no "Right" to exist, *THEN* it has not "Right" to hold any territory.  The question, in terms of "Rights" relative to the Golan Heights is moot.
> 
> "Rights" + "Title" + "Sovereignty" are all independent concepts in relation to "Reality" (Ground Truth).
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN now demands that the occupied Golan returns to Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967, then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.
> 
> A first group of 127 UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) peacekeepers returned Monday to a camp on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights, two years after withdrawing amid clashes with Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels.
> United Nations (United States) (AFP)
> 
> The UN demanded that Israel comply with the international legitimacy's resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, particularly the Security Council resolution no. 497 of 1981 that *declared Israel's decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the Golan as "null and void and without international legal effect"*.
> Sign of the Times (SOTT)  *Wed, 18 Nov 2015*
> UN demands Israel annul illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights
> 
> UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) Middle East Conflict (22 Nov)
> UNSC Resolution 338 (1973) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 Oct)
> UNSC Resolution 485 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 May)
> UNSC Resolution 493 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (23 Nov)
> UNSC Resolution 497 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (17 Dec)
> 
> General Assembly A/70/480 (1 DEC 2015) Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources
> 
> General Assembly severely criticizes the "Occupying Power" (Israel) and leave the issue of Arab Palestinian wrong doing, Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence completely unadressed as a causation for current outcomes.​
> *(DIRECT OBSERVATION)
> *
> View attachment 100557​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is unlikely that anything the UN does will actually change the ground truth.  In fact, it is more likely that any enforcement action will trigger open conflict --- which --- will (with greater probability) result (yet again) even greater losses and casualties for the Arab Palestinians to bear.  This would even be more likely if the Arab Palestinians ignite violence in the City of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.
> 
> The UNDOF, much like the UNEF in the Sinai, will not act as a barrier - but step aside at the first sign of trouble just like the UNEF did in 1967.
> 
> Currently, the only military forces (land, sea, or air) in the region (not currently engaging DAESH, another similar radical islamic movement) are pointed towards Israel.  Other than Israel, there are no Allied Forces capable of influencing the battlefield in time to "prevent an armed conflict."
> 
> The regional Arab nations _(in this DAESH turbulant region)_ have to exercise some discretion in the ignition of a conflict.  Should the conflict start in the significant combat loss in Arab Forces, DAESH will not hesitate to take advantage of any weakness.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The definitions of the "right to exist" vary in Israel´s case. For some, it is the right to do anything and the right to not to be criticized. Israel is without mistakes and its actions above human ability to judge, they say.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> was it only the Jewish national home legally created under international law


Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Only because the arab muslims make demands of pre conditions to stall any talks


Like what?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have been shown that this does not apply as it does not say what you claim.   And as you deny that the Jews had those rights then so you must deny the arab muslims.
Click to expand...

The Jews who were Turkish citizens became Palestinian citizens. There was no denial of rights at all. Even the PLO agreed.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have been shown that this does not apply as it does not say what you claim.   And as you deny that the Jews had those rights then so you must deny the arab muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews who were Turkish citizens became Palestinian citizens. There was no denial of rights at all. Even the PLO agreed.
Click to expand...

The Jewish people exercised their right of self-determination and became Israeli citizens. This has been explained to you on many occasions across multiple threads. How is it you don't understand?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The Jews who were Turkish citizens became Palestinian citizens



Right.  The Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians became citizens of the geographical territory under the Mandate which was labelled "Palestine" but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".

Then the Jewish Palestinians exercised their right to self-determination and self-governance by fulfilling those obligations, declaring independence and being internationally recognized for doing so.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".


Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting doesn't make you appear any less moronic. The Egyptians are from Egypt, the Syrians are from Syria and the Lebanese are from Lebanon.  The Palestinians are from Palestine and the Jews came from Europe invaded Palestine and are now squatting on Christian and Muslim land. Those are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your hypocritical point of view, monte, is a Lebanese who moves to Palestine magically becomes a Palestinian whose "ancestors have been living there for thousands of years" while a Jew whose ancestors actually have been there for thousands of years somehow transforms into a European invader.
> 
> Not more than a month or so, your partner in crime posted a story about a poor "Palestinian" family who turned out to be Lebanese.
> 
> The real facts are that there has been a great deal of immigration into the geographical area known as Palestine in the past two hundred years or so.  Before that, there was an Arab Muslim conquest.  And before that were the indigenous Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The descendants of indigenous people, that practiced Judaism, Samaritanism, Roman, Caanite religions etc.,  are still in Palestine, they happen to follow the Christian and Muslim faiths today.  The European Jews were from Europe and were Europeans.
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Immigration to Palestine over the past 200 years has been overwhelmingly Jewish.
> 
> 
> *"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Conversely:
> 
> " *It follows that the Jewish population may now include between 50,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants* who *have settled in Palestine at any time since 1920 when the first Immigration Ordinance was enacted. "*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 210, para. 54
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the other hand:
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> *A Population Boom*
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
Click to expand...


LOL. Jewish Virtual Library a propaganda site, versus an official Anglo-American survey commissioned by the UN.  Well done.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...


Translation:  I have no logical way of countering those points.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews who were Turkish citizens became Palestinian citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  The Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians became citizens of the geographical territory under the Mandate which was labelled "Palestine" but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".
> 
> Then the Jewish Palestinians exercised their right to self-determination and self-governance by fulfilling those obligations, declaring independence and being internationally recognized for doing so.
Click to expand...


You keep repeating this lie.  The British prevented the Christians and Muslims from fulfilling any obligations.  In fact. the British would not even negotiate with the Christians and Muslim leadership.  They only recognized the Zionist Organization, from the beginning, in 1922. Churchill's response (in part) to the Palestinian delegation:

"2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine........You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine.....If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people."

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

As you can see, the British were intent on preventing the Christians and Muslims from negotiating their self-determination.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews who were Turkish citizens became Palestinian citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  The Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians became citizens of the geographical territory under the Mandate which was labelled "Palestine" but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".
> 
> Then the Jewish Palestinians exercised their right to self-determination and self-governance by fulfilling those obligations, declaring independence and being internationally recognized for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep repeating this lie.  The British prevented the Christians and Muslims from fulfilling any obligations.  In fact. the British would not even negotiate with the Christians and Muslim leadership.  They only recognized the Zionist Organization, from the beginning, in 1922. Churchill's response (in part) to the Palestinian delegation:
> 
> "2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine........You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine.....If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people."
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> As you can see, the British were intent on preventing the Christians and Muslims from negotiating their self-determination.
Click to expand...

The above is another of the pointless articles you have cut and pasted multiple times across multiple threads. It is as pointless now as it was the previous times you dumped it into multiple threads. It is just more of the whining and moaning you engage in to excuse ineptitude and incompetence of the part of Arabs-Moslems. 

It was combined Islamist armies which attempted to prevent the Jewish people from seeking self-governance and self-determination, yet in spite of the _Islamist Entity_™, the state of Israel became a reality. 

The Jewish people strived, handed the _Islamist Entity_™ a humiliating defeat and forged their own destiny. 

The _Islamist Entity_™ is left to wallow in their failures with whiners and moaners like you to address failure.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting doesn't make you appear any less moronic. The Egyptians are from Egypt, the Syrians are from Syria and the Lebanese are from Lebanon.  The Palestinians are from Palestine and the Jews came from Europe invaded Palestine and are now squatting on Christian and Muslim land. Those are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your hypocritical point of view, monte, is a Lebanese who moves to Palestine magically becomes a Palestinian whose "ancestors have been living there for thousands of years" while a Jew whose ancestors actually have been there for thousands of years somehow transforms into a European invader.
> 
> Not more than a month or so, your partner in crime posted a story about a poor "Palestinian" family who turned out to be Lebanese.
> 
> The real facts are that there has been a great deal of immigration into the geographical area known as Palestine in the past two hundred years or so.  Before that, there was an Arab Muslim conquest.  And before that were the indigenous Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The descendants of indigenous people, that practiced Judaism, Samaritanism, Roman, Caanite religions etc.,  are still in Palestine, they happen to follow the Christian and Muslim faiths today.  The European Jews were from Europe and were Europeans.
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Immigration to Palestine over the past 200 years has been overwhelmingly Jewish.
> 
> 
> *"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Conversely:
> 
> " *It follows that the Jewish population may now include between 50,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants* who *have settled in Palestine at any time since 1920 when the first Immigration Ordinance was enacted. "*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 210, para. 54
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the other hand:
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> *A Population Boom*
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Jewish Virtual Library a propaganda site, versus an official Anglo-American survey commissioned by the UN.  Well done.
Click to expand...

LOL.... another goofy "official" label you add to your cutting and pasting in a desperate attempt to dance around the refutation to your continued cut and paste spam of the same article.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews who were Turkish citizens became Palestinian citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  The Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians became citizens of the geographical territory under the Mandate which was labelled "Palestine" but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".
> 
> Then the Jewish Palestinians exercised their right to self-determination and self-governance by fulfilling those obligations, declaring independence and being internationally recognized for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep repeating this lie.  The British prevented the Christians and Muslims from fulfilling any obligations.  In fact. the British would not even negotiate with the Christians and Muslim leadership.  They only recognized the Zionist Organization, from the beginning, in 1922. Churchill's response (in part) to the Palestinian delegation:
> 
> "2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine........You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine.....If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people."
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> As you can see, the British were intent on preventing the Christians and Muslims from negotiating their self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above is another of the pointless articles you have cut and pasted multiple times across multiple threads. It is as pointless now as it was the previous times you dumped it into multiple threads. It is just more of the whining and moaning you engage in to excuse ineptitude and incompetence of the part of Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> It was combined Islamist armies which attempted to prevent the Jewish people from seeking self-governance and self-determination, yet in spite of the _Islamist Entity_™, the state of Israel became a reality.
> 
> The Jewish people strived, handed the _Islamist Entity_™ a humiliating defeat and forged their own destiny.
> 
> The _Islamist Entity_™ is left to wallow in their failures with whiners and moaners like you to address failure.
Click to expand...


They are not "articles" they are quotes from the official correspondence between the British Colonial Office (then headed by Churchill) and the Palestine Delegation in 1922.  The correspondence is contained in the League of Nations archives hosted by the United Nations.  I understand that serious research using source material bewilders you, sorry about that dear.  Continue with your parroting of material from propaganda sites.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting doesn't make you appear any less moronic. The Egyptians are from Egypt, the Syrians are from Syria and the Lebanese are from Lebanon.  The Palestinians are from Palestine and the Jews came from Europe invaded Palestine and are now squatting on Christian and Muslim land. Those are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your hypocritical point of view, monte, is a Lebanese who moves to Palestine magically becomes a Palestinian whose "ancestors have been living there for thousands of years" while a Jew whose ancestors actually have been there for thousands of years somehow transforms into a European invader.
> 
> Not more than a month or so, your partner in crime posted a story about a poor "Palestinian" family who turned out to be Lebanese.
> 
> The real facts are that there has been a great deal of immigration into the geographical area known as Palestine in the past two hundred years or so.  Before that, there was an Arab Muslim conquest.  And before that were the indigenous Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The descendants of indigenous people, that practiced Judaism, Samaritanism, Roman, Caanite religions etc.,  are still in Palestine, they happen to follow the Christian and Muslim faiths today.  The European Jews were from Europe and were Europeans.
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Immigration to Palestine over the past 200 years has been overwhelmingly Jewish.
> 
> 
> *"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Conversely:
> 
> " *It follows that the Jewish population may now include between 50,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants* who *have settled in Palestine at any time since 1920 when the first Immigration Ordinance was enacted. "*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 210, para. 54
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the other hand:
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> *A Population Boom*
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Jewish Virtual Library a propaganda site, versus an official Anglo-American survey commissioned by the UN.  Well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.... another goofy "official" label you add to your cutting and pasting in a desperate attempt to dance around the refutation to your continued cut and paste spam of the same article.
Click to expand...


Just facts.  One admittedly an article from "Live Science" the others experts from the Survey of Palestine archived at the Berman Jewish Policy Archive now hosted by Stanford University, a Jewish source no less.  I know that this sort of thing, universities and all, that bewilders you, being so accustomed to propaganda sites.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your hypocritical point of view, monte, is a Lebanese who moves to Palestine magically becomes a Palestinian whose "ancestors have been living there for thousands of years" while a Jew whose ancestors actually have been there for thousands of years somehow transforms into a European invader.
> 
> Not more than a month or so, your partner in crime posted a story about a poor "Palestinian" family who turned out to be Lebanese.
> 
> The real facts are that there has been a great deal of immigration into the geographical area known as Palestine in the past two hundred years or so.  Before that, there was an Arab Muslim conquest.  And before that were the indigenous Jewish people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The descendants of indigenous people, that practiced Judaism, Samaritanism, Roman, Caanite religions etc.,  are still in Palestine, they happen to follow the Christian and Muslim faiths today.  The European Jews were from Europe and were Europeans.
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Immigration to Palestine over the past 200 years has been overwhelmingly Jewish.
> 
> 
> *"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Conversely:
> 
> " *It follows that the Jewish population may now include between 50,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants* who *have settled in Palestine at any time since 1920 when the first Immigration Ordinance was enacted. "*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 210, para. 54
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the other hand:
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> *A Population Boom*
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Jewish Virtual Library a propaganda site, versus an official Anglo-American survey commissioned by the UN.  Well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL.... another goofy "official" label you add to your cutting and pasting in a desperate attempt to dance around the refutation to your continued cut and paste spam of the same article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just facts.  One admittedly an article from "Live Science" the others experts from the Survey of Palestine archived at the Berman Jewish Policy Archive now hosted by Stanford University, a Jewish source no less.  I know that this sort of thing, universities and all, that bewilders you, being so accustomed to propaganda sites.
Click to expand...

I see you have abandoned your silly, self-administered "official" label. 

It's hilarious to watch as you retreat in these Michael Jackson moonwalking backstrokes as your hysterical claims are reduced in their "officialness". LOL.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews who were Turkish citizens became Palestinian citizens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  The Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians became citizens of the geographical territory under the Mandate which was labelled "Palestine" but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".
> 
> Then the Jewish Palestinians exercised their right to self-determination and self-governance by fulfilling those obligations, declaring independence and being internationally recognized for doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep repeating this lie.  The British prevented the Christians and Muslims from fulfilling any obligations.  In fact. the British would not even negotiate with the Christians and Muslim leadership.  They only recognized the Zionist Organization, from the beginning, in 1922. Churchill's response (in part) to the Palestinian delegation:
> 
> "2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine........You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine.....If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people."
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> As you can see, the British were intent on preventing the Christians and Muslims from negotiating their self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The above is another of the pointless articles you have cut and pasted multiple times across multiple threads. It is as pointless now as it was the previous times you dumped it into multiple threads. It is just more of the whining and moaning you engage in to excuse ineptitude and incompetence of the part of Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> It was combined Islamist armies which attempted to prevent the Jewish people from seeking self-governance and self-determination, yet in spite of the _Islamist Entity_™, the state of Israel became a reality.
> 
> The Jewish people strived, handed the _Islamist Entity_™ a humiliating defeat and forged their own destiny.
> 
> The _Islamist Entity_™ is left to wallow in their failures with whiners and moaners like you to address failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not "articles" they are quotes from the official correspondence between the British Colonial Office (then headed by Churchill) and the Palestine Delegation in 1922.  The correspondence is contained in the League of Nations archives hosted by the United Nations.  I understand that serious research using source material bewilders you, sorry about that dear.  Continue with your parroting of material from propaganda sites.
Click to expand...

"Official correspondence". LOL.

Such melodrama.


----------



## montelatici

It is the official (on the record) correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation and the British Colonial Office. Bewildering for you, I feel your pain.

*PALESTINE.*​*CORRESPONDENCE 
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE 
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​*​*Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​*

*PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.*
*To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE, at the*
*following address:*
*Adastra House, Kingsway, London, W.C. 2; 120, George Street, Edinburgh:*
*York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andre's Crescent, Cardiff;*
*15, Donegall Square West, Belfast; or through any Bookseller*


*1922.*
*
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unis...48a7e5584ee1403485256cd8006c3fbe?OpenDocument
*


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> It is the official (on the record) correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation and the British Colonial Office. Bewildering for you, I feel your pain.
> 
> *PALESTINE.*
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:
> *​
> 
> *PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.
> To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE, at the
> following address:
> Adastra House, Kingsway, London, W.C. 2; 120, George Street, Edinburgh:
> York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andre's Crescent, Cardiff;
> 15, Donegall Square West, Belfast; or through any Bookseller*
> 
> 
> *1922.
> 
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unis...48a7e5584ee1403485256cd8006c3fbe?OpenDocument*


Well, as long as you have added the "official" label we can be sure your cutting and pasting of the same article multiple times across multiple threads makes it "official". LOL.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the official (on the record) correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation and the British Colonial Office. Bewildering for you, I feel your pain.
> 
> *PALESTINE.*
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:
> *​
> 
> *PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.
> To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE, at the
> following address:
> Adastra House, Kingsway, London, W.C. 2; 120, George Street, Edinburgh:
> York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andre's Crescent, Cardiff;
> 15, Donegall Square West, Belfast; or through any Bookseller*
> 
> 
> *1922.
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)*
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as long as you have added the "official" label we can be sure your cutting and pasting of the same article multiple times across multiple threads makes it "official". LOL.
Click to expand...

I understood it the first time. You are still grappling with it.


----------



## montelatici

Poor Holly is bewildered.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> You keep repeating this lie.
> 
> As you can see, the British were intent on preventing the Christians and Muslims from negotiating their self-determination.



You need to be REAL clear what lie it is you feel I am repeating.  

Is it the "lie" that the Jewish Palestinians have the same rights to self-determination as the Arab Palestinians?
Is it the "lie" that the Jewish Palestinians fulfilled their obligations to be able to "stand alone"?
Is it the "lie" that the Jewish Palestinians declared and were internationally recognized for their sovereign independence?
Or is it the "lie" that the Arab Palestinians have still (!) failed to fulfill their obligations?  

What I see in the content you posted is NOT the prevention of Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinian self-determination, but the prevention of Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinian self-determination conditional upon the rejection of any Jewish Palestinian self-determination.  

The British refused to acknowledge a zero-sum, either/or game.  Good on them.


----------



## montelatici

*1.  Is it the "lie" that the Jewish Palestinians have the same rights to self-determination as the Arab Palestinians?*

Yes, but not at the expense of other people.  

The Palestinians rightly refused to accept the transfer of Europeans to Palestine as it would naturally eliminate their ability to achieve self-determination as a people as a whole.  

*2. Is it the "lie" that the Jewish Palestinians fulfilled their obligations to be able to "stand alone"?
*
Yes, by expelling hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims. Contrary to the terms of the Mandate.

*3. Is it the "lie" that the Jewish Palestinians declared and were internationally recognized for their sovereign independence?
*
Again, through the expulsion and elimination by other means of the Christians and Muslims, contrary to the terms of the Mandate.

*4. Or is it the "lie" that the Arab Palestinians have still (!) failed to fulfill their obligations? 
*
The British prevented the Christians and Muslims from fulfilling their obligations earlier and now the Israelis are an occupying power that prevents any possibility self-determination.


----------



## Shusha

So wait a minute, hold on.  Just to make sure I understand:

You agree that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination on that territory.  

You believe that self-determination does NOT include the right to invite or control immigration.

You believe that the mere presence of other people with rights to self-determination restricts or removes your ability to self-govern or have self-determination?  

And you believe "occupation" prevents developing self-determination?


----------



## foggedinn

Here's an older history. 
For cause of the iniquity of the Amorites, (Gen. 15 v16) God gave the land of the Cananites to the children of the bloody babe of Ezekiel 16 1-6), The only Lawful heir to the throne of Salem. This is the matriarchal genealogy of Israel.
700 years later, the iniquity of the Amorites had developed in a mighty nation.
Only through the Almighty will they continue.


----------



## montelatici

No, I am saying that the European Jews had no right to self-determination on a territory inhabited by other people with a right to self-determination.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> No, I am saying that the European Jews had no right to self-determination on a territory inhabited by other people with a right to self-determination.



But the Jewish Palestinians have the right to self-determination, yes?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.

•  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*

§  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations. ​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*

§  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.

The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

You cite these letters as if they have some impact in the application of law.  they are not LAWs.  It is a discussion, much like we are having here (Diplomatic Exchange by name).



montelatici said:


> It is the official (on the record) correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation and the British Colonial Office. Bewildering for you, I feel your pain.
> 
> PALESTINE.
> 
> CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.
> 
> Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:​
> 
> PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.
> To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE, at the
> following address:
> Adastra House, Kingsway, London, W.C. 2; 120, George Street, Edinburgh:
> York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andre's Crescent, Cardiff;
> 15, Donegall Square West, Belfast; or through any Bookseller
> 
> 
> 1922.
> 
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unis...48a7e5584ee1403485256cd8006c3fbe?OpenDocument


*(COMMENT)*

Nothing in this entire series has some legally binding implication.  And much of this, including the 1922 White Paper DID NOT reflect policy through the War Years.


110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that: 

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

Bleipriester,  et al,

You may make this claim; but what impact does it have.



Bleipriester said:


> The definitions of the "right to exist" vary in Israel´s case. For some, it is the right to do anything and the right to not to be criticized. Israel is without mistakes and its actions above human ability to judge, they say.


*(COMMENT)*

The Israelis generally believe that every --- universally --- have the very same rights.  The idea is that the Rights of one group cannot deprive the Rights of another group.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Bleipriester

RoccoR said:


> Bleipriester,  et al,
> 
> You may make this claim; but what impact does it have.
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definitions of the "right to exist" vary in Israel´s case. For some, it is the right to do anything and the right to not to be criticized. Israel is without mistakes and its actions above human ability to judge, they say.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israelis generally believe that every --- universally --- have the very same rights.  The idea is that the Rights of one group cannot deprive the Rights of another group.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

There is no Palestine so this idea apparently didn´t make it to the government.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,

It is Article 22.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Excerpts:  

"inhabited by peoples not yet *able to stand by themselves*"
"best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the* tutelage of such peoples* should be entrusted to advanced nations"
"advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"

And nothing even remotely Palestinian meets that criteria.  But, it makes no difference now.  The Arab Palestinians have made themselves such a threat, that it will be decades before they and can exercise self-governance and stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> It is Article 22.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Excerpts:
> 
> "inhabited by peoples not yet *able to stand by themselves*"
> "best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the* tutelage of such peoples* should be entrusted to advanced nations"
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> And nothing even remotely Palestinian meets that criteria.  But, it makes no difference now.  The Arab Palestinians have made themselves such a threat, that it will be decades before they and can exercise self-governance and stand alone.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You are a disgusting racist Rocco. The British made it impossible for the Christians and Muslims to "stand by themselves" by refusing to negotiate or give any standing to the Christian and Muslim leadership.  They only negotiated with the Zionist Organization. 

The Palestinians were far more capable to self-govern in 1922 than any other former Ottoman territory.  They were better educated, secular than any other former Turkish Arab territory.  

It was the intent of the British to prevent any self government of the Christians and Muslims until they could flood the country with European Jews.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> It is Article 22.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Excerpts:
> 
> "inhabited by peoples not yet *able to stand by themselves*"
> "best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the* tutelage of such peoples* should be entrusted to advanced nations"
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> And nothing even remotely Palestinian meets that criteria.  But, it makes no difference now.  The Arab Palestinians have made themselves such a threat, that it will be decades before they and can exercise self-governance and stand alone.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a disgusting racist Rocco. The British made it impossible for the Christians and Muslims to "stand by themselves" by refusing to negotiate or give any standing to the Christian and Muslim leadership.  They only negotiated with the Zionist Organization.
> 
> The Palestinians were far more capable to self-govern in 1922 than any other former Ottoman territory.  They were better educated, secular than any other former Turkish Arab territory.
> 
> It was the intent of the British to prevent any self government of the Christians and Muslims until they could flood the country with European Jews.
Click to expand...

The British made nothing impossible. The Arabs-Moslems simply didn't have, and still don't have, the ability to take the steps necessary to establish a functioning government and enable self-determination. You can make all the excuses you can muster to blame external entities for Arab-Moslem failures but you would then have to find excuses for the continued failures of Arabs-Moslems to form workable societies.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

You are just too funny.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

GB did make the Order because it had to deal with the establishment of an National Home and deal with the Emirate of Transjordan.

Yes, the Citizenship Order did come from the Mandatory.  And the Government of Palestine was the Mandatory in 1925.

The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (UK) until 15 May 48 when the UNPC became the Government of Palestine.

Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:--​Part i, Paragraph 1:  Definitions

"The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine."​PART II. EXECUTIVE. Office of High Commissioner. Paragraph 4.

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.​Where do you think citizenship is granted?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> And nothing even remotely Palestinian meets that criteria.


Rocco, you are sooooo full of shit. Who can stand alone with a gun in their face?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You are just too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> GB did make the Order because it had to deal with the establishment of an National Home and deal with the Emirate of Transjordan.
> 
> Yes, the Citizenship Order did come from the Mandatory.  And the Government of Palestine was the Mandatory in 1925.
> 
> The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (UK) until 15 May 48 when the UNPC became the Government of Palestine.
> 
> Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:--​Part i, Paragraph 1:  Definitions
> 
> "The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine."​PART II. EXECUTIVE. Office of High Commissioner. Paragraph 4.
> 
> His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.​Where do you think citizenship is granted?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Where does it say that a colonial power has the authority to determine who has rights?

Link?


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  The Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians BOTH have the right to sovereignty over a portion of the land.
> 
> Can we get on with negotiating the borders now?
Click to expand...








 And the LoN sorted this in 1923 when it gave the arab muslims trans Jordan and the rest to the Jews . The Christians were expected to stay in the Jewish section as full citizens of the Jewish national home.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  The Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians BOTH have the right to sovereignty over a portion of the land.
> 
> Can we get on with negotiating the borders now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...







The same one you use to show that arab muslims have the only right to rule palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> It is Article 22.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Excerpts:
> 
> "inhabited by peoples not yet *able to stand by themselves*"
> "best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the* tutelage of such peoples* should be entrusted to advanced nations"
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> And nothing even remotely Palestinian meets that criteria.  But, it makes no difference now.  The Arab Palestinians have made themselves such a threat, that it will be decades before they and can exercise self-governance and stand alone.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a disgusting racist Rocco. The British made it impossible for the Christians and Muslims to "stand by themselves" by refusing to negotiate or give any standing to the Christian and Muslim leadership.  They only negotiated with the Zionist Organization.
> 
> The Palestinians were far more capable to self-govern in 1922 than any other former Ottoman territory.  They were better educated, secular than any other former Turkish Arab territory.
> 
> It was the intent of the British to prevent any self government of the Christians and Muslims until they could flood the country with European Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British made nothing impossible. The Arabs-Moslems simply didn't have, and still don't have, the ability to take the steps necessary to establish a functioning government and enable self-determination. You can make all the excuses you can muster to blame external entities for Arab-Moslem failures but you would then have to find excuses for the continued failures of Arabs-Moslems to form workable societies.
Click to expand...

You have been reading too much of Rocco's crap.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> when it gave the arab muslims trans Jordan


Where does it say that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  The Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians BOTH have the right to sovereignty over a portion of the land.
> 
> Can we get on with negotiating the borders now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same one you use to show that arab muslims have the only right to rule palestine
Click to expand...

Which Arab Muslims are you talking about?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Where do you think citizenship is granted?


Well, it shouldn't be imposed by foreigners at the point of a gun.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"


Britain did not render advice or assistance to the Palestinians. They kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist colonial project.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> The above is another of the pointless articles you have cut and pasted multiple times across multiple threads. It is as pointless


Well, that explains why you don't know anything.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Now what disagreement is only on the Israeli side as they have constantly asked to live in peace,


They have constantly asked to live in peace on Palestinian land.

How is that supposed to be accepted?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now what disagreement is only on the Israeli side as they have constantly asked to live in peace,
> 
> 
> 
> They have constantly asked to live in peace on Palestinian land.
> 
> How is that supposed to be accepted?
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above is another of the pointless articles you have cut and pasted multiple times across multiple threads. It is as pointless
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that explains why you don't know anything.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I know that cheap excuses for failure and ineptitude on the part of Islamic terrorists are what maintain people like you.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> 
> 
> Britain did not render advice or assistance to the Palestinians. They kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist colonial project.
Click to expand...

Indeed, cheap excuses modeled on "the plight of the poor, oppressed Pal'istanians", are ridiculous. Ultimately, it was the ability and willingness of the Jewish people to self-govern and self-determine that allowed them to rise above the failure and ineptitude of the Islamist squatters / invaders.

In typical Islamist whining, your entire argument is fashioned as one of the the Islamist colonial project requiring it be "given" everything with no ability on their part to self-determine, self-govern. You fail to realize that you define the Arab-Moslem colonists as helpless children, unable to do anything for themselves.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> And nothing even remotely Palestinian meets that criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, you are sooooo full of shit. Who can stand alone with a gun in their face?
Click to expand...

Aww, those "poor helpless Islamic terrorists".


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting doesn't make you appear any less moronic. The Egyptians are from Egypt, the Syrians are from Syria and the Lebanese are from Lebanon.  The Palestinians are from Palestine and the Jews came from Europe invaded Palestine and are now squatting on Christian and Muslim land. Those are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your hypocritical point of view, monte, is a Lebanese who moves to Palestine magically becomes a Palestinian whose "ancestors have been living there for thousands of years" while a Jew whose ancestors actually have been there for thousands of years somehow transforms into a European invader.
> 
> Not more than a month or so, your partner in crime posted a story about a poor "Palestinian" family who turned out to be Lebanese.
> 
> The real facts are that there has been a great deal of immigration into the geographical area known as Palestine in the past two hundred years or so.  Before that, there was an Arab Muslim conquest.  And before that were the indigenous Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The descendants of indigenous people, that practiced Judaism, Samaritanism, Roman, Caanite religions etc.,  are still in Palestine, they happen to follow the Christian and Muslim faiths today.  The European Jews were from Europe and were Europeans.
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Immigration to Palestine over the past 200 years has been overwhelmingly Jewish.
> 
> 
> *"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Conversely:
> 
> " *It follows that the Jewish population may now include between 50,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants* who *have settled in Palestine at any time since 1920 when the first Immigration Ordinance was enacted. "*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 210, para. 54
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
Click to expand...







From your link


 But a new study suggests that at least their maternal lineage may derive largely from Europe.

   So not all their DNA shows they are European, just about 7% 

But depending on whether the lineage gets traced through maternal or paternal DNA or through the rest of the genome, researchers got very different answers for whether Ashkenazi originally came from Europe or the Near Eas

    Againit depends on which part of the Genome is used, and using the majority shows they are descended from the Jews stolen by Roman Catholics as slaves between the 1C and 4C

Past research found that 50 percent to 80 percent of DNA from the Ashkenazi Y chromosome, which is used to trace the male lineage, originated in the Near East, Richards said. That supported a story wherein Jews came from Israel and largely eschewed intermarriage when they settled in Europe


So showing that you are manipulating reports to meet with your POV and not being very clever about it.   You need to  start looking at your links and reading the whole background


   But historical documents tell a slightly different tale. Based on accounts such as those of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, by the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70, as many as 6 million Jews were living in the Roman Empire

 So are these to be ignored because they dont meet with your anti semitic islamocatholic views


"The major Jewish communities were outside Judea," Ostrer told LiveScience.

    Then the author of your link comes out and admits that the majority of Jews were taken as slaves by the Roman Catholics and were not Europeans at all



The finding should thoroughly debunk one of the most questionable, but still tenacious, hypotheses: that most Ashkenazi Jews can trace their roots to the mysterious Khazar Kingdom that flourished during the ninth century in the region between the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire, Richards and Ostrer said.




Then they state that the khazars were not involved in the Jewish spread making your other claims a pack of LIES



Do you want more PUNK, or have you been shown up enough alreadyu ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> And nothing even remotely Palestinian meets that criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, you are sooooo full of shit. Who can stand alone with a gun in their face?
Click to expand...








 Stilll spreading this LIE. Who held a gun to anyones face other than the arab muslims do it all the time


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You are just too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> GB did make the Order because it had to deal with the establishment of an National Home and deal with the Emirate of Transjordan.
> 
> Yes, the Citizenship Order did come from the Mandatory.  And the Government of Palestine was the Mandatory in 1925.
> 
> The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (UK) until 15 May 48 when the UNPC became the Government of Palestine.
> 
> Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:--​Part i, Paragraph 1:  Definitions
> 
> "The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine."​PART II. EXECUTIVE. Office of High Commissioner. Paragraph 4.
> 
> His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.​Where do you think citizenship is granted?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that a colonial power has the authority to determine who has rights?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...







And so you admit at last that the arab muslim colonial powers dont have any rights in palestine, as they are the ones denying Jews and Christians those rights.    And you need to be clear on which rights and when they were negotiated ?


----------



## Phoenall

Bleipriester said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester, et al,
> 
> Yeah, this is one-hell-of-a subject.  It really kicks in on skills in formal presentations.  And this particular question (The Case of the Golan Heights) is a compound and complex question; if nothing else.
> 
> In the Original Posting - "Israel's Legal Right To Exist" - the status of the Golan Heights is irrelevant.  The Golan Heights Issue that starts from a 1981 timeframe.  The question of existance starts from a 1948 timeframe.  *IF* Israel has no "Right" to exist, *THEN* it has not "Right" to hold any territory.  The question, in terms of "Rights" relative to the Golan Heights is moot.
> 
> "Rights" + "Title" + "Sovereignty" are all independent concepts in relation to "Reality" (Ground Truth).
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN now demands that the occupied Golan returns to Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967, then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.
> 
> A first group of 127 UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) peacekeepers returned Monday to a camp on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights, two years after withdrawing amid clashes with Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels.
> United Nations (United States) (AFP)
> 
> The UN demanded that Israel comply with the international legitimacy's resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, particularly the Security Council resolution no. 497 of 1981 that *declared Israel's decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the Golan as "null and void and without international legal effect"*.
> Sign of the Times (SOTT)  *Wed, 18 Nov 2015*
> UN demands Israel annul illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights
> 
> UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) Middle East Conflict (22 Nov)
> UNSC Resolution 338 (1973) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 Oct)
> UNSC Resolution 485 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 May)
> UNSC Resolution 493 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (23 Nov)
> UNSC Resolution 497 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (17 Dec)
> 
> General Assembly A/70/480 (1 DEC 2015) Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources
> 
> General Assembly severely criticizes the "Occupying Power" (Israel) and leave the issue of Arab Palestinian wrong doing, Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence completely unadressed as a causation for current outcomes.​
> *(DIRECT OBSERVATION)
> *
> View attachment 100557​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is unlikely that anything the UN does will actually change the ground truth.  In fact, it is more likely that any enforcement action will trigger open conflict --- which --- will (with greater probability) result (yet again) even greater losses and casualties for the Arab Palestinians to bear.  This would even be more likely if the Arab Palestinians ignite violence in the City of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.
> 
> The UNDOF, much like the UNEF in the Sinai, will not act as a barrier - but step aside at the first sign of trouble just like the UNEF did in 1967.
> 
> Currently, the only military forces (land, sea, or air) in the region (not currently engaging DAESH, another similar radical islamic movement) are pointed towards Israel.  Other than Israel, there are no Allied Forces capable of influencing the battlefield in time to "prevent an armed conflict."
> 
> The regional Arab nations _(in this DAESH turbulant region)_ have to exercise some discretion in the ignition of a conflict.  Should the conflict start in the significant combat loss in Arab Forces, DAESH will not hesitate to take advantage of any weakness.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definitions of the "right to exist" vary in Israel´s case. For some, it is the right to do anything and the right to not to be criticized. Israel is without mistakes and its actions above human ability to judge, they say.
Click to expand...





According to the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda


----------



## Bleipriester

Phoenall said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester, et al,
> 
> Yeah, this is one-hell-of-a subject.  It really kicks in on skills in formal presentations.  And this particular question (The Case of the Golan Heights) is a compound and complex question; if nothing else.
> 
> In the Original Posting - "Israel's Legal Right To Exist" - the status of the Golan Heights is irrelevant.  The Golan Heights Issue that starts from a 1981 timeframe.  The question of existance starts from a 1948 timeframe.  *IF* Israel has no "Right" to exist, *THEN* it has not "Right" to hold any territory.  The question, in terms of "Rights" relative to the Golan Heights is moot.
> 
> "Rights" + "Title" + "Sovereignty" are all independent concepts in relation to "Reality" (Ground Truth).
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN now demands that the occupied Golan returns to Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967, then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.
> 
> A first group of 127 UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) peacekeepers returned Monday to a camp on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights, two years after withdrawing amid clashes with Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels.
> United Nations (United States) (AFP)
> 
> The UN demanded that Israel comply with the international legitimacy's resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, particularly the Security Council resolution no. 497 of 1981 that *declared Israel's decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the Golan as "null and void and without international legal effect"*.
> Sign of the Times (SOTT)  *Wed, 18 Nov 2015*
> UN demands Israel annul illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights
> 
> UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) Middle East Conflict (22 Nov)
> UNSC Resolution 338 (1973) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 Oct)
> UNSC Resolution 485 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 May)
> UNSC Resolution 493 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (23 Nov)
> UNSC Resolution 497 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (17 Dec)
> 
> General Assembly A/70/480 (1 DEC 2015) Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources
> 
> General Assembly severely criticizes the "Occupying Power" (Israel) and leave the issue of Arab Palestinian wrong doing, Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence completely unadressed as a causation for current outcomes.​
> *(DIRECT OBSERVATION)
> *
> View attachment 100557​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is unlikely that anything the UN does will actually change the ground truth.  In fact, it is more likely that any enforcement action will trigger open conflict --- which --- will (with greater probability) result (yet again) even greater losses and casualties for the Arab Palestinians to bear.  This would even be more likely if the Arab Palestinians ignite violence in the City of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.
> 
> The UNDOF, much like the UNEF in the Sinai, will not act as a barrier - but step aside at the first sign of trouble just like the UNEF did in 1967.
> 
> Currently, the only military forces (land, sea, or air) in the region (not currently engaging DAESH, another similar radical islamic movement) are pointed towards Israel.  Other than Israel, there are no Allied Forces capable of influencing the battlefield in time to "prevent an armed conflict."
> 
> The regional Arab nations _(in this DAESH turbulant region)_ have to exercise some discretion in the ignition of a conflict.  Should the conflict start in the significant combat loss in Arab Forces, DAESH will not hesitate to take advantage of any weakness.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definitions of the "right to exist" vary in Israel´s case. For some, it is the right to do anything and the right to not to be criticized. Israel is without mistakes and its actions above human ability to judge, they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda
Click to expand...

According to people who have discussed it with people like you.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> was it only the Jewish national home legally created under international law
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...








No proven historical fact as every nation that was under a LoN mandate was legally created out of the former Ottoman Empire.     And in the case of trans Jordan this led to the arab muslims having a rider added to the mandate that banned Jews from living in trans Jordan and non Jews from living in the Jewish national home.    Remember posting the link that told you this last week ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting doesn't make you appear any less moronic. The Egyptians are from Egypt, the Syrians are from Syria and the Lebanese are from Lebanon.  The Palestinians are from Palestine and the Jews came from Europe invaded Palestine and are now squatting on Christian and Muslim land. Those are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your hypocritical point of view, monte, is a Lebanese who moves to Palestine magically becomes a Palestinian whose "ancestors have been living there for thousands of years" while a Jew whose ancestors actually have been there for thousands of years somehow transforms into a European invader.
> 
> Not more than a month or so, your partner in crime posted a story about a poor "Palestinian" family who turned out to be Lebanese.
> 
> The real facts are that there has been a great deal of immigration into the geographical area known as Palestine in the past two hundred years or so.  Before that, there was an Arab Muslim conquest.  And before that were the indigenous Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The descendants of indigenous people, that practiced Judaism, Samaritanism, Roman, Caanite religions etc.,  are still in Palestine, they happen to follow the Christian and Muslim faiths today.  The European Jews were from Europe and were Europeans.
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Immigration to Palestine over the past 200 years has been overwhelmingly Jewish.
> 
> 
> *"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Conversely:
> 
> " *It follows that the Jewish population may now include between 50,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants* who *have settled in Palestine at any time since 1920 when the first Immigration Ordinance was enacted. "*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 210, para. 54
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the other hand:
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> *A Population Boom*
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Jewish Virtual Library a propaganda site, versus an official Anglo-American survey commissioned by the UN.  Well done.
Click to expand...








 And carried out by arab muslims for the lazy Jew haters that made up the commission so they could get drunk every night of the 3 weeks they were there.


----------



## Phoenall

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting doesn't make you appear any less moronic. The Egyptians are from Egypt, the Syrians are from Syria and the Lebanese are from Lebanon.  The Palestinians are from Palestine and the Jews came from Europe invaded Palestine and are now squatting on Christian and Muslim land. Those are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your hypocritical point of view, monte, is a Lebanese who moves to Palestine magically becomes a Palestinian whose "ancestors have been living there for thousands of years" while a Jew whose ancestors actually have been there for thousands of years somehow transforms into a European invader.
> 
> Not more than a month or so, your partner in crime posted a story about a poor "Palestinian" family who turned out to be Lebanese.
> 
> The real facts are that there has been a great deal of immigration into the geographical area known as Palestine in the past two hundred years or so.  Before that, there was an Arab Muslim conquest.  And before that were the indigenous Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The descendants of indigenous people, that practiced Judaism, Samaritanism, Roman, Caanite religions etc.,  are still in Palestine, they happen to follow the Christian and Muslim faiths today.  The European Jews were from Europe and were Europeans.
> 
> *Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European*
> Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> Immigration to Palestine over the past 200 years has been overwhelmingly Jewish.
> 
> 
> *"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Conversely:
> 
> " *It follows that the Jewish population may now include between 50,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants* who *have settled in Palestine at any time since 1920 when the first Immigration Ordinance was enacted. "*
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 210, para. 54
> 
> A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the other hand:
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> *A Population Boom*
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Jewish Virtual Library a propaganda site, versus an official Anglo-American survey commissioned by the UN.  Well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And carried out by arab muslims for the lazy Jew haters that made up the commission so they could get drunk every night of the 3 weeks they were there.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phoenall

Bleipriester said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester, et al,
> 
> Yeah, this is one-hell-of-a subject.  It really kicks in on skills in formal presentations.  And this particular question (The Case of the Golan Heights) is a compound and complex question; if nothing else.
> 
> In the Original Posting - "Israel's Legal Right To Exist" - the status of the Golan Heights is irrelevant.  The Golan Heights Issue that starts from a 1981 timeframe.  The question of existance starts from a 1948 timeframe.  *IF* Israel has no "Right" to exist, *THEN* it has not "Right" to hold any territory.  The question, in terms of "Rights" relative to the Golan Heights is moot.
> 
> "Rights" + "Title" + "Sovereignty" are all independent concepts in relation to "Reality" (Ground Truth).
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN now demands that the occupied Golan returns to Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967, then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.
> 
> A first group of 127 UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) peacekeepers returned Monday to a camp on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights, two years after withdrawing amid clashes with Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels.
> United Nations (United States) (AFP)
> 
> The UN demanded that Israel comply with the international legitimacy's resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, particularly the Security Council resolution no. 497 of 1981 that *declared Israel's decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the Golan as "null and void and without international legal effect"*.
> Sign of the Times (SOTT)  *Wed, 18 Nov 2015*
> UN demands Israel annul illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights
> 
> UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) Middle East Conflict (22 Nov)
> UNSC Resolution 338 (1973) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 Oct)
> UNSC Resolution 485 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 May)
> UNSC Resolution 493 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (23 Nov)
> UNSC Resolution 497 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (17 Dec)
> 
> General Assembly A/70/480 (1 DEC 2015) Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources
> 
> General Assembly severely criticizes the "Occupying Power" (Israel) and leave the issue of Arab Palestinian wrong doing, Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence completely unadressed as a causation for current outcomes.​
> *(DIRECT OBSERVATION)
> *
> View attachment 100557​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is unlikely that anything the UN does will actually change the ground truth.  In fact, it is more likely that any enforcement action will trigger open conflict --- which --- will (with greater probability) result (yet again) even greater losses and casualties for the Arab Palestinians to bear.  This would even be more likely if the Arab Palestinians ignite violence in the City of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.
> 
> The UNDOF, much like the UNEF in the Sinai, will not act as a barrier - but step aside at the first sign of trouble just like the UNEF did in 1967.
> 
> Currently, the only military forces (land, sea, or air) in the region (not currently engaging DAESH, another similar radical islamic movement) are pointed towards Israel.  Other than Israel, there are no Allied Forces capable of influencing the battlefield in time to "prevent an armed conflict."
> 
> The regional Arab nations _(in this DAESH turbulant region)_ have to exercise some discretion in the ignition of a conflict.  Should the conflict start in the significant combat loss in Arab Forces, DAESH will not hesitate to take advantage of any weakness.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definitions of the "right to exist" vary in Israel´s case. For some, it is the right to do anything and the right to not to be criticized. Israel is without mistakes and its actions above human ability to judge, they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to people who have discussed it with people like you.
Click to expand...








No as we dont discus such things we are on a much higher level and discus such things as why dont the arab muslims employ international law to lift the blockade and occupation.........


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Poor Holly is bewildered.


 






 Poor freddy is in breach of the rules, and will go into meltdown when he is censured


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> *1.  Is it the "lie" that the Jewish Palestinians have the same rights to self-determination as the Arab Palestinians?*
> 
> Yes, but not at the expense of other people.
> 
> The Palestinians rightly refused to accept the transfer of Europeans to Palestine as it would naturally eliminate their ability to achieve self-determination as a people as a whole.
> 
> *2. Is it the "lie" that the Jewish Palestinians fulfilled their obligations to be able to "stand alone"?
> *
> Yes, by expelling hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims. Contrary to the terms of the Mandate.
> 
> *3. Is it the "lie" that the Jewish Palestinians declared and were internationally recognized for their sovereign independence?
> *
> Again, through the expulsion and elimination by other means of the Christians and Muslims, contrary to the terms of the Mandate.
> 
> *4. Or is it the "lie" that the Arab Palestinians have still (!) failed to fulfill their obligations?
> *
> The British prevented the Christians and Muslims from fulfilling their obligations earlier and now the Israelis are an occupying power that prevents any possibility self-determination.









 Which isnt happening, and never has

 So how did that work, when 50,000 arab muslim terrorists were evicted as being enemies of the state which is legal under the UN charter and international laws.

How did that work as they were recognised as being able to stand alone, not on your fantasy of them having evicted thousands of non Jews. The numbers of Christians pre war of independence was the same as post war of independence showing that once again you LIE

How did this happen as all they needed to do was stand up and declare their intentions. The only way to stop that would be to silence every voice, and that would have been headline news for years after.   You need to brush up on exactly what self determination is, and how it is achieved


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> So wait a minute, hold on.  Just to make sure I understand:
> 
> You agree that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination on that territory.
> 
> You believe that self-determination does NOT include the right to invite or control immigration.
> 
> You believe that the mere presence of other people with rights to self-determination restricts or removes your ability to self-govern or have self-determination?
> 
> And you believe "occupation" prevents developing self-determination?









 Stupid or what ?   He is arguing now for the sake of argument because he has been evicted from all the other boards he posts on because of his spamming.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> No, I am saying that the European Jews had no right to self-determination on a territory inhabited by other people with a right to self-determination.







 Then the arab muslims from Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi also dont have the right to self determination on territory inhabited by other people who are legally palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am saying that the European Jews had no right to self-determination on a territory inhabited by other people with a right to self-determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Jewish Palestinians have the right to self-determination, yes?
Click to expand...







 Which includes those from Europe who were made palestinians under international laws


----------



## Phoenall

Bleipriester said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester,  et al,
> 
> You may make this claim; but what impact does it have.
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definitions of the "right to exist" vary in Israel´s case. For some, it is the right to do anything and the right to not to be criticized. Israel is without mistakes and its actions above human ability to judge, they say.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Israelis generally believe that every --- universally --- have the very same rights.  The idea is that the Rights of one group cannot deprive the Rights of another group.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no Palestine so this idea apparently didn´t make it to the government.
Click to expand...







 There has been an area called palestine since the Romans named it  so in the 1C   C.E.   It did not become a nation until 1988 when the arab muslims declared it as such. The way they are performing they will lose even this small prize


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
Click to expand...










 Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948.   There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> It is Article 22.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Excerpts:
> 
> "inhabited by peoples not yet *able to stand by themselves*"
> "best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the* tutelage of such peoples* should be entrusted to advanced nations"
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> And nothing even remotely Palestinian meets that criteria.  But, it makes no difference now.  The Arab Palestinians have made themselves such a threat, that it will be decades before they and can exercise self-governance and stand alone.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a disgusting racist Rocco. The British made it impossible for the Christians and Muslims to "stand by themselves" by refusing to negotiate or give any standing to the Christian and Muslim leadership.  They only negotiated with the Zionist Organization.
> 
> The Palestinians were far more capable to self-govern in 1922 than any other former Ottoman territory.  They were better educated, secular than any other former Turkish Arab territory.
> 
> It was the intent of the British to prevent any self government of the Christians and Muslims until they could flood the country with European Jews.
Click to expand...







 For starters it was the arab muslims that refused to negotiate with the LoN or its mandatory, this was a show of arab muslim free determination. If they had the ability to stand alone then they would have been granted the lands, as it was even Jordan took until 1946 before it was deemed to stand alone.

Another of your unsubstantiated LIES as the majority of arab muslims could not read or write, they were too busy following the work as the crops ripened.


Yet another unsubstantiated LIE that you refuse to prove.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,
> 
> It is Article 22.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> but was not a sovereign State because it had not fulfilled the obligations required, under treaty, to "self-govern and stand alone".
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Excerpts:
> 
> "inhabited by peoples not yet *able to stand by themselves*"
> "best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the* tutelage of such peoples* should be entrusted to advanced nations"
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> And nothing even remotely Palestinian meets that criteria.  But, it makes no difference now.  The Arab Palestinians have made themselves such a threat, that it will be decades before they and can exercise self-governance and stand alone.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a disgusting racist Rocco. The British made it impossible for the Christians and Muslims to "stand by themselves" by refusing to negotiate or give any standing to the Christian and Muslim leadership.  They only negotiated with the Zionist Organization.
> 
> The Palestinians were far more capable to self-govern in 1922 than any other former Ottoman territory.  They were better educated, secular than any other former Turkish Arab territory.
> 
> It was the intent of the British to prevent any self government of the Christians and Muslims until they could flood the country with European Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British made nothing impossible. The Arabs-Moslems simply didn't have, and still don't have, the ability to take the steps necessary to establish a functioning government and enable self-determination. You can make all the excuses you can muster to blame external entities for Arab-Moslem failures but you would then have to find excuses for the continued failures of Arabs-Moslems to form workable societies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been reading too much of Rocco's crap.
Click to expand...







 NO it is you that has been reading too much islamonazi propaganda crap and hate site LIES


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> when it gave the arab muslims trans Jordan
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
Click to expand...






 LoN minutes for the mandate of palestine. And the mandate of palestine
 Links given many hundreds of times in the past so you are at fault for not taking them on board


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  The Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Christian and Muslim Palestinians BOTH have the right to sovereignty over a portion of the land.
> 
> Can we get on with negotiating the borders now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same one you use to show that arab muslims have the only right to rule palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arab Muslims are you talking about?
Click to expand...







 The ones you claim are the only ones to have any rights of course


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think citizenship is granted?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it shouldn't be imposed by foreigners at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...








 It wasnt, it was offered as a gift. It was the arab muslims that held all the guns


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> 
> 
> Britain did not render advice or assistance to the Palestinians. They kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist colonial project.
Click to expand...







 Read your own links again and see were the arab muslims refuse to take part in any discussions or negotiations. So it wasnt the British holding them back, they cant force them to take part so now they have lost out because they were stupid


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The above is another of the pointless articles you have cut and pasted multiple times across multiple threads. It is as pointless
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that explains why you don't know anything.
Click to expand...








 Does you constant demands of links already provided not show that you dont know anything as well ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now what disagreement is only on the Israeli side as they have constantly asked to live in peace,
> 
> 
> 
> They have constantly asked to live in peace on Palestinian land.
> 
> How is that supposed to be accepted?
Click to expand...




 Because it is only mandate of palestine land as the arab muslims have yet to claim any actual land. And it is Jewish land under international laws, so how come arab muslim illegal migrants are living there ?


----------



## Bleipriester

Phoenall said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester, et al,
> 
> Yeah, this is one-hell-of-a subject.  It really kicks in on skills in formal presentations.  And this particular question (The Case of the Golan Heights) is a compound and complex question; if nothing else.
> 
> In the Original Posting - "Israel's Legal Right To Exist" - the status of the Golan Heights is irrelevant.  The Golan Heights Issue that starts from a 1981 timeframe.  The question of existance starts from a 1948 timeframe.  *IF* Israel has no "Right" to exist, *THEN* it has not "Right" to hold any territory.  The question, in terms of "Rights" relative to the Golan Heights is moot.
> 
> "Rights" + "Title" + "Sovereignty" are all independent concepts in relation to "Reality" (Ground Truth).
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN now demands that the occupied Golan returns to Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967, then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.
> 
> A first group of 127 UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) peacekeepers returned Monday to a camp on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights, two years after withdrawing amid clashes with Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels.
> United Nations (United States) (AFP)
> 
> The UN demanded that Israel comply with the international legitimacy's resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, particularly the Security Council resolution no. 497 of 1981 that *declared Israel's decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the Golan as "null and void and without international legal effect"*.
> Sign of the Times (SOTT)  *Wed, 18 Nov 2015*
> UN demands Israel annul illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights
> 
> UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) Middle East Conflict (22 Nov)
> UNSC Resolution 338 (1973) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 Oct)
> UNSC Resolution 485 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 May)
> UNSC Resolution 493 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (23 Nov)
> UNSC Resolution 497 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (17 Dec)
> 
> General Assembly A/70/480 (1 DEC 2015) Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources
> 
> General Assembly severely criticizes the "Occupying Power" (Israel) and leave the issue of Arab Palestinian wrong doing, Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence completely unadressed as a causation for current outcomes.​
> *(DIRECT OBSERVATION)
> *
> View attachment 100557​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is unlikely that anything the UN does will actually change the ground truth.  In fact, it is more likely that any enforcement action will trigger open conflict --- which --- will (with greater probability) result (yet again) even greater losses and casualties for the Arab Palestinians to bear.  This would even be more likely if the Arab Palestinians ignite violence in the City of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.
> 
> The UNDOF, much like the UNEF in the Sinai, will not act as a barrier - but step aside at the first sign of trouble just like the UNEF did in 1967.
> 
> Currently, the only military forces (land, sea, or air) in the region (not currently engaging DAESH, another similar radical islamic movement) are pointed towards Israel.  Other than Israel, there are no Allied Forces capable of influencing the battlefield in time to "prevent an armed conflict."
> 
> The regional Arab nations _(in this DAESH turbulant region)_ have to exercise some discretion in the ignition of a conflict.  Should the conflict start in the significant combat loss in Arab Forces, DAESH will not hesitate to take advantage of any weakness.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definitions of the "right to exist" vary in Israel´s case. For some, it is the right to do anything and the right to not to be criticized. Israel is without mistakes and its actions above human ability to judge, they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to people who have discussed it with people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No as we dont discus such things we are on a much higher level and discus such things as why dont the arab muslims employ international law to lift the blockade and occupation.........
Click to expand...

No, you are liar of the lowest level of hoaxing.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, this is very much the perpetual Arab Palestinian victim play.  The longest running play across the Orient Express Line.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> And nothing even remotely Palestinian meets that criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> Rocco, you are sooooo full of shit. Who can stand alone with a gun in their face?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

In 1948, who pointed the gun at who?  I believe it was the Arab League that initiated the Armed Aggression.

In 1967, it was the Jordan that opened fire on the Israelis first.  And it was the Egyptians the push the UNEF-1 out of the way so it could stage 100,000 soldiers, 1000 tanks, and put 900 artillery pieces in ranges, right along the Israeli Border.

It was in 1972, the Arab Palestinians at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich; followed by the sneak attack in 1973 by the Arab League once again.

The various security barriers and blockades did no start being put in place until 2000, nearly three decades after the Arab initiated Yom Kipper War.

It has been the Arab Palestinians right and privilege to be quarantine, not just by Israel, but by other Arab Countries as well.  It was Jordan that severed all ties with the West Bank.  It was Egypt that began to seal-off the Sinai Border and fill-in tunnels.

If there was gun pointing, it was a graduated solution Arab Palestinian aggression.  Israeli suffered 22 terrorist attacks in the 1990's; a decade before the beginning of the Security Barrier Wall construction.

If we talk about who pointed the gun at who, the Arab Palestinians were deserving of the special attention for living in peace.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

Bleipriester said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester, et al,
> 
> Yeah, this is one-hell-of-a subject.  It really kicks in on skills in formal presentations.  And this particular question (The Case of the Golan Heights) is a compound and complex question; if nothing else.
> 
> In the Original Posting - "Israel's Legal Right To Exist" - the status of the Golan Heights is irrelevant.  The Golan Heights Issue that starts from a 1981 timeframe.  The question of existance starts from a 1948 timeframe.  *IF* Israel has no "Right" to exist, *THEN* it has not "Right" to hold any territory.  The question, in terms of "Rights" relative to the Golan Heights is moot.
> 
> "Rights" + "Title" + "Sovereignty" are all independent concepts in relation to "Reality" (Ground Truth).
> 
> *(REFERENCES)*
> 
> Israel seized 1,200 square kilometers (460 square miles) of the Golan during the Six-Day War of 1967, then annexed it in 1981 in a move never recognized by the international community.
> 
> A first group of 127 UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) peacekeepers returned Monday to a camp on the Syrian-held side of the Golan Heights, two years after withdrawing amid clashes with Al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels.
> United Nations (United States) (AFP)
> 
> The UN demanded that Israel comply with the international legitimacy's resolutions on the occupied Syrian Golan, particularly the Security Council resolution no. 497 of 1981 that *declared Israel's decision to impose its laws and jurisdiction on the Golan as "null and void and without international legal effect"*.
> Sign of the Times (SOTT)  *Wed, 18 Nov 2015*
> UN demands Israel annul illegal annexation of Syria's Golan Heights
> 
> UNSC Resolution 242 (1967) Middle East Conflict (22 Nov)
> UNSC Resolution 338 (1973) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 Oct)
> UNSC Resolution 485 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (22 May)
> UNSC Resolution 493 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (23 Nov)
> UNSC Resolution 497 (1981) Israel-Syrian Arab Republic (17 Dec)
> 
> General Assembly A/70/480 (1 DEC 2015) Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources
> 
> General Assembly severely criticizes the "Occupying Power" (Israel) and leave the issue of Arab Palestinian wrong doing, Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence completely unadressed as a causation for current outcomes.​
> *(DIRECT OBSERVATION)
> *
> View attachment 100557​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is unlikely that anything the UN does will actually change the ground truth.  In fact, it is more likely that any enforcement action will trigger open conflict --- which --- will (with greater probability) result (yet again) even greater losses and casualties for the Arab Palestinians to bear.  This would even be more likely if the Arab Palestinians ignite violence in the City of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights.
> 
> The UNDOF, much like the UNEF in the Sinai, will not act as a barrier - but step aside at the first sign of trouble just like the UNEF did in 1967.
> 
> Currently, the only military forces (land, sea, or air) in the region (not currently engaging DAESH, another similar radical islamic movement) are pointed towards Israel.  Other than Israel, there are no Allied Forces capable of influencing the battlefield in time to "prevent an armed conflict."
> 
> The regional Arab nations _(in this DAESH turbulant region)_ have to exercise some discretion in the ignition of a conflict.  Should the conflict start in the significant combat loss in Arab Forces, DAESH will not hesitate to take advantage of any weakness.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> The definitions of the "right to exist" vary in Israel´s case. For some, it is the right to do anything and the right to not to be criticized. Israel is without mistakes and its actions above human ability to judge, they say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the hate sites and islamonazi propaganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to people who have discussed it with people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No as we dont discus such things we are on a much higher level and discus such things as why dont the arab muslims employ international law to lift the blockade and occupation.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you are liar of the lowest level of hoaxing.
Click to expand...








 Go away little boy and play with the bottles, you might lose an eye like old hooky did and become some islamionazi cult hero figure


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You are just too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> GB did make the Order because it had to deal with the establishment of an National Home and deal with the Emirate of Transjordan.
> 
> Yes, the Citizenship Order did come from the Mandatory.  And the Government of Palestine was the Mandatory in 1925.
> 
> The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (UK) until 15 May 48 when the UNPC became the Government of Palestine.
> 
> Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:--​Part i, Paragraph 1:  Definitions
> 
> "The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine."​PART II. EXECUTIVE. Office of High Commissioner. Paragraph 4.
> 
> His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.​Where do you think citizenship is granted?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that a colonial power has the authority to determine who has rights?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so you admit at last that the arab muslim colonial powers dont have any rights in palestine, as they are the ones denying Jews and Christians those rights.    And you need to be clear on which rights and when they were negotiated ?
Click to expand...

Rights are not negotiable.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> banned Jews from living in trans Jordan and non Jews from living in the Jewish national home. Remember posting the link that told you this last week ?


What link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In 1948, who pointed the gun at who? I believe it was the Arab League that initiated the Armed Aggression.


Don't try to start history in the middle.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You are just too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> GB did make the Order because it had to deal with the establishment of an National Home and deal with the Emirate of Transjordan.
> 
> Yes, the Citizenship Order did come from the Mandatory.  And the Government of Palestine was the Mandatory in 1925.
> 
> The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (UK) until 15 May 48 when the UNPC became the Government of Palestine.
> 
> Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:--​Part i, Paragraph 1:  Definitions
> 
> "The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine."​PART II. EXECUTIVE. Office of High Commissioner. Paragraph 4.
> 
> His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.​Where do you think citizenship is granted?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that a colonial power has the authority to determine who has rights?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so you admit at last that the arab muslim colonial powers dont have any rights in palestine, as they are the ones denying Jews and Christians those rights.    And you need to be clear on which rights and when they were negotiated ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rights are not negotiable.
Click to expand...


Indeed. The Jewish people exercised their right to self-determination. They have been forced to defend that right in the face of Arab-Moslem wars of aggression seeking to deny that right.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, who pointed the gun at who? I believe it was the Arab League that initiated the Armed Aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to start history in the middle.
Click to expand...

_Nice dodge_™


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948.   There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine
Click to expand...

Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> when it gave the arab muslims trans Jordan
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoN minutes for the mandate of palestine. And the mandate of palestine
> Links given many hundreds of times in the past so you are at fault for not taking them on board
Click to expand...

Your standard duck.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> 
> 
> Britain did not render advice or assistance to the Palestinians. They kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own links again and see were the arab muslims refuse to take part in any discussions or negotiations. So it wasnt the British holding them back, they cant force them to take part so now they have lost out because they were stupid
Click to expand...

Nobody can be forced into negotiating away their rights.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948.   There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.
Click to expand...


You need to learn history. The Brits didn't start a "hundred year war" in the islamist occupied territories. It was the Islamist Entity that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973.... why don't you research the history and let me know if I missed any.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> 
> 
> Britain did not render advice or assistance to the Palestinians. They kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own links again and see were the arab muslims refuse to take part in any discussions or negotiations. So it wasnt the British holding them back, they cant force them to take part so now they have lost out because they were stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody can be forced into negotiating away their rights.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The Israelis wont negotiate away their rights to a collection of Islamic terrorist franchises.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948.   There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn history. The Brits didn't start a "hundred year war" in the islamist occupied territories. It was the Islamist Entity that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973.... why don't you research the history and let me know if I missed any.
Click to expand...

Sure.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948.   There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn history. The Brits didn't start a "hundred year war" in the islamist occupied territories. It was the Islamist Entity that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973.... why don't you research the history and let me know if I missed any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.
Click to expand...


_Nice dodge_™

So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed. 

You didn't do you assignment and research those Islamic terrorist wars of aggression. Odd that you would whine about wars when it was your Islamic terrorist heroes who have instigated those wars and lost in humiliating fashion. 

How fortunate for you that Islamics died by the thousands in those wars. It helps sustain your pathology of IJH.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.


It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
Click to expand...

_Nice dodge_™

I'm not at all surprised you danced around addressing the wars of aggression waged and lost by Arabs-Moslems.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You are just too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> GB did make the Order because it had to deal with the establishment of an National Home and deal with the Emirate of Transjordan.
> 
> Yes, the Citizenship Order did come from the Mandatory.  And the Government of Palestine was the Mandatory in 1925.
> 
> The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory (UK) until 15 May 48 when the UNPC became the Government of Palestine.
> 
> Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:--​Part i, Paragraph 1:  Definitions
> 
> "The High Commissioner" shall include every person for the time being administering the Government of Palestine."​PART II. EXECUTIVE. Office of High Commissioner. Paragraph 4.
> 
> His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.​Where do you think citizenship is granted?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that a colonial power has the authority to determine who has rights?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so you admit at last that the arab muslim colonial powers dont have any rights in palestine, as they are the ones denying Jews and Christians those rights.    And you need to be clear on which rights and when they were negotiated ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rights are not negotiable.
Click to expand...







 HOW DO YOU THINK RIGHTS COME TO IN EXISTENCE THEN. 

 No right to bear arms in the US until it was negotiated, no right to peaceful protest until it was negotiated. No right to free determination until it was negotiated, no right to free elections until it was negotiated. 


 SO RIGHTS ARE NEGOTIABLE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT EXIST.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> banned Jews from living in trans Jordan and non Jews from living in the Jewish national home. Remember posting the link that told you this last week ?
> 
> 
> 
> What link?
Click to expand...





 Cant you even remember your own links that you post now. Go and have a look at your posts from the last week and see what you posted


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, who pointed the gun at who? I believe it was the Arab League that initiated the Armed Aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to start history in the middle.
Click to expand...






 He isnt, he is giving an example.    But if you want to be pedantic then in 1919 who pointed the gun at whom, then again in 1921 and 1929 ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
Click to expand...





 Who invaded the mandate of palestine in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews, and then had to be saved and protected by the UN when the poorly armed and lesser Jews were kicking their buts big time


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
Click to expand...


I would like you to name the year the "war" started and the initiating event.  


I strongly suspect that your answer is "the day the Jewish people started moving home".  Which indicates, again, that the mere presence of Jews, the mere idea of having them as neighbors is the cause of the conflict and gives Arab Muslims the right to kill them.  

Hey, guess what?  I agree with you.  The root cause of the conflict is the deep-seated, religiously supported, irrational, antisemitism of the Arab Muslims.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948.   There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.
Click to expand...







 BULLSHIT as Britain did what it could under its remit, it was the arab muslims that refused to talk so they lost. The Jews followed the rules and gained a nation


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> when it gave the arab muslims trans Jordan
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoN minutes for the mandate of palestine. And the mandate of palestine
> Links given many hundreds of times in the past so you are at fault for not taking them on board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your standard duck.
Click to expand...






 And this is your standard duck when you realise the links have been given before over 100 times.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "advice and assistance by a Mandatory *until such time as they are able to stand alone*"
> 
> 
> 
> Britain did not render advice or assistance to the Palestinians. They kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the foreign Zionist colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own links again and see were the arab muslims refuse to take part in any discussions or negotiations. So it wasnt the British holding them back, they cant force them to take part so now they have lost out because they were stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody can be forced into negotiating away their rights.
Click to expand...







What rights did they have in 1917 that they were forced to negotiate away, seeing as they refused to even talk and so lost everything in the process. So negotiating could have given them even more rights


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948.   There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn history. The Brits didn't start a "hundred year war" in the islamist occupied territories. It was the Islamist Entity that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973.... why don't you research the history and let me know if I missed any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.
Click to expand...








 Another duck because you dont have a clue, so you resort to islamonazi propaganda talking points


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
Click to expand...






 YES IT WAS


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, but do you even know what that means?



P F Tinmore said:


> Rights are not negotiable.


*(BIG QUESTION)*

What do you get when you have a "right?"

When you say that you have a "RIGHT to Self-determination;"  what is is? 

What are you negotiating if you where to negotiate the "Right to Self-Determination?"   ​I don't get what you are driving at.  Are you saying that someone took the "Right of Self-Determination" away from the Palestinians?  What did the take from you?  Can you show me one?

The Palestinians have the "Right of Self-Determination."  No one took anything away from them.  They may exercise the "Right of Self-Determination" any time they want.  

Show me what the difference it makes when the Palestinians:

•   Have the Right of Self-determination.
•   Don't have the Right to Self-determination.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

If a Power (Britain) prevented another party (the Palestinians) from exercising the right to self-determination, it is effectively taking the right way.  The effort to prevent the Christian and Muslim Palestinians from exercising the right to self-determination began in 1922, as per the official, on the record correspondence to the Palestinian Delegation from the British Colonial Office, and continued through to 1948.  This effort to prevent the Christian and Muslim Palestinians for exercising this right was adopted by the United Nations at the end of the Mandate through the Partition Plan which placed 1/3 of the Christians and Muslims (over 400 thousand) under Jew rule with no possible way to exercise self-determination.  All of which ran counter to the United Nations Charter and the Covenants on rights as per below. 


The second para. of first article of the United Nations Charter reads:

"The purposes of the United Nations are: 

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace...."

The first article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reads: 

"1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development...."


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Apples and Oranges.   You have not posted a proper question, thus you are looking for a flawed answer.  

Mid-night, 14/15 May 1948 was a terminator between the end of the Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) and the beginning of the International Armed Conflict (IAC).

The* definition of an IAC* is found in *Common Article 2 to the Fourth Geneva Conventions (GCIV)*.  It states that the rules of IAC apply to “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the *High Contracting Parties* . . . . “  Thus, an IAC can only be between two or more states.

After to 14/15 May 1948:

•   Israel is a "High Contracting Party (HCP)" having declared independence.
•   All the Arab League participants:  Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, and Egypt, are individually HCP.
•   The Arab Palestinians are not constituents of a HCP.​Prior to 14/15 May 1948:

•  There is no State of Israel.  Thus a non-existent Israel could not be a HCP.
•  There is no Sate of Palestine.  Thus the a non-existent Arab Palestinian State could not be a HCP.​ 
THUS, by international Humanitarian Law (IHL) the Arab-Jewish conflict in the territory subject to the Mandate COULD NOT BE an IAC; neither being a HCP.  An IAC can only be between two or more HCPs.

HOWEVER, after the Declaration of Independence and recognition by at least one nation, Israel is a HCP, being invaded by elements of several HCPs of the Arab League; making it an IAC.

Therefore:

•  Prior to 14/15 May 1948, the Arab-Jewish Conflict in Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was a NAIC.
•  After 14/15 May 1948, the Arab-Jewish Conflict becomes an IAC.​


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, who pointed the gun at who? I believe it was the Arab League that initiated the Armed Aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to start history in the middle.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

YOU are wrong!  

The Arab Invasion by the Arab League marks the beginning of the NIAC.  It is not the middle of the history.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I understand that you "cut 'n' paste."  But do you know what it means?



montelatici said:


> If a Power (Britain) prevented another party (the Palestinians) from exercising the right to self-determination, it is effectively taking the right way.  The effort to prevent the Christian and Muslim Palestinians from exercising the right to self-determination began in 1922, as per the official, on the record correspondence to the Palestinian Delegation from the British Colonial Office, and continued through to 1948.  This effort to prevent the Christian and Muslim Palestinians for exercising this right was adopted by the United Nations at the end of the Mandate through the Partition Plan which placed 1/3 of the Christians and Muslims (over 400 thousand) under Jew rule with no possible way to exercise self-determination.  All of which ran counter to the United Nations Charter and the Covenants on rights as per below.
> 
> 
> The second para. of first article of the United Nations Charter reads:
> 
> "The purposes of the United Nations are:
> 
> 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace...."
> 
> The first article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reads:
> 
> "1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development...."


*(COMMENT)*

Exactly who took what from the Arab Palestinians.

When you imply that someone took or denied the Arab Palestinians the "Right of Self-Determination," exactly when did that do that.  Do you have a date, time and place?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

I did not cut and pass moron, but thanks for the compliment. And, your reading comprehension is faulty.  I said the British and then the UN prevented the Christian and Muslim Palestinians from exercising said right.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,

Does this answer my question?



montelatici said:


> I did not cut and pass moron, but thanks for the compliment.



v/r
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,
> 
> Does this answer my question?
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not cut and pass moron, but thanks for the compliment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> v/r
> R
Click to expand...


The second part of the post does.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who invaded the mandate of palestine in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews, and then had to be saved and protected by the UN when the poorly armed and lesser Jews were kicking their buts big time
Click to expand...

Who was, in fact, in Palestine ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their homes? There were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees before the 1948 war. You know, the war that the liars say the Arabs started.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like you to name the year the "war" started and the initiating event.
> 
> 
> I strongly suspect that your answer is "the day the Jewish people started moving home".  Which indicates, again, that the mere presence of Jews, the mere idea of having them as neighbors is the cause of the conflict and gives Arab Muslims the right to kill them.
> 
> Hey, guess what?  I agree with you.  The root cause of the conflict is the deep-seated, religiously supported, irrational, antisemitism of the Arab Muslims.
Click to expand...

The sad part is that you actually believe that crap. Here is a brief overview of the problem. Of course I would happily discuss anything she says that you feel is not true.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You post this all the time. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed any sovereignty. The LoN did say who would be the benefactors of their tutelage. They used terms like the people, the inhabitants, the natives, and the indigenous. There was no mention of foreigners.
> 
> So who were these people? The treaty of Lausanne spelled that out.
> 
> SECTION II .
> NATIONALITY.
> ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects *habitually resident in territory* which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
> They were talking about the people who actually lived there being citizens of their respective states. No foreigners were mentioned. The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty on their land as affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948.   There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT as Britain did what it could under its remit, it was the arab muslims that refused to talk so they lost. The Jews followed the rules and gained a nation
Click to expand...

The Palestinians contacted Britain many times but were ignored. It was Britain who refused to negotiate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948.   There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn history. The Brits didn't start a "hundred year war" in the islamist occupied territories. It was the Islamist Entity that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973.... why don't you research the history and let me know if I missed any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another duck because you dont have a clue, so you resort to islamonazi propaganda talking points
Click to expand...

Would you care to refute anything he said?

Of course not.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES IT WAS
Click to expand...

Only if you start history in the middle.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I don't get what you are driving at.


Of course you don't. It doesn't match your Israeli propaganda.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Apples and Oranges.   You have not posted a proper question, thus you are looking for a flawed answer.
> 
> Mid-night, 14/15 May 1948 was a terminator between the end of the Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) and the beginning of the International Armed Conflict (IAC).
> The* definition of an IAC* is found in *Common Article 2 to the Fourth Geneva Conventions (GCIV)*.  It states that the rules of IAC apply to “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the *High Contracting Parties* . . . . “  Thus, an IAC can only be between two or more states.
> 
> After to 14/15 May 1948:
> 
> •   Israel is a "High Contracting Party (HCP)" having declared independence.
> •   All the Arab League participants:  Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, and Egypt, are individually HCP.
> •   The Arab Palestinians are not constituents of a HCP.​Prior to 14/15 May 1948:
> 
> •  There is no State of Israel.  Thus a non-existent Israel could not be a HCP.
> •  There is no Sate of Palestine.  Thus the a non-existent Arab Palestinian State could not be a HCP.​
> THUS, by international Humanitarian Law (IHL) the Arab-Jewish conflict in the territory subject to the Mandate COULD NOT BE an IAC; neither being a HCP.  An IAC can only be between two or more HCPs.
> 
> HOWEVER, after the Declaration of Independence and recognition by at least one nation, Israel is a HCP, being invaded by elements of several HCPs of the Arab League; making it an IAC.
> 
> Therefore:
> 
> •  Prior to 14/15 May 1948, the Arab-Jewish Conflict in Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was a NAIC.
> •  After 14/15 May 1948, the Arab-Jewish Conflict becomes an IAC.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, who pointed the gun at who? I believe it was the Arab League that initiated the Armed Aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to start history in the middle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> YOU are wrong!
> 
> The Arab Invasion by the Arab League marks the beginning of the NIAC.  It is not the middle of the history.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Like I have always said: you believe that the Palestinians are exempt from universal rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Israel is a HCP, being invaded by elements of several HCPs of the Arab League; making it an IAC.


OK, but Israel was not invaded.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES IT WAS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you start history in the middle.
Click to expand...

Already addressed. You're befuddled by events and timelines.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948.   There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT as Britain did what it could under its remit, it was the arab muslims that refused to talk so they lost. The Jews followed the rules and gained a nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians contacted Britain many times but were ignored. It was Britain who refused to negotiate.
Click to expand...

Those "Poor oppressed Arabs-Moslems". Incompetence on their part par is always someone else's fault.


----------



## montelatici

Well, the facts confirm that the British were at fault, dear little Hollie.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Well, the facts confirm that the British were at fault, dear little Hollie.


Not surprisingly, your claim to "facts" are always limited to your goofy ".... because I say so", nonsense. As expected, your whining leaves us with Arab-Moslem ineptitude and incompetence is always someone else's fault.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

At fault for what?

You are implying that the British had a duty or responsibility that is claim to have been exercised unsatisfactory. 



montelatici said:


> Well, the facts confirm that the British were at fault, dear little Hollie.


*(COMMENT)*

Don't be ambiguous!  I want to understand this?  

What exactly is the allegation!   Exactly what did the Mandatory fail to negotiate?  And under what binding directive required the British to negotiate?

Ny understand was that the Arab Palestinian rejected the opportunity to participate and cooperated with the British in the development of self-governing programs,  And please, don't drag-up those old 1922 Exchange of Letters with Downing Street.

Where does some binding document require the Treaty Parties representing the Title and Rights to the territory to negotiate with the Arabs; amd over what issues?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

The British elected not to negotiate with the Christians and Muslims of Palestine in the development of self-governing programs.  The Covenant of the League of Nations, article 22 required that the Mandatory provide the tutelage to enable the "inhabitants" to achieve self-government.  What in the hell do you not understand, dimwit?


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> This effort to prevent the Christian and Muslim Palestinians for exercising this right was adopted by the United Nations at the end of the Mandate through the Partition Plan which placed 1/3 of the Christians and Muslims (over 400 thousand) under Jew rule with no possible way to exercise self-determination.



Wait.  What?  

There were a million Jewish people placed under Arab Muslim rule with no possible way to exercise self-determination by the formation of the States of Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon.  Do you know how the Arabs solved that problem?  They expelled them.  The Jewish people, taking a moral high ground, refused to do that and have instead attempted to build a society which is inclusive and equal.  

What is your point here?  That people CAN'T be under the rule of another ethnic group?  How the hell do you propose to solve that problem?

I mean, seriously, the NERVE that there would be Muslims under "Jewish" rule and being forced to live in a "Jewish" country.  I call foul.  How DARE they ever suggest such a thing.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The British elected not to negotiate with the Christians and Muslims of Palestine in the development of self-governing programs.  The Covenant of the League of Nations, article 22 required that the Mandatory provide the tutelage to enable the "inhabitants" to achieve self-government.  What in the hell do you not understand, dimwit?



Wait.  Applied equally, that means the LoN was required to provide tutelage to enable the Jewish inhabitants of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to develop their own self-governments.  There should be FIVE Jewish States and not just one.

Well, let's get on that immediately.  When do we start removing Arab settlers from Jewish land in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The sad part is that you actually believe that crap. Here is a brief overview of the problem. Of course I would happily discuss anything she says that you feel is not true.



So when a Syrian immigrates to Palestine, he magically becomes a Palestinian and everyone is excited to see him.  He even becomes a national hero.  

But we refuse to live next to a JEW!  


I'm sorry, but how, exactly, does that video support your case?  It seems to support mine in spades.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is a HCP, being invaded by elements of several HCPs of the Arab League; making it an IAC.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but Israel was not invaded.
Click to expand...


You're kidding, yes?  Jordan and Egypt used military force to take and hold territory clearly not under their sovereignty.  They crossed a boundary defined by international treaty into land which was not theirs and asserted their sovereignty on it.  That is an invasion.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> So when a Syrian immigrates to Palestine, he magically becomes a Palestinian


Not so. All people, be they Muslim, Christian, or Jew, who normally resided in the territory that became Palestine would be Palestinian citizens. (Article 30, Treaty of Lausanne) All others had to apply for citizenship.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Wait. Applied equally, that means the LoN was required to provide tutelage to enable the Jewish inhabitants of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to develop their own self-governments.


Where do you get this shit?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> You're kidding, yes? Jordan and Egypt used military force to take and hold territory clearly not under their sovereignty.


They entered Palestine. They did not invade Israel. The UN established armistice lines that were not borders and did not change the international borders.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when a Syrian immigrates to Palestine, he magically becomes a Palestinian
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. All people, be they Muslim, Christian, or Jew, who normally resided in the territory that became Palestine would be Palestinian citizens. (Article 30, Treaty of Lausanne) All others had to apply for citizenship.
Click to expand...

And the Jewish people chose self-determination. You have previously stated that is a right all people (peoples) have.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait. Applied equally, that means the LoN was required to provide tutelage to enable the Jewish inhabitants of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to develop their own self-governments.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get this shit?
Click to expand...

_Nice dodge_™


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British elected not to negotiate with the Christians and Muslims of Palestine in the development of self-governing programs.  The Covenant of the League of Nations, article 22 required that the Mandatory provide the tutelage to enable the "inhabitants" to achieve self-government.  What in the hell do you not understand, dimwit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Applied equally, that means the LoN was required to provide tutelage to enable the Jewish inhabitants of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to develop their own self-governments.  There should be FIVE Jewish States and not just one.
> 
> Well, let's get on that immediately.  When do we start removing Arab settlers from Jewish land in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq?
Click to expand...


Excellent point.  And Israel even has Palestinians in the Knesset with equal voting rights.  How many Jews are represented in Arab country governments?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

This is entirely incorrect.  The idea that the Arab Palestinian expressed nearly a century ago, is the same as it essential is today:  They want everything unconditionally _(Territory, Political Control, Economic Resources, etc)_ from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.  They do not see the need for negotiation.  They want it and demand it be surrendered to them.

This is a REJECTION of every other notion.  In effect, this is a position of continuous conflict.  The Government of Israel is not going to forfeit its blood and treasury to uncompromising Arabs; no restitution, claim settlements, reparations or any other blackmail demand for peace. 



			
				monalatici said:
			
		

> The British elected not to negotiate with the Christians and Muslims of Palestine in the development of self-governing programs. The Covenant of the League of Nations, article 22 required that the Mandatory provide the tutelage to enable the "inhabitants" to achieve self-government. What in the hell do you not understand, dimwit?


*(OBSERVATION)*

Political History of Palestine under British Administration

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”

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

The objective of His Majesty’s Government was then stated to be

“the establishment within ten years of an independent Palestine State….in which Arabs and Jews share in
government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.”​Al Jazeera World:  *Israel wants peace. Period.* Opinion Page 13 SEP 13 by Israel Kasnett The writer is Magazine Editor of The Jerusalem Post.
Since 1947, Israel has pushed for peace with Arab neighbours but has been met with violence, says Israeli journalist. 

*Jerusalem* - Israel wants peace. Period. The Jewish people have never held a desire to rule over others and this remains true today. Not only are we _ohev shalom_ ["lovers of peace"], but we are also _rodef shalom_["active pursuers of peace"].

So news of a possible breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1993, through the framework of what became known as the Oslo Accords, was initially met with enthusiasm among the Israeli public.​*Al Jazeera World: The price of Oslo*

It quickly became clear however, that PLO leader Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian people continued to seek the destruction of the Jewish state.​
*(COMMENT)*

There was this writing, authored by DR Natasha Gill, research associate at Barnard College and a former professor of conflict studies at The New School University. She is the founder and director of TRACK4, which runs negotiation simulations for diplomats, mediators, journalists, policy makers, students and community leaders. "One of her contributions expresses this image of the Arab Palestinians _(a subset of the Arabs)_ that is almost biblical sounding: _"In the Beginning there was the NO."_

This image is consistent and continuous. You look back to the first years of the Civilian Administration in Mandate Palestine, the period of the White Paper and Commission Wars, the period of the Partition Plan and the Rejections, and the late period of the Khartoum Resolution of 1 September 1967 and the Three "NO's." _*(NO peace with Israel, NO negotiations with Israel, NO recognition of Israel)*_. 

The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism." Even in its agreements, the outcome is "rejectionist." In the shadow of the Israeli-PLO agreements in the mid-1990's, the Arab-Palestinians recognize the existence of Israel, yet a Tsunami of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence occurred.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

et al, 

I need to make a "correction FOR THE RECORD and an apology.



RoccoR said:


> The Arab Invasion by the Arab League marks the beginning of the NIAC.  It is not the middle of the history.


*(COMMENT)*

The quoted first sentence is wrong; however the conclusion is correct.  The first sentence show read:

 The May 1948 Invasion by the Arab League marks the end of the NIAC and the beginning of the AIC.  

Most Respectfully to All.
R


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British elected not to negotiate with the Christians and Muslims of Palestine in the development of self-governing programs.  The Covenant of the League of Nations, article 22 required that the Mandatory provide the tutelage to enable the "inhabitants" to achieve self-government.  What in the hell do you not understand, dimwit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.  Applied equally, that means the LoN was required to provide tutelage to enable the Jewish inhabitants of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to develop their own self-governments.  There should be FIVE Jewish States and not just one.
> 
> Well, let's get on that immediately.  When do we start removing Arab settlers from Jewish land in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent point.  And Israel even has Palestinians in the Knesset with equal voting rights.  How many Jews are represented in Arab country governments?
Click to expand...


Hello!  Anybody home?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism."


Indeed, they they have consistently rejected the colonial project in Palestine.

As would any other people in the world. There is nothing unusual here.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> et al,
> 
> I need to make a "correction FOR THE RECORD and an apology.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Invasion by the Arab League marks the beginning of the NIAC.  It is not the middle of the history.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The quoted first sentence is wrong; however the conclusion is correct.  The first sentence show read:
> 
> The May 1948 Invasion by the Arab League marks the end of the NIAC and the beginning of the AIC.
> 
> Most Respectfully to All.
> R
Click to expand...

But Palestine was already under foreign attack.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> et al,
> 
> I need to make a "correction FOR THE RECORD and an apology.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Invasion by the Arab League marks the beginning of the NIAC.  It is not the middle of the history.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The quoted first sentence is wrong; however the conclusion is correct.  The first sentence show read:
> 
> The May 1948 Invasion by the Arab League marks the end of the NIAC and the beginning of the AIC.
> 
> Most Respectfully to All.
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Palestine was already under foreign attack.
Click to expand...

What a shame those foreign Arab-Moslem invaders were so ruthless in their treatment of the Arab-Moslem squatters and land grabbers.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism."
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they they have consistently rejected the colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> As would any other people in the world. There is nothing unusual here.
Click to expand...

Indeed, your silly "colonial project" slogan is a fabrication. What a shame you choose to reinforce your ignorance of history with such slogans.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore 

So, I ask again -- what year was the beginning of the conflict and what was the inciting event?  1875?  1917?  1922?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait. Applied equally, that means the LoN was required to provide tutelage to enable the Jewish inhabitants of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq to develop their own self-governments.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get this shit?
Click to expand...



I get this shit from monte, who claims that the Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 22 requires the Mandatory to provide tutelage to the inhabitants to enable them to achieve self-government.  

In his argument he is specifying that the Christian and Muslim inhabitants of "Palestine" did not receive that tutelage toward their self-government.  Applied equally, the Jewish inhabitants of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq also did not receive the tutelage toward their self-government in these geographical areas, even though they and their ancestors have been living there for thousands of years.  

So why are we not discussing Jewish self-determination, not only in Israel -- but also in Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're kidding, yes? Jordan and Egypt used military force to take and hold territory clearly not under their sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> They entered Palestine. They did not invade Israel. The UN established armistice lines that were not borders and did not change the international borders.
Click to expand...


Word games.  They entered territory not under their sovereignty and used military force to take control of it.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well ... We agree that they had a policy of consistently rejecting participation in self-governing projects.  We do not agree on the why.  



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism."
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they they have consistently rejected the colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> As would any other people in the world. There is nothing unusual here.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You say "colonial project."  I say you do not know what a "colonial project means."  In my opinion a key component of a "Colonial Project" is that it is one political power involved in the colonization of another territory.  This is not what happened at all.  

•  It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, facilitating the immigration of a completely separate culture seeking freedom from religious persecution.

•  It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, establishing a National Home for the purpose of protecting and preserving a people in a territory that they could support and defend from the tyranny of the majority.

•  It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, attempting to establish a political entity, that was beyond the abuse of a regional majority in its own best interests above of a minority that needs special protections.

•  It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, to prevent the the corrupted regional majority from evicting a minority culture and people by twisting the intent of the Allied Powers and democratic principles under the color of law --- the intentional targeting of the religious minority for oppression.​
CLEARLY --- as it concerned the Jewish People, it was not a case of the Allied Powers or a single appointed Mandatory, using the power and influence of the Allied Powers, to use the Jewish Immigration as an extension of territorial authority.

As for the suggestion that the Arab Palestinians are acting rationally, the same as any other country, that is probably not correct.  But I will agree that it is very representative of what the Arab League Nations would do.  But is an indefinite period of conflict really, in which the Arab Palestinians will have very little chance of development, actually worth the struggle.  The life expectancy of an Arab Palestinian Male (West Bank) is 73 years old (2016 est).  This means that in 5 years, all most every Arab Palestinian that might have experienced the 1948/1949 Israeli War of Independence will have died-off _(less than 4% of the population is over 65 -- The Was started 68 years ago)_.  It is not really understood what type of free lunch the younger Arab Palestinians are looking for.  But it is not patriotic based.  If it were, the Arab Palestinians would be looking for ways to open a meaningful dialog that would result in the gradual lifting of Article 43 HR Security Requirements.  As it is, the cost of maintaining the security apparatus to maintain Article 43 (public order and safety) requirements is better than threat to Israeli citizenry, critical infrastructure and wellbeing.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism."
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they they have consistently rejected the colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> As would any other people in the world. There is nothing unusual here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your silly "colonial project" slogan is a fabrication. What a shame you choose to reinforce your ignorance of history with such slogans.
Click to expand...

You would think that I made that up.

israeli settler colonialism - Google Search

israel colonialism - YouTube


----------



## Shusha

Its not colonialism.  Its Jewish nationalism and the attempt to violently prevent it by the Arabs.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism."
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they they have consistently rejected the colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> As would any other people in the world. There is nothing unusual here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, your silly "colonial project" slogan is a fabrication. What a shame you choose to reinforce your ignorance of history with such slogans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would think that I made that up.
> 
> israeli settler colonialism - Google Search
> 
> israel colonialism - YouTube
Click to expand...


Well, if it's cut and paste from the web you want:

Europeans as Victims of (Muslim) Colonialism


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well ... We agree that they had a policy of consistently rejecting participation in self-governing projects.  We do not agree on the why.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians are the principle leaders and founders of the universal "Policy of Rejectionism."
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they they have consistently rejected the colonial project in Palestine.
> 
> As would any other people in the world. There is nothing unusual here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You say "colonial project."  I say you do not know what a "colonial project means."  In my opinion a key component of a "Colonial Project" is that it is one political power involved in the colonization of another territory.  This is not what happened at all.
> 
> •  It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, facilitating the immigration of a completely separate culture seeking freedom from religious persecution.
> 
> •  It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, establishing a National Home for the purpose of protecting and preserving a people in a territory that they could support and defend from the tyranny of the majority.
> 
> •  It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, attempting to establish a political entity, that was beyond the abuse of a regional majority in its own best interests above of a minority that needs special protections.
> 
> •  It was the Allied Powers, having Rights and Title to a territory, to prevent the the corrupted regional majority from evicting a minority culture and people by twisting the intent of the Allied Powers and democratic principles under the color of law --- the intentional targeting of the religious minority for oppression.​
> CLEARLY --- as it concerned the Jewish People, it was not a case of the Allied Powers or a single appointed Mandatory, using the power and influence of the Allied Powers, to use the Jewish Immigration as an extension of territorial authority.
> 
> As for the suggestion that the Arab Palestinians are acting rationally, the same as any other country, that is probably not correct.  But I will agree that it is very representative of what the Arab League Nations would do.  But is an indefinite period of conflict really, in which the Arab Palestinians will have very little chance of development, actually worth the struggle.  The life expectancy of an Arab Palestinian Male (West Bank) is 73 years old (2016 est).  This means that in 5 years, all most every Arab Palestinian that might have experienced the 1948/1949 Israeli War of Independence will have died-off _(less than 4% of the population is over 65 -- The Was started 68 years ago)_.  It is not really understood what type of free lunch the younger Arab Palestinians are looking for.  But it is not patriotic based.  If it were, the Arab Palestinians would be looking for ways to open a meaningful dialog that would result in the gradual lifting of Article 43 HR Security Requirements.  As it is, the cost of maintaining the security apparatus to maintain Article 43 (public order and safety) requirements is better than threat to Israeli citizenry, critical infrastructure and wellbeing.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Christians and Muslims tried to participate in self-governing projects from the outset of the Mandate.  The British, to avoid the possibility of non-Jewish (Christian and Muslim) self-government, refused to recognize the Palestinian leadership as representative of the inhabitants of Palestine, in writing and as a matter of policy.  Only the Zionist Organization was recognized by the British as representative of the inhabitants.

The Zionist colonization of Palestine was recognized as a colonial project from the the beginning, even prior to the Mandate. Trying to claim it was not a colonial  is just sheer stupidity on your part Rocco.  An article about a Zionist Conference published in 1899 in the New York Times quotes a declaration from the conference indicating that the Zionists “will colonize Palestine."












Later in 1926, during the Mandate the Zionists the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the Zionists intend to colonize Palestine and beyond.  The article also demonstrates that the colonization was, in fact, financed and supported by Britain through loans and military support in much the way India, Rhodesia and other British colonies were established.

"*Successful Jewish Colonization Will Extend Beyond Palestine Frontier, Weizmann Tells Actions Committee"*

July 25, 1926
London (Jul. 23)

The proposals submitted by the Zionist Executive were favorably considered by the British government, emphasis was laid on the allocation of land for Jewish colonization in Beisan and in Southern Palestine. He believes that favorable results will follow shortly, Dr. Weizmann declared. A profound change in the attitude of British public opinion in favor of Zionist is noticeable, Dr. Weizmann declared, pointing to the debate which took place Wednesday in the House of Commons concerning the proposed £4,500,000 loan of the Palestine government. This debate in Commons demonstrated an earnest and benevolent attitude toward Zionism on the part of all parties. The British government realizes that the crisis in Palestine is not the fault of Palestine alone, but it is rather a part of the general economic world crisis, Dr. Weizmann stated.

“Due to the success of our colonization work in Palestine proper, it is possible that eventually our colonization work will be extended beyond the frontiers of Transjordania. "


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


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> So, I ask again -- what year was the beginning of the conflict and what was the inciting event?  1875?  1917?  1922?



Pali terrorist supporters claim Israel started the conflict in 1948.  Until then the Pali's were a peace loving people.  So how do they explain this documented massacre of the Jews?

1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia


----------



## montelatici

Wiki? Documented? LOL

Even if true, why wouldn't the native inhabitants attack the European Jews whose intent was to colonize Palestine and expel the native people?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Wiki? Documented? LOL
> 
> Even if true, why wouldn't the native inhabitants attack the European Jews whose intent was to colonize Palestine and expel the native people?


How did colonizing Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese (many of whom were absentee landlords), become "native 'Pal'istanian'?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Wiki? Documented? LOL
> 
> Even if true, why wouldn't the native inhabitants attack the European Jews whose intent was to colonize Palestine and expel the native people?



Oh now I get it.  The Hebron Massacre IS NOTdocumented.  Right Monte.  Heh Heh!


----------



## montelatici

I see, you think that Wiki is a source for facts regarding the I/P conflict, that's why you are so knowledgeable. Isn't that right MJ. Heh, Heh!


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

There is a huge difference between "establishing colonies" and extending "colonial holdings."  There is a difference between:

••  Zionist colonization of Palestine --- or --- the Authority with title and Rights facilitating immigration to establish presence,

••  Palestine as Colonial Holding or a Allied Powers application of colonialism,​*EXCERPT:*


montelatici said:


> The Zionist colonization of Palestine was recognized as a colonial project from the the beginning, even prior to the Mandate. *Trying to claim it was not a colonial* is just sheer stupidity on your part Rocco.  An article about a Zionist Conference published in 1899 in the New York Times quotes a declaration from the conference indicating that the Zionists “will colonize Palestine."


*(COMMENT)*

There is no question in that you and I have a very different kind of education.  While we us the same words, we have different meanings for those words.  I read your news articles and your quotes, and I did not see where it addressed "colonial settlement."  In fact I did not see colonialism mentioned in either the 1899 citations or the 1926 citations.  

Colonies (Colonization Project) and Colonialism are different in respect to a number of different key point.

The term "colonialism" implies a direct connection back to the nation of origin; an unmistakeable dependency  directly governed by a foreign nation of the origin.   _(Not to be confused with imperialism.)_  A second major point is that in "colonialism," the established colonies are expected to be a benefit the nation of origin economically, commercially, politically and strategically; with the profits coming back to the country of origin _(economic exploitation)_.  Finally, in the case of "colonialism" --- the established colonies represent and extension of the Sovereign Power that made the colonization possible.  There is no mistake, in the case of "colonialism," it is a form of conquest were expected to benefit economically and strategically represent a return on the investment.

This is very different from "colonization."  The the basic building block of "colonialism" is a "colony;" the colony is tethered back to the country of origin.  In the case of pure "colonization," it has none of the characteristic of "colonialism."  There is no one nation to which the colonies are tethered; the immigrants come from a multitude of countries.  The colonies only reimburse the Mandatory for infrastructure and certain maintenance cost, but benefits and profits are not siphoned-off.  In the case of Jewish Colonies, the colonies themselves have no connection to the expansion of sovereignty by the Mandatory.  The Title and Rights to the territory were held collectively by the Allied Powers.  Jewish settlements have no such relationship.​
You may not make these distinctions, but I believe that it is important to point-out that the facilitation and encouraged Jewish Immigration establishing settlements to support the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home was not some evil conspiracy to undermine the Title and Rights held by the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Again, you simply make things up that have no basis in fact.  (Just like the your claim that the lack of the article "the" somehow changes the meaning of "territories", really silly parroting of Zionist propaganada). 

Don't you understand that I see through your bullshit? 

The Zionist colonization of Palestine was a settler colonial project undertaken under the precepts of settler colonialism, which seeks to replace the native population with a new society of settlers.  Britain was no stranger to settler colonialism having transferred settler populations to replace native populations on nearly every continent over the previous centuries.  The U.S. was such a settler colony, too.  The British facilitated the transfer of people from all over Europe to their North American colonies.

The new societies need land, and so settler colonialism depends primarily on access to territory. In colonizing Australia, for example, the British implemented the doctrine of “terra nullius” (“land belonging to no one”) to claim sovereignty over the entire continent, declaring it legally uninhabited, despite millennia of Aboriginal occupation.

The settler colony of Palestine was established by the British for the European Jews by a European colonial power, and was tethered to Britain, which was part of Europe.  You are making things up to defend an indefensible position. Britain indeed expected to benefit strategically from the establishment of a European colony in Palestine, just the proximity to the Suez canal should give even you a clue.  The joint attack by Britain, Israel and France on the canal should also make it clear that their was a strategic reason for Britain to colonize Palestine, even if the effort was unsuccessful.

Colonies, settler or simply conquest type colonies are not necessarily financially profitable for the sponsor of the colonial enterprise, Eritrea, Somalia and Libya were loss leaders for Italy, as were several French, British, Spanish and Portuguese colonies. Colonies are often established for tactical or strategic purposes.


----------



## Shusha

Why are we playing silly word games?  Of course, the Jewish people intended to foster Jewish immigration (return) to Israel.  Of course, they used the term "colonize" -- that was the common term of the day, used in the sense of "immigrate and inhabit".

But the reason monte uses it now is because it has a negative connotation to our modern ears.  It supports his demonization of the Jewish people and their _unsavory_ ways. 

There is nothing inherently evil in wanting to return to one's own land and have self-determination there.  Just ask the Palestinian "refugees".


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The Christians and Muslims tried to participate in self-governing projects from the outset of the Mandate.  The British, to avoid the possibility of non-Jewish (Christian and Muslim) self-government, refused to recognize the Palestinian leadership as representative of the inhabitants of Palestine, in writing and as a matter of policy.  Only the Zionist Organization was recognized by the British as representative of the inhabitants.



This comment is too broad and generalized to really stick.  Between 1917 and 1947 there were a range of Arab thoughts concerning the Jewish Nationalist Movement from this: 

_Today we and our subjects are deeply troubled over this Palestine question, and the cause of our disquiet and anxiety is the strange attitude of your British Government, and the still more strange hypnotic influence which the Jews, a race accursed by God according to His Holy Book, and destined to final destruction and eternal damnation hereafter, appear to wield over them and the English people generally.

'God's Holy Book (the Qur'an) contains God's own word and divine ordinance, and we commend to His Majesty's government to read and carefully peruse that portion which deals with the Jews and especially what is to be their fate in the end. For God's words are unalterable and must be.

'We Arabs believe implicitly in God's revealed word and we know that God is faithful. We care for nothing else in this world but our believe in the One God, His Prophet and our Honour, everything else matters nothing at all, not even death, nor are we afraid of hardship, hunger, lack of this worlds goods etc, etc. and we are quite content to eat camel's meat and dates to the end of our days, provided we hold to the above three things.

'Our hatred for the Jews dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus Christ), and their subsequent rejection later of His chosen Prophet. It is beyond our understanding how your Government, representing the first Christian power in the world today, can wish to assist and reward these very same Jews who maltreated your Isa (Jesus).

''We Arabs have been the traditional friends of Great Britain for many years, and I, Bin Sa'ud, in particular have been your Government's firm friend all my life, what madness then is this which is leading on our Government to destroy this friendship of centuries, all for the sake of an accursed and stiffnecked race which has always bitten the hand of everyone who has helped it since the world began.  King ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia
_
to this:

_We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.

We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

With the chiefs of your movement, especially with Dr. Weizmann, we have had and continue to have the closest relations. He has been a great helper of our cause, and I hope the Arabs may soon be in a position to make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be a real success without the other.  Prince Feisal Husseni, King of Syria and Iraq

_
British response would have been quite different.  As would Jewish response, obviously.  

So, when you discuss specific British rejection of Arab self-government, it would be helpful to include more details.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims tried to participate in self-governing projects from the outset of the Mandate.  The British, to avoid the possibility of non-Jewish (Christian and Muslim) self-government, refused to recognize the Palestinian leadership as representative of the inhabitants of Palestine, in writing and as a matter of policy.  Only the Zionist Organization was recognized by the British as representative of the inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comment is too broad and generalized to really stick.  Between 1917 and 1947 there were a range of Arab thoughts concerning the Jewish Nationalist Movement from this:
> 
> _Today we and our subjects are deeply troubled over this Palestine question, and the cause of our disquiet and anxiety is the strange attitude of your British Government, and the still more strange hypnotic influence which the Jews, a race accursed by God according to His Holy Book, and destined to final destruction and eternal damnation hereafter, appear to wield over them and the English people generally.
> 
> 'God's Holy Book (the Qur'an) contains God's own word and divine ordinance, and we commend to His Majesty's government to read and carefully peruse that portion which deals with the Jews and especially what is to be their fate in the end. For God's words are unalterable and must be.
> 
> 'We Arabs believe implicitly in God's revealed word and we know that God is faithful. We care for nothing else in this world but our believe in the One God, His Prophet and our Honour, everything else matters nothing at all, not even death, nor are we afraid of hardship, hunger, lack of this worlds goods etc, etc. and we are quite content to eat camel's meat and dates to the end of our days, provided we hold to the above three things.
> 
> 'Our hatred for the Jews dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus Christ), and their subsequent rejection later of His chosen Prophet. It is beyond our understanding how your Government, representing the first Christian power in the world today, can wish to assist and reward these very same Jews who maltreated your Isa (Jesus).
> 
> ''We Arabs have been the traditional friends of Great Britain for many years, and I, Bin Sa'ud, in particular have been your Government's firm friend all my life, what madness then is this which is leading on our Government to destroy this friendship of centuries, all for the sake of an accursed and stiffnecked race which has always bitten the hand of everyone who has helped it since the world began.  King ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia
> _
> to this:
> 
> _We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.
> 
> We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.
> 
> With the chiefs of your movement, especially with Dr. Weizmann, we have had and continue to have the closest relations. He has been a great helper of our cause, and I hope the Arabs may soon be in a position to make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be a real success without the other.  Prince Feisal Husseni, King of Syria and Iraq
> 
> _
> British response would have been quite different.  As would Jewish response, obviously.
> 
> So, when you discuss specific British rejection of Arab self-government, it would be helpful to include more details.
Click to expand...


The British simply refused to negotiate with the Muslim and Christian Palestinian leaders, what some goat herding Bedouins from Saudi Arabia and Syria had to say about the issue is irrelevant.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims tried to participate in self-governing projects from the outset of the Mandate.  The British, to avoid the possibility of non-Jewish (Christian and Muslim) self-government, refused to recognize the Palestinian leadership as representative of the inhabitants of Palestine, in writing and as a matter of policy.  Only the Zionist Organization was recognized by the British as representative of the inhabitants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comment is too broad and generalized to really stick.  Between 1917 and 1947 there were a range of Arab thoughts concerning the Jewish Nationalist Movement from this:
> 
> _Today we and our subjects are deeply troubled over this Palestine question, and the cause of our disquiet and anxiety is the strange attitude of your British Government, and the still more strange hypnotic influence which the Jews, a race accursed by God according to His Holy Book, and destined to final destruction and eternal damnation hereafter, appear to wield over them and the English people generally.
> 
> 'God's Holy Book (the Qur'an) contains God's own word and divine ordinance, and we commend to His Majesty's government to read and carefully peruse that portion which deals with the Jews and especially what is to be their fate in the end. For God's words are unalterable and must be.
> 
> 'We Arabs believe implicitly in God's revealed word and we know that God is faithful. We care for nothing else in this world but our believe in the One God, His Prophet and our Honour, everything else matters nothing at all, not even death, nor are we afraid of hardship, hunger, lack of this worlds goods etc, etc. and we are quite content to eat camel's meat and dates to the end of our days, provided we hold to the above three things.
> 
> 'Our hatred for the Jews dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus Christ), and their subsequent rejection later of His chosen Prophet. It is beyond our understanding how your Government, representing the first Christian power in the world today, can wish to assist and reward these very same Jews who maltreated your Isa (Jesus).
> 
> ''We Arabs have been the traditional friends of Great Britain for many years, and I, Bin Sa'ud, in particular have been your Government's firm friend all my life, what madness then is this which is leading on our Government to destroy this friendship of centuries, all for the sake of an accursed and stiffnecked race which has always bitten the hand of everyone who has helped it since the world began.  King ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia
> _
> to this:
> 
> _We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.
> 
> We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.
> 
> With the chiefs of your movement, especially with Dr. Weizmann, we have had and continue to have the closest relations. He has been a great helper of our cause, and I hope the Arabs may soon be in a position to make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be a real success without the other.  Prince Feisal Husseni, King of Syria and Iraq
> 
> _
> British response would have been quite different.  As would Jewish response, obviously.
> 
> So, when you discuss specific British rejection of Arab self-government, it would be helpful to include more details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The British simply refused to negotiate with the Muslim and Christian Palestinian leaders, what some goat herding Bedouins from Saudi Arabia and Syria had to say about the issue is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid we're left, as usual, with you and PFTinmore desperately looking for excuses to accommodate the failure of Arabs-Moslems to effectively take control of their lives and map their own future. 

Not surprisingly, we see that dynamic in play throughout the Islamist Middle East.


----------



## montelatici

We are talking about Palestinian Christians and Muslims.  And, the British refused to negotiate with them, in writing.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> We are talking about Palestinian Christians and Muslims.  And, the British refused to negotiate with them, in writing.



Aw, bless you Monte for wanting to discuss Palestinian Christian & Muslim relations.  Sure looks like even more Muslim Palestinian hatred for the Christian Palestinians thus causing this result.  

Greek Orthodox Church In Jerusalem Fires Palestinian Archbishop


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The British simply refused to negotiate with the Muslim and Christian Palestinian leaders, what some goat herding Bedouins from Saudi Arabia and Syria had to say about the issue is irrelevant.



Come now.  Be specific.  Which Christian leaders?  During what time frame?  Which Muslim leaders?  During what time frame?  

You are trying to make the claim that Arab "Palestinian" sovereignty and self-determination was actively prevented prior to 1947 because the British refused to negotiate with them.  Support your claim.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about Palestinian Christians and Muslims.  And, the British refused to negotiate with them, in writing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, bless you Monte for wanting to discuss Palestinian Christian & Muslim relations.  Sure looks like even more Muslim Palestinian hatred for the Christian Palestinians thus causing this result.
> 
> Greek Orthodox Church In Jerusalem Fires Palestinian Archbishop
Click to expand...


Dear, dear MJ, you are certainly the entertainer.  Did you actually read the article?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about Palestinian Christians and Muslims.  And, the British refused to negotiate with them, in writing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, bless you Monte for wanting to discuss Palestinian Christian & Muslim relations.  Sure looks like even more Muslim Palestinian hatred for the Christian Palestinians thus causing this result.
> 
> Greek Orthodox Church In Jerusalem Fires Palestinian Archbishop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear, dear MJ, you are certainly the entertainer.  Did you actually read the article?[
> 
> Yes indeed.  So sorry for this bad news for Muslim Palestinians.  Just curious, why can't they even get along with Palestinian Christians?
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about Palestinian Christians and Muslims.  And, the British refused to negotiate with them, in writing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, bless you Monte for wanting to discuss Palestinian Christian & Muslim relations.  Sure looks like even more Muslim Palestinian hatred for the Christian Palestinians thus causing this result.
> 
> Greek Orthodox Church In Jerusalem Fires Palestinian Archbishop
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear, dear MJ, you are certainly the entertainer.  Did you actually read the article?[
> 
> Yes Indeed.  So sorry for this bad news for Muslim Palestinians.  Why can't they even get along with Christian Palestinians?
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

Yes Indeed. So sorry for this bad news for Muslim Palestinians. Why can't they even get along with Christian Palestinians?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British simply refused to negotiate with the Muslim and Christian Palestinian leaders, what some goat herding Bedouins from Saudi Arabia and Syria had to say about the issue is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come now.  Be specific.  Which Christian leaders?  During what time frame?  Which Muslim leaders?  During what time frame?
> 
> You are trying to make the claim that Arab "Palestinian" sovereignty and self-determination was actively prevented prior to 1947 because the British refused to negotiate with them.  Support your claim.
Click to expand...




From 1922

"the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine.....

"Mr. Churchill has already explained in paragraph 4 of this letter why His Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present stage to provide for the creation of a national independent Government in Palestine..."

"Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine."

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

Of the six members of the Palestinian Delegation to London, 2 were Christians.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Yes Indeed. So sorry for this bad news for Muslim Palestinians. Why can't they even get along with Christian Palestinians?



You really are bewildered.  There are no Muslims involved in the article, you moron. It's difficult to believe that you really are that stupid.  And, I even gave you the chance to shut up and not highlight your comprehension problem.  But, no you insist on proving your stupidity.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Indeed. So sorry for this bad news for Muslim Palestinians. Why can't they even get along with Christian Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are bewildered.  There are no Muslims involved in the article, you moron. It's difficult to believe that your really that stupid.  And, I even gave you the chance to shut up and not highlight your comprehension problem.  But, know you prove the point as to your stupidity.
Click to expand...

With all your cutting and pasting of the same articles which you have cut and pasted before, we're still left to question why it is that the Arab-Moslem invaders never found the ability for self-government and self-determination when others have.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Indeed. So sorry for this bad news for Muslim Palestinians. Why can't they even get along with Christian Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are bewildered.  There are no Muslims involved in the article, you moron. It's difficult to believe that your really that stupid.  And, I even gave you the chance to shut up and not highlight your comprehension problem.  But, know you prove the point as to your stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With all your cutting and pasting of the same articles which you have cut and pasted before, we're still left to question why it is that the Arab-Moslem invaders never found the ability for self-government and self-determination when others have.
Click to expand...


With your reading comprehension problem, it's no wonder you are so bewildered.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Indeed. So sorry for this bad news for Muslim Palestinians. Why can't they even get along with Christian Palestinians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are bewildered.  There are no Muslims involved in the article, you moron. It's difficult to believe that your really that stupid.  And, I even gave you the chance to shut up and not highlight your comprehension problem.  But, know you prove the point as to your stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With all your cutting and pasting of the same articles which you have cut and pasted before, we're still left to question why it is that the Arab-Moslem invaders never found the ability for self-government and self-determination when others have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With your reading comprehension problem, it's no wonder you are so bewildered.
Click to expand...


I'm left to read the same cut and paste articles you cut and paste multiple times across multiple threads. Dumping the same cut and paste material is pointless as a means for you to dance around questions you're unable to address. 

Why is it that the Jewish people, those in Hong Kong, South Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere were able to establish self-determination and build their futures without the whining and moaning you offer as excuses for Arab-Moslem incompetence and ineptitude?


----------



## montelatici

Oh, you mean reading facts rather than propaganda. LOL


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Oh, you mean reading facts rather than propaganda. LOL


Oh my. You mean your cutting and pasting of the same articles is somehow an excuse for your inability to address the failures of Arabs-Moslems? LOL.

The facts are that Arabs-Moslems have consistently failed to achieve what others have managed. So, yeah, those facts.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

A negotiation implies that each party has something of value that the other wants and will trade for.



montelatici said:


> We are talking about Palestinian Christians and Muslims.  And, the British refused to negotiate with them, in writing.


*(QUESTIONS)*

••  What required the British to negotiate?

••  When did the British refuse to negotiate; over what specific item?

*(COMMENT)*

Normally, senior members of the Allied Powers do not negotiate with hostiles holding peace hostage.  That would be a form of coercion.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean reading facts rather than propaganda. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. You mean your cutting and pasting of the same articles is somehow an excuse for your inability to address the failures of Arabs-Moslems? LOL.
> 
> The facts are that Arabs-Moslems have consistently failed to achieve what others have managed. So, yeah, those facts.
Click to expand...

When not under occupation.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Well, this is misinformation.



montelatici said:


> "the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine.....


*(COMMENT)*

that is correct.  None of the Allied Powers, or Councils within the League of Nations, were actually empowered to make any offers or binding decisions with regard to the Future of Palestine.  That would be more closely negotiating with yourself.  The Government of Palestine was the Mandatory.

BTW, this is the very issue that P F Tinmore brings up quite frequently.  Under what authority did the delegation have to negotiate anything in the name of the Palestinians?  When was the authority granted and by what mechanism?



montelatici said:


> "Mr. Churchill has already explained in paragraph 4 of this letter why His Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present stage to provide for the creation of a national independent Government in Palestine..."


*(COMMENT)*

So what requires a Representative of the Allied Powers, or the Mandatory, to negotiate with an unempowered entity having no legal authority?



montelatici said:


> "Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine."


*(COMMENT)*

There you go.  Negotiations are usually between authorities that are competent.  The Arab Palestinians had refused to participate in the tutelage and self-government process at least 3 time by late 1923.

UK History of Administration -- Paragraph 23

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 th status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.​
The Arab Palestinians cannot have it both ways.. They cannot reject participation and the complain they are not recognized.


montelatici said:


> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> Of the six members of the Palestinian Delegation to London, 2 were Christians.


*(COMMENT)*

The religious affiliation of a delegation and its members makes has little or no impact.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah and this is misleading.



P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you mean reading facts rather than propaganda. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my. You mean your cutting and pasting of the same articles is somehow an excuse for your inability to address the failures of Arabs-Moslems? LOL.
> 
> The facts are that Arabs-Moslems have consistently failed to achieve what others have managed. So, yeah, those facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When not under occupation.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

These people of Palestinians heritage are, for the most part, a product of an environment that does not teach violence and pose a regional threat to peace.   Ever HRH Queen Rania was actually born in Kuwait and went school outside a Hostile Palestinian Influence.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip can start a productive footing and beneficial economic and commercial process by focusing so much energy of hostile activity and propaganda.  The quarantine of the Hostile Arab Palestinians is a consequence of there pattern of past threatening and criminal behaviors.  They wanted the quarantine and they got it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> So what requires a Representative of the Allied Powers, or the Mandatory, to negotiate with an unempowered entity having no legal authority?


Interesting political opinion.

Typical colonial power not to recognize the natives.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> There you go. Negotiations are usually between authorities that are competent. The Arab Palestinians had refused to participate in the tutelage and self-government process at least 3 time by late 1923.


Your typical load of crap.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> These people of Palestinians heritage are, for the most part, a product of an environment that does not teach violence and pose a regional threat to peace.


Indeed, before the colonization they were peaceful people.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> A negotiation implies that each party has something of value that the other wants and will trade for.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about Palestinian Christians and Muslims.  And, the British refused to negotiate with them, in writing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ••  What required the British to negotiate?
> 
> ••  When did the British refuse to negotiate; over what specific item?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Normally, senior members of the Allied Powers do not negotiate with hostiles holding peace hostage.  That would be a form of coercion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The inhabitants of Palestine were the people that the Covenant of the League of Nations declared were those who were to be receive tutelage in order to achieve self-determination.  They were not "hostiles".  

The British refused to negotiate because the Christians and Muslims were intent on achieving independence.

What in the heck is the matter with you.  Are you really that thick?


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> From 1922
> 
> "the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine.....
> 
> "Mr. Churchill has already explained in paragraph 4 of this letter why His Majesty's Government are not prepared at the present stage to provide for the creation of a national independent Government in Palestine..."
> 
> "Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine."
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> Of the six members of the Palestinian Delegation to London, 2 were Christians.



Yes.  I am familiar with the correspondence between the British government and the Palestine Arab Delegation.  I've been able to spend a little time reviewing it this afternoon to refresh my memory.  The correspondence reads remarkably like the discussion going on here on USMB a hundred years later.  (Sigh).  

You, like the Palestinians and Abbas currently, mistake negotiation for capitulation.  The British and the Jewish people, then as now, were perfectly willing to enter into negotiations with the Arab Palestinians, as witnessed by the LENGTHY conversations exchanged.  So you are entirely mistaken when you claim that there was a refusal to negotiate.  There was a refusal to capitulate but the negotiation is apparent in the conversations.  

The Arabs in Palestine were not actively prevented from negotiating self-determination, as separate from self-determination of the Jewish people.  *They were prevented from demanding that Arab self-determination was conditional on the prevention of Jewish self-determination*.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people of Palestinians heritage are, for the most part, a product of an environment that does not teach violence and pose a regional threat to peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, before the colonization they were peaceful people.
Click to expand...



Translation:  The mere presence of Jews makes them violent.  Jews fault.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The British refused to negotiate because the Christians and Muslims were intent on achieving independence.



Not so.  And very clear in the correspondence.  The intent on achieving independence for the Arabs was not the deciding factor.  The intent on preventing Jewish independence was the deciding factor in rejecting the requests of the Arab Delegation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British refused to negotiate because the Christians and Muslims were intent on achieving independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so.  And very clear in the correspondence.  The intent on achieving independence for the Arabs was not the deciding factor.  The intent on preventing Jewish independence was the deciding factor in rejecting the requests of the Arab Delegation.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that would interrupt the colonial project.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people of Palestinians heritage are, for the most part, a product of an environment that does not teach violence and pose a regional threat to peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, before the colonization they were peaceful people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  The mere presence of Jews makes them violent.  Jews fault.
Click to expand...

Not true. They had been living with Jews for hundreds of years.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British refused to negotiate because the Christians and Muslims were intent on achieving independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so.  And very clear in the correspondence.  The intent on achieving independence for the Arabs was not the deciding factor.  The intent on preventing Jewish independence was the deciding factor in rejecting the requests of the Arab Delegation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, that would interrupt the colonial project.
Click to expand...


Ok.  So let's be clear here.  The Arab purpose is NOT to achieve independence but to prevent Jewish self-determination, self-government and independence.  

Seriously.  This is Team Palestine's GOAL.  Why don't you just own up to it and freaking say it?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British refused to negotiate because the Christians and Muslims were intent on achieving independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so.  And very clear in the correspondence.  The intent on achieving independence for the Arabs was not the deciding factor.  The intent on preventing Jewish independence was the deciding factor in rejecting the requests of the Arab Delegation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, that would interrupt the colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  So let's be clear here.  The Arab purpose is NOT to achieve independence but to prevent Jewish self-determination, self-government and independence.
> 
> Seriously.  This is Team Palestine's GOAL.  Why don't you just own up to it and freaking say it?
Click to expand...


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people of Palestinians heritage are, for the most part, a product of an environment that does not teach violence and pose a regional threat to peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, before the colonization they were peaceful people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  The mere presence of Jews makes them violent.  Jews fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. They had been living with Jews for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...


So what CHANGED, then?!  If it wasn't the mere presence of Jews -- what was it?  

Come on!  Say it!  It was the fact that Jews (gasp!  the HORROR!) wanted to have self-determination and self-government and independence exactly the same as all the Arabs wanted.  How dare they?!


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British refused to negotiate because the Christians and Muslims were intent on achieving independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so.  And very clear in the correspondence.  The intent on achieving independence for the Arabs was not the deciding factor.  The intent on preventing Jewish independence was the deciding factor in rejecting the requests of the Arab Delegation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, that would interrupt the colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  So let's be clear here.  The Arab purpose is NOT to achieve independence but to prevent Jewish self-determination, self-government and independence.
> 
> Seriously.  This is Team Palestine's GOAL.  Why don't you just own up to it and freaking say it?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Got nothing, huh?  

The correspondence was not an appeal to Palestinian Arab self-determination, it was an appeal to prevent Jewish self-determination.  

If you disagree -- make a point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people of Palestinians heritage are, for the most part, a product of an environment that does not teach violence and pose a regional threat to peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, before the colonization they were peaceful people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  The mere presence of Jews makes them violent.  Jews fault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. They had been living with Jews for hundreds of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what CHANGED, then?!  If it wasn't the mere presence of Jews -- what was it?
> 
> Come on!  Say it!  It was the fact that Jews (gasp!  the HORROR!) wanted to have self-determination and self-government and independence exactly the same as all the Arabs wanted.  How dare they?!
Click to expand...

The Palestinians wanted self determination in Palestine.

The Jews wanted self determination in Palestine.

You don't see a problem.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians wanted self determination in Palestine.
> 
> The Jews wanted self determination in Palestine.
> 
> You don't see a problem.



You have just managed to sum up a year of discussion between you and I.  And a decade of me having this discussion on forums.  And a hundred years of conflict.  

NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.  

You see a problem.  The Palestinians see a problem.  Because to them (and you) it is a zero sum game.  

Self-determination is not determined by the size of the sandbox in which you are self-determinative.  Both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people can have a sandbox.  The fact that I have a sandbox does not in ANY way prohibit you from also having a sandbox.  

The problem is your inability to visualize TWO sandboxes.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.


Of course the thieves do not see a problem.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> The problem is your inability to visualize TWO sandboxes.


What two sandboxes? The Zionist assholes set up shop in the Palestinian's sandbox.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is your inability to visualize TWO sandboxes.
> 
> 
> 
> What two sandboxes? The Zionist assholes set up shop in the Palestinian's sandbox.
Click to expand...

The Pal'istanians sandbox? The Arabs-Moslems you call Pal'istanians never owned the geographic area of Pal'istan. 

This has been explained to you dozens of times but instead of accepting the facts, you choose to promote falsehood.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the thieves do not see a problem.
Click to expand...

Israel did not come into existence by being "stolen" from anyone. 

How is it that you still understand nothing of the history surrounding the area when all of this has been explained to you?


----------



## Bleipriester

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is your inability to visualize TWO sandboxes.
> 
> 
> 
> What two sandboxes? The Zionist assholes set up shop in the Palestinian's sandbox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Pal'istanians sandbox? The Arabs-Moslems you call Pal'istanians never owned the geographic area of Pal'istan.
> 
> This has been explained to you dozens of times but instead of accepting the facts, you choose to promote falsehood.
Click to expand...

Your explanations why one people should have a country and another not are simply insufficient. In the course of time the region saw many peoples and rulers and you are randomly picking one of them and claim it is theirs. What if I say, the Romans once ruled there and not the Jews so it is Roman? The is no Rome today, you say? Didn´t bother you that there was no Israel in 1948, right?
If the Israelis have a right to have a country, the Palestinians have the same right. You deny it?


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is your inability to visualize TWO sandboxes.
> 
> 
> 
> What two sandboxes? The Zionist assholes set up shop in the Palestinian's sandbox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Pal'istanians sandbox? The Arabs-Moslems you call Pal'istanians never owned the geographic area of Pal'istan.
> 
> This has been explained to you dozens of times but instead of accepting the facts, you choose to promote falsehood.
Click to expand...


They owned over 90% of it as late as 1945 you moron. After reading the facts hundreds of times you still lie through your teeth like the pathological liar that you are.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You keep saying this.  It seems to be a central point with you.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the thieves do not see a problem.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

This particular sandbox was within the Sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire until Armistice of Mudros (1918), and the the entirety of the Sandbox came under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).  Then later when the Treaty of Sevres (1920) was concluded, the Civil Administration began what was to become the Territroy to which the Mandate of Palestine applied. 

•  Article 16 Armistice of Mudros:   "Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5."

•  Article 132 Treaty of Severs:  Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

•  Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne effectively replaced Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres:

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
As you can see, in each case, the intension of the Sovereign Power (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) was to surrender/renounce the Title and Rights of the territory in favor of the Allied Powers.

*(QUESTION)*

If the Jewish People, who's immigration was facilitated into the territory, as agreed upon by the Allied Powers, and published in Article 6, Mandate of Palestine:

*Who (and when) did the Jewish People take the Title and Rights from?  *​
It is my contention that if there was a victim to an unsubstantiated theft, it was not the Arab Palestinian; having no sovereign Title and Rights to the territory in question.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians wanted self determination in Palestine.
> 
> The Jews wanted self determination in Palestine.
> 
> You don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just managed to sum up a year of discussion between you and I.  And a decade of me having this discussion on forums.  And a hundred years of conflict.
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> You see a problem.  The Palestinians see a problem.  Because to them (and you) it is a zero sum game.
> 
> Self-determination is not determined by the size of the sandbox in which you are self-determinative.  Both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people can have a sandbox.  The fact that I have a sandbox does not in ANY way prohibit you from also having a sandbox.
> 
> The problem is your inability to visualize TWO sandboxes.
Click to expand...


No, the problem is the Jews have never considered the possibility of two sandboxes, and never will.  The Zionists always intended to remove the non-Jews from all of Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I think the intention of our friend HOLLIE" was to express "soverenty" and not "ownership."



montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is your inability to visualize TWO sandboxes.
> 
> 
> 
> What two sandboxes? The Zionist assholes set up shop in the Palestinian's sandbox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Pal'istanians sandbox? The Arabs-Moslems you call Pal'istanians never owned the geographic area of Pal'istan.
> 
> This has been explained to you dozens of times but instead of accepting the facts, you choose to promote falsehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They owned over 90% of it as late as 1945 you moron. After reading the facts hundreds of times you still lie through your teeth like the pathological liar that you are.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You are indicating ownership, which has nothing to do with political sovereignty (what HOLLIE was taling about).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep saying this.  It seems to be a central point with you.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the thieves do not see a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This particular sandbox was within the Sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire until Armistice of Mudros (1918), and the the entirety of the Sandbox came under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).  Then later when the Treaty of Sevres (1920) was concluded, the Civil Administration began what was to become the Territroy to which the Mandate of Palestine applied.
> •  Article 16 Armistice of Mudros:   "Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5."
> 
> •  Article 132 Treaty of Severs:  Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
> •  Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne effectively replaced Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres:
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> As you can see, in each case, the intension of the Sovereign Power (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) was to surrender/renounce the Title and Rights of the territory in favor of the Allied Powers.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> If the Jewish People, who's immigration was facilitated into the territory, as agreed upon by the Allied Powers, and published in Article 6, Mandate of Palestine:
> 
> *Who (and when) did the Jewish People take the Title and Rights from?  *​
> It is my contention that if there was a victim to an unsubstantiated theft, it was not the Arab Palestinian; having no sovereign Title and Rights to the territory in question.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Christians and Muslims had sovereign rights to the territory as its  inhabitants, pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which takes precedence over any other previous or subsequent agreement. 

The Jews, through the British, took title and rights from the native Christians and Muslims that inhabited Palestine. The Christians and Muslims had civil title (property rights) to over 90% of the land of Palestine as late as 1945, as validated by the United Nations.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,

I think up are purposely trying to misinterpret what "SHUSHA" was saying.



montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians wanted self determination in Palestine.
> 
> The Jews wanted self determination in Palestine.
> 
> You don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just managed to sum up a year of discussion between you and I.  And a decade of me having this discussion on forums.  And a hundred years of conflict.
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> You see a problem.  The Palestinians see a problem.  Because to them (and you) it is a zero sum game.
> 
> Self-determination is not determined by the size of the sandbox in which you are self-determinative.  Both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people can have a sandbox.  The fact that I have a sandbox does not in ANY way prohibit you from also having a sandbox.
> 
> The problem is your inability to visualize TWO sandboxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem is the Jews have never considered the possibility of two sandboxes, and never will.  The Zionists always intended to remove the non-Jews from all of Palestine.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

SHUSHA did not speak in opposition to the "Two-State."   SHUSHA was speaking in terms of a solution; a political alternative _(a Two-State Solution)_.  This political solution dates back to the 1937 Peel Commission.  The Peel Commission recommendation was criticized on the distribution of territory.  Had the Peel Commission plan been adopted,  the Jewish State or Jewish National Home would have been destroyed by now.  The Mandate Enclave would have folded it tents (like they always do) and the Jewish State would have been overrun.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians wanted self determination in Palestine.
> 
> The Jews wanted self determination in Palestine.
> 
> You don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just managed to sum up a year of discussion between you and I.  And a decade of me having this discussion on forums.  And a hundred years of conflict.
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> You see a problem.  The Palestinians see a problem.  Because to them (and you) it is a zero sum game.
> 
> Self-determination is not determined by the size of the sandbox in which you are self-determinative.  Both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people can have a sandbox.  The fact that I have a sandbox does not in ANY way prohibit you from also having a sandbox.
> 
> The problem is your inability to visualize TWO sandboxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem is the Jews have never considered the possibility of two sandboxes, and never will.  The Zionists always intended to remove the non-Jews from all of Palestine.
Click to expand...


Now THAT'S funny!  Do you think maybe it is the Palestinians who do not want an independent state?

Maybe Palestinians don’t want two states


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, but again:



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my contention that if there was a victim to an unsubstantiated theft, it was not the Arab Palestinian; having no sovereign Title and Rights to the territory in question.
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims had sovereign rights to the territory as its  inhabitants, pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which takes precedence over any other previous or subsequent agreement.
> 
> The Jews, through the British, took title and rights from the native Christians and Muslims that inhabited Palestine. The Christians and Muslims had civil title (property rights) to over 90% of the land of Palestine as late as 1945, as validated by the United Nations.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

1.  Your concept of a connection between "Sovereignty" and your "civil title (property rights) to over 90% of the land" is simply wrong.  

2.  The Title and Rights were passed to the Allied Powers by the previous Sovereign.  Your contention that the Jewish Immigrants took the "title and rights from the native Christians and Muslims" is simply not borne-out by the facts.  No matter how the Jewish People came into the Sovereignty called Israel, no territory was taken from the Arabs until AFTER the composite Arab League Forces broke their frontier in Armed Aggression.

In the Period between May 1948 and November 1988, there was Arab Sovereignty of any kind.  And it remains to be seen if the Arab Palestinian can actually secure a sovereignty.  Depending on the definition you us for sovereignty, there is no place where the Arab Palestinian is the absolute authority; except for the Gaza Strip.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

As I stated, the Jews never intended to share the sandbox.  The Christians and Muslims were prescient, notwithstanding the British denials, and did not take up arms early or effectively enough to stave off the invasion of their land.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians wanted self determination in Palestine.
> 
> The Jews wanted self determination in Palestine.
> 
> You don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just managed to sum up a year of discussion between you and I.  And a decade of me having this discussion on forums.  And a hundred years of conflict.
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> You see a problem.  The Palestinians see a problem.  Because to them (and you) it is a zero sum game.
> 
> Self-determination is not determined by the size of the sandbox in which you are self-determinative.  Both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people can have a sandbox.  The fact that I have a sandbox does not in ANY way prohibit you from also having a sandbox.
> 
> The problem is your inability to visualize TWO sandboxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem is the Jews have never considered the possibility of two sandboxes, and never will.  The Zionists always intended to remove the non-Jews from all of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now THAT'S funny!  Do you think maybe it is the Palestinians who do not want an independent state?
> 
> Maybe Palestinians don’t want two states
Click to expand...


Agreed, it is time for the non-Jews to give up on the two-state solution. The facts on the ground make it impossible now.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> As you can see, in each case, the intension of the Sovereign Power (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) was to surrender/renounce the Title and Rights of the territory in favor of the Allied Powers.


Indeed, and they held the territory in trust on behalf of the inhabitants. It is the people who have the right to sovereignty.

Look it up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Who _(and when) _did the Jewish People take the Title and Rights from?


When did the Jews get title and rights?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I think the intention of our friend HOLLIE" was to express "soverenty" and not "ownership."


No, Israel just has military control.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, but again:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my contention that if there was a victim to an unsubstantiated theft, it was not the Arab Palestinian; having no sovereign Title and Rights to the territory in question.
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims had sovereign rights to the territory as its  inhabitants, pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which takes precedence over any other previous or subsequent agreement.
> 
> The Jews, through the British, took title and rights from the native Christians and Muslims that inhabited Palestine. The Christians and Muslims had civil title (property rights) to over 90% of the land of Palestine as late as 1945, as validated by the United Nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> 1.  Your concept of a connection between "Sovereignty" and your "civil title (property rights) to over 90% of the land" is simply wrong.
> 
> 2.  The Title and Rights were passed to the Allied Powers by the previous Sovereign.  Your contention that the Jewish Immigrants took the "title and rights from the native Christians and Muslims" is simply not borne-out by the facts.  No matter how the Jewish People came into the Sovereignty called Israel, no territory was taken from the Arabs until AFTER the composite Arab League Forces broke their frontier in Armed Aggression.
> 
> In the Period between May 1948 and November 1988, there was Arab Sovereignty of any kind.  And it remains to be seen if the Arab Palestinian can actually secure a sovereignty.  Depending on the definition you us for sovereignty, there is no place where the Arab Palestinian is the absolute authority; except for the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


I stated clearly that civil title to property was separate from sovereignty.  

Your understanding of sovereignty of the territories in question after WW1 is confused.  Sovereignty of the former Turkish territories passed to the "inhabitants" and was held in trust, for said inhabitants, by the League of Nations. The League of Nations subsequently issued Mandates to members of the League of Nations that agreed to provide tutelage to the "inhabitants" to allow for their self-determination. 

The British and Jews were successful in camouflaging the real intent.  The intent was to prevent the inhabitants of Palestine from exercising their right to self-determination, as per the Covenant, until enough Europeans could be transferred to the territory, enabling the Europeans to wrest control of the land by force and expel as many of the native people as possible.  This is clear in retrospect, and with the benefit of hindsight, the various declaration of the British are also very clear in setting forth their intent.

The Christians and Muslims will never have sovereignty or self-determination in Palestine, the Jews have seen to that. The Christians and Muslims do not have sovereignty in Gaza, they do not control their territorial sea, air space or land borders. You have no argument from me.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I think up are purposely trying to misinterpret what "SHUSHA" was saying.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians wanted self determination in Palestine.
> 
> The Jews wanted self determination in Palestine.
> 
> You don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just managed to sum up a year of discussion between you and I.  And a decade of me having this discussion on forums.  And a hundred years of conflict.
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> You see a problem.  The Palestinians see a problem.  Because to them (and you) it is a zero sum game.
> 
> Self-determination is not determined by the size of the sandbox in which you are self-determinative.  Both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people can have a sandbox.  The fact that I have a sandbox does not in ANY way prohibit you from also having a sandbox.
> 
> The problem is your inability to visualize TWO sandboxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the problem is the Jews have never considered the possibility of two sandboxes, and never will.  The Zionists always intended to remove the non-Jews from all of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> SHUSHA did not speak in opposition to the "Two-State."   SHUSHA was speaking in terms of a solution; a political alternative _(a Two-State Solution)_.  This political solution dates back to the 1937 Peel Commission.  The Peel Commission recommendation was criticized on the distribution of territory.  Had the Peel Commission plan been adopted,  the Jewish State or Jewish National Home would have been destroyed by now.  The Mandate Enclave would have folded it tents (like they always do) and the Jewish State would have been overrun.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Indeed, the "two state solution" (stealing land from one to give to another) has been on the table for eighty years and those assholes still can't get that pig to fly.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

How do the people exercise sovereignty.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, in each case, the intension of the Sovereign Power (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) was to surrender/renounce the Title and Rights of the territory in favor of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and they held the territory in trust on behalf of the inhabitants. It is the people who have the right to sovereignty.
> 
> Look it up.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Allied Powers had both the Title and Rights.  Whatever the Allied Powers did (or did not do) was an internal issue -- to be interpreted and settled between the Allied Powers.  The Covenant was a product of the Allied Powers.  They can interpret it any way they want.   It was not up to the Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory either then or now.  

In 1920, the Allied Powers had determined that a Jewish National Home (JNH) would be established in the Mandate for Palestine which they crafted (San Remo).   The Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory where not a party to or an author of, the intent or implementation of the Mandate; either then or now.  The agreements, between the signatories of the Covenant, were matters of consideration for the signatories of the Covenant.  It was not a matter for consideration place before the Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> How do the people exercise sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, in each case, the intension of the Sovereign Power (Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic) was to surrender/renounce the Title and Rights of the territory in favor of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and they held the territory in trust on behalf of the inhabitants. It is the people who have the right to sovereignty.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers had both the Title and Rights.  Whatever the Allied Powers did (or did not do) was an internal issue -- to be interpreted and settled between the Allied Powers.  The Covenant was a product of the Allied Powers.  They can interpret it any way they want.   It was not up to the Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory either then or now.
> 
> In 1920, the Allied Powers had determined that a Jewish National Home (JNH) would be established in the Mandate for Palestine which they crafted (San Remo).   The Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory where not a party to or an author of, the intent or implementation of the Mandate; either then or now.  The agreements, between the signatories of the Covenant, were matters of consideration for the signatories of the Covenant.  It was not a matter for consideration place before the Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You do have a problem understanding popular sovereignty.

_Recognizing​_that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

_Expressing its grave concern_ that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

_Guided_ by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

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

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

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

(_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​


----------



## montelatici

The Allied Powers could not interpret the Covenant any way they wanted.  Words have meaning and express legal concepts.  The Christian and Muslim "inhabitants" of Palestine had the right to self-determination as did the inhabitants of the other former Turkish territories that came under the tutelage (not sovereignty) of the various Mandatories.  These rights did not accrue to people living in Europe, regardless want a prior agreement stated.  

Any prior agreements that ran contrary to the Covenant, as the Balfour Declaration were to have abrogated by signatories of the Covenant pursuant to article 20 of the Covenant, to wit:

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

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


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> The Allied Powers could not interpret the Covenant any way they wanted.  Words have meaning and express legal concepts.  The Christian and Muslim "inhabitants" of Palestine had the right to self-determination as did the inhabitants of the other former Turkish territories that came under the tutelage (not sovereignty) of the various Mandatories.  These rights did not accrue to people living in Europe, regardless want a prior agreement stated.
> 
> Any prior agreements that ran contrary to the Covenant, as the Balfour Declaration were to have abrogated by signatories of the Covenant pursuant to article 20 of the Covenant, to wit:
> 
> *"ARTICLE 20.*
> The Members of the League severally *agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof*, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> *In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.'*


Israel is the child of power politics in contravention of legal concepts.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are trying to make decisions about how things occurred.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who _(and when) _did the Jewish People take the Title and Rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Jews get title and rights?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION)*

Just like there is such a thing as a "Cascade Failure," there is also a "Cascade Successes."

The Jewish Agency for the Jewish People, underwent the "Tutelage" (which the Arab Palestinians declined) by the Mandatory.  
The Jewish Agency for the Jewish People, underwent the assisted "Step Preparatory for Independence" (which the Arab Palestinians declined) with the UN Palestine Commission.
The Jewish Agency for the Jewish People, coordinated the establishment of a Provisional Government (which the Arab Palestinians did not do).
The Provisional State Council of the Provisional Government stated:  "WE HEREBY DECLARE that as from the termination of the Mandate at midnight, this night of the 14th and 15th May, 1948,"

The Provision Government extended is absolute control over the Recommended Territory; establishing "Sovereignty."  Absent objection by the UNPC (the successor government to the Mandatory), the State of Israel was created.
The integrity of the territorial sovereignty was successfully defended against foreign aggressors that breached their frontier --- creating an International Armed Conflict (IAC).​Done.  The establishment elements necessary for the self-governing authority over the territory is the very definition of sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Again, you are trying to make decisions about how things occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who _(and when) _did the Jewish People take the Title and Rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Jews get title and rights?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION)*
> 
> Just like there is such a thing as a "Cascade Failure," there is also a "Cascade Successes."
> The Jewish Agency for the Jewish People, underwent the "Tutelage" (which the Arab Palestinians declined) by the Mandatory.
> The Jewish Agency for the Jewish People, underwent the assisted "Step Preparatory for Independence" (which the Arab Palestinians declined) with the UN Palestine Commission.
> The Jewish Agency for the Jewish People, coordinated the establishment of a Provisional Government (which the Arab Palestinians did not do).
> The Provisional State Council of the Provisional Government stated:  "WE HEREBY DECLARE that as from the termination of the Mandate at midnight, this night of the 14th and 15th May, 1948,"
> 
> The Provision Government extended is absolute control over the Recommended Territory; establishing "Sovereignty."  Absent objection by the UNPC (the successor government to the Mandatory), the State of Israel was created.
> The integrity of the territorial sovereignty was successfully defended against foreign aggressors that breached their frontier --- creating an International Armed Conflict (IAC).​Done.  The establishment elements necessary for the self-governing authority over the territory is the very definition of sovereignty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
Click to expand...



And what does all that verbosity have to do with my post?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Again, you are trying to make decisions about how things occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who _(and when) _did the Jewish People take the Title and Rights from?
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Jews get title and rights?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION)*
> 
> Just like there is such a thing as a "Cascade Failure," there is also a "Cascade Successes."
> The Jewish Agency for the Jewish People, underwent the "Tutelage" (which the Arab Palestinians declined) by the Mandatory.
> The Jewish Agency for the Jewish People, underwent the assisted "Step Preparatory for Independence" (which the Arab Palestinians declined) with the UN Palestine Commission.
> The Jewish Agency for the Jewish People, coordinated the establishment of a Provisional Government (which the Arab Palestinians did not do).
> The Provisional State Council of the Provisional Government stated:  "WE HEREBY DECLARE that as from the termination of the Mandate at midnight, this night of the 14th and 15th May, 1948,"
> 
> The Provision Government extended is absolute control over the Recommended Territory; establishing "Sovereignty."  Absent objection by the UNPC (the successor government to the Mandatory), the State of Israel was created.
> The integrity of the territorial sovereignty was successfully defended against foreign aggressors that breached their frontier --- creating an International Armed Conflict (IAC).​Done.  The establishment elements necessary for the self-governing authority over the territory is the very definition of sovereignty.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
Click to expand...


Rocco is of the "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" school.

The Christians and Muslims did not decline anything.  The British declined to recognize the Palestinian leadership.  The British failed to provide the tutelage mandated by the Mandate to the Christians and Muslims and elected to provide tutelage only to the Jews, whose leadership the British recognized.  Quit bullshitting Rocco, we see through your bullshit.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Go back to the drawing board.



P F Tinmore said:


> How do the people exercise sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a problem understanding popular sovereignty.
> 
> _Recognizing_
> that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
> 
> _Expressing its grave concern_ that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,
> 
> _Guided_ by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> _Recalling_ its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> *1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:*
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​
Click to expand...


*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish State of Israel extends it absolute control of territory that creates it border of sovereignty.  It is actually a physical thing.  It is a perimeter that is protected on the interior side by the Israel Defense Force.

Just like the Arab Palestinian has the RIGHT to have a million dollars (less taxation); no one is just going to run up and give the Arab Palestinian that million dollars.  The RIGHT to self-determination independence and sovereignty is no different...

External Interference:  Arab League forces launching coordinated attacks against Israel.
National Independence:  By declaration in 1988.
Sovereignty:  Gaza Strip and Area "A" of the West Bank (possibly).

Nothing was denied the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

It answers the question.



P F Tinmore said:


> And what does all that verbosity have to do with my post?


*(COMMENT)*

It is the path that brought us to the ground truth of today.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Go back to the drawing board.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do the people exercise sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do have a problem understanding popular sovereignty.
> 
> _Recognizing_
> that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
> 
> _Expressing its grave concern_ that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,
> 
> _Guided_ by the purposes and principles of the Charter,
> 
> _Recalling_ its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
> 
> *1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:*
> 
> (_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;
> 
> (_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
> 
> UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish State of Israel extends it absolute control of territory that creates it border of sovereignty.  It is actually a physical thing.  It is a perimeter that is protected on the interior side by the Israel Defense Force.
> 
> Just like the Arab Palestinian has the RIGHT to have a million dollars (less taxation); no one is just going to run up and give the Arab Palestinian that million dollars.  The RIGHT to self-determination independence and sovereignty is no different...
> 
> External Interference:  Arab League forces launching coordinated attacks against Israel.
> National Independence:  By declaration in 1988.
> Sovereignty:  Gaza Strip and Area "A" of the West Bank (possibly).
> 
> Nothing was denied the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Everything was denied the Christians and Muslims of Palestine.  

1. *Tutelage*, including the protection of the borders of Palestine from external interference, i.e. the mass transfer of a foreign population into the land inhabited by the Christian and Muslim natives was not only not prevented, it was encouraged.
2. *Constitutio*n- The British withheld the right to a secular and democratic constitution from the Christians and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine.
3. *Self-determination*- One third of the Christian and Muslim population was separated from the rest of the native inhabitants, that with the Bedouin made up a non-Jewish majority, to be ruled in perpetuity by Jews that created a Jewish state notwithstanding a non-Jewish majority, prior to the expulsion of the non-Jews.

The Arab League, like internatinal organizations often do, intervened to prevent the mass murder and ethnic cleansing of the non-Jews by the Jews.  Recently declassified British intelligence reports confirm this fact, Mr. Propaganda.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory where not a party to or an author of, the intent or implementation of the Mandate;


In contravention of Article 22 of the LoN Covenant.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> External Interference: Arab League forces launching coordinated attacks against Israel.


Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Jewish State of Israel extends it absolute control of territory


Indeed, their belligerent occupation of Palestinian land.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish State of Israel extends it absolute control of territory
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, their belligerent occupation of Palestinian land.
Click to expand...


Indeed, the Jewish people were able to establish sovereignty and self-determination while the Arab-Moslem squatters could not.


----------



## montelatici

The Christians and Muslims you mean.  But they were prevented from establishing sovereignty and exercising their right to self-determination by the British, while the invading Jews from Europe were assisted by the British, the U.S. and others.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The Christians and Muslims you mean.  But they were prevented from establishing sovereignty and exercising their right to self-determination by the British, while the invading Jews from Europe were assisted by the British, the U.S. and others.


Actually no. The Arab-Moslem squatters did not possess the skills or abilities to establish self-determination. 

Why have many others been able to determine their futures without the cheap excuses you need to account for ineptitude and incompetence on the part of Arab-Moslem squatters?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the thieves do not see a problem.
Click to expand...


No, wait.  Go back to what you asked.  You stated Arab Palestinians want self-determination.  You stated the Jewish people want self-determination.  And you wanted to know if that was a problem.  

Its a big enough sandbox for everyone.  Everyone is already there in the sandbox.  Give me one good reason why the sandbox can NOT be divided.  

Don't give me a narrative -- give me a reason.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> No, the problem is the Jews have never considered the possibility of two sandboxes, and never will.  The Zionists always intended to remove the non-Jews from all of Palestine.



Monte, methinks you doth project too much.  

Israel has never intended to remove non-Jews from Israel or Palestine.  Evidence is simple enough.  Arabs still live in both those areas.  (Jews have been ethnically cleansed from all the surrounding ME nations).


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims you mean.  But they were prevented from establishing sovereignty and exercising their right to self-determination by the British, while the invading Jews from Europe were assisted by the British, the U.S. and others.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no. The Arab-Moslem squatters did not possess the skills or abilities to establish self-determination.
> 
> Why have many others been able to determine their futures without the cheap excuses you need to account for ineptitude and incompetence on the part of Arab-Moslem squatters?
Click to expand...


Honey, the squatters are the Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  They lived on another continent.  The Christians and Muslims lived in Palestine they were the native inhabitants.  Try to understand that complex, for you, dynamic.

Let's see if you can understand this statement to the Palestinian Delegation from the British Colonial Office in response to the Palestinian's request to allow them to exercise their self-determination and sovereignty through the constitution the Christians and Muslims drafted and agreed to. I know it's complicated for you dear, but give it a shot. 

"the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and *they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies..."

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


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims you mean.  But they were prevented from establishing sovereignty and exercising their right to self-determination by the British, while the invading Jews from Europe were assisted by the British, the U.S. and others.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no. The Arab-Moslem squatters did not possess the skills or abilities to establish self-determination.
> 
> Why have many others been able to determine their futures without the cheap excuses you need to account for ineptitude and incompetence on the part of Arab-Moslem squatters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honey, the squatters are the Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  They lived on another continent.  The Christians and Muslims lived in Palestine they were the native inhabitants.  Try to understand that complex, for you, dynamic.
> 
> Let's see if you can understand this statement to the Palestinian Delegation from the British Colonial Office in response to the Palestinian's request to allow them to exercise their self-determination and sovereignty through the constitution the Christians and Muslims drafted and agreed to. I know it's complicated for you dear, but give it a shot.
> 
> "the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and *they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies..."
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)*
Click to expand...

Yes, yes. That is the same cut and paste article you dump into many threads.

If you were to acquaint yourself with the history of the former Turkish holding, research the treaties and actions of the Brits who were in charge of the mandate, you might be able to write a bit more intelligently vs. mindlessly cutting and pasting the same articles.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem is the Jews have never considered the possibility of two sandboxes, and never will.  The Zionists always intended to remove the non-Jews from all of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monte, methinks you doth project too much.
> 
> Israel has never intended to remove non-Jews from Israel or Palestine.  Evidence is simple enough.  Arabs still live in both those areas.  (Jews have been ethnically cleansed from all the surrounding ME nations).
Click to expand...


There was a clear, stated intent, to remove all the non-Jews. I could provide a myriad of sources going back to the first Zionist conventions in the late 1880s.  That the Jews weren't completely successful through the intervention of the Arab League, does not change the facts.

By the way, I know you admire my writing style and you have seen me use that Shakespeare quote from Hamlet, but it really isn't appropriate in this case.  For your information, that phrase is used to describe someone's overly frequent and vehement attempts to convince others of some matter of which the opposite is true.  Sorry to embarrass you.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims you mean.  But they were prevented from establishing sovereignty and exercising their right to self-determination by the British, while the invading Jews from Europe were assisted by the British, the U.S. and others.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no. The Arab-Moslem squatters did not possess the skills or abilities to establish self-determination.
> 
> Why have many others been able to determine their futures without the cheap excuses you need to account for ineptitude and incompetence on the part of Arab-Moslem squatters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honey, the squatters are the Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  They lived on another continent.  The Christians and Muslims lived in Palestine they were the native inhabitants.  Try to understand that complex, for you, dynamic.
> 
> Let's see if you can understand this statement to the Palestinian Delegation from the British Colonial Office in response to the Palestinian's request to allow them to exercise their self-determination and sovereignty through the constitution the Christians and Muslims drafted and agreed to. I know it's complicated for you dear, but give it a shot.
> 
> "the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and *they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies..."
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, yes. That is the same cut and paste article you dump into many threads.
> 
> If you were to acquaint yourself with the history of the former Turkish holding, research the treaties and actions of the Brits who were in charge of the mandate, you might be able to write a bit more intelligently vs. mindlessly cutting and pasting the same articles.
Click to expand...


The written statement of the British Colonial Office is the the synthesis of the past treaties and represents the actions of the British.  Your inarticulate attempt at a response to fact which completely undermines your position is truly a masterpiece of idiocy.  Stop digging.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> One third of the Christian and Muslim population was separated from the rest of the native inhabitants ... to be ruled in perpetuity by Jews ...



To be ruled by Jews?!  The HORROR!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the thieves do not see a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, wait.  Go back to what you asked.  You stated Arab Palestinians want self-determination.  You stated the Jewish people want self-determination.  And you wanted to know if that was a problem.
> 
> Its a big enough sandbox for everyone.  Everyone is already there in the sandbox.  Give me one good reason why the sandbox can NOT be divided.
> 
> Don't give me a narrative -- give me a reason.
Click to expand...

Because the Zionists want to pig the place for themselves.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the thieves do not see a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, wait.  Go back to what you asked.  You stated Arab Palestinians want self-determination.  You stated the Jewish people want self-determination.  And you wanted to know if that was a problem.
> 
> Its a big enough sandbox for everyone.  Everyone is already there in the sandbox.  Give me one good reason why the sandbox can NOT be divided.
> 
> Don't give me a narrative -- give me a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the Zionists want to pig the place for themselves.
Click to expand...


Narrative.  I asked for a reason.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> ... that phrase is used to describe someone's overly frequent and vehement attempts to convince others of some matter of which the opposite is true ...



Um.  No kidding.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christians and Muslims you mean.  But they were prevented from establishing sovereignty and exercising their right to self-determination by the British, while the invading Jews from Europe were assisted by the British, the U.S. and others.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no. The Arab-Moslem squatters did not possess the skills or abilities to establish self-determination.
> 
> Why have many others been able to determine their futures without the cheap excuses you need to account for ineptitude and incompetence on the part of Arab-Moslem squatters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honey, the squatters are the Jews that went to Palestine from Europe.  They lived on another continent.  The Christians and Muslims lived in Palestine they were the native inhabitants.  Try to understand that complex, for you, dynamic.
> 
> Let's see if you can understand this statement to the Palestinian Delegation from the British Colonial Office in response to the Palestinian's request to allow them to exercise their self-determination and sovereignty through the constitution the Christians and Muslims drafted and agreed to. I know it's complicated for you dear, but give it a shot.
> 
> "the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and *they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies..."
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, yes. That is the same cut and paste article you dump into many threads.
> 
> If you were to acquaint yourself with the history of the former Turkish holding, research the treaties and actions of the Brits who were in charge of the mandate, you might be able to write a bit more intelligently vs. mindlessly cutting and pasting the same articles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The written statement of the British Colonial Office is the the synthesis of the past treaties and represents the actions of the British.  Your inarticulate attempt at a response to fact which completely undermines your position is truly a masterpiece of idiocy.  Stop digging.
Click to expand...

Your frantic cutting and pasting of the same articles is merely a reflection of your inability to compose coherent sentences. 

The fact remains that the Jewish people were able to establish self-determination (as many other societies have done), while the incompetent Arabs-Moslems could not. As you struggle with your lacking language skills, it's a hoot to watch you lash out.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the thieves do not see a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, wait.  Go back to what you asked.  You stated Arab Palestinians want self-determination.  You stated the Jewish people want self-determination.  And you wanted to know if that was a problem.
> 
> Its a big enough sandbox for everyone.  Everyone is already there in the sandbox.  Give me one good reason why the sandbox can NOT be divided.
> 
> Don't give me a narrative -- give me a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the Zionists want to pig the place for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Narrative.  I asked for a reason.
Click to expand...

The Zionists always wanted all of Palestine without the Palestinians. They never intended to share anything.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> There was a clear, stated intent, to remove all the non-Jews. I could provide a myriad of sources going back to the first Zionist conventions in the late 1880s.



Oh please.  The Zionist Organizations proposals at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, as well as Emir Feisal's response to same, would contradict you in spades.  Oh, and not to mention the reality that there are _still Arabs in Israel_.  

Now, where would I find the Jewish communities in any of the ME countries surrounding Israel?  And when can we start discussing their claim to self-determination so they don't have to be ruled by Arabs?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I don't see a problem. No, the Israelis don't see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the thieves do not see a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, wait.  Go back to what you asked.  You stated Arab Palestinians want self-determination.  You stated the Jewish people want self-determination.  And you wanted to know if that was a problem.
> 
> Its a big enough sandbox for everyone.  Everyone is already there in the sandbox.  Give me one good reason why the sandbox can NOT be divided.
> 
> Don't give me a narrative -- give me a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the Zionists want to pig the place for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Narrative.  I asked for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Zionists always wanted all of Palestine without the Palestinians. They never intended to share anything.
Click to expand...


Narrative.  I asked for a reason why the sandbox could not be divided.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> There was a clear, stated intent, to remove all the non-Jews.


The Zionists had to have a solid majority in a territory that was majority Palestinian. It was necessary to expel the Palestinians. It was a requirement.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory where not a party to or an author of, the intent or implementation of the Mandate;
> 
> 
> 
> In contravention of Article 22 of the LoN Covenant.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Nothing in the Covenant requires the Allied Powers to acquiesce in favor of the Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory.  It is the other way around.  The Enemy Occupied population is under the effective control of the Allied Powers _(Articles 42/43, HR)_.



			
				MONTELATICI SAID:  said:
			
		

> The Allied Powers could not interpret the Covenant any way they wanted. Words have meaning and express legal concepts. The Christian and Muslim "inhabitants" of Palestine had the right to self-determination as did the inhabitants of the other former Turkish territories that came under the tutelage (not sovereignty) of the various Mandatories. These rights did not accrue to people living in Europe, regardless want a prior agreement stated.
> 
> Any prior agreements that ran contrary to the Covenant, as the Balfour Declaration were to have abrogated by signatories of the Covenant pursuant to article 20 of the Covenant, to wit:
> 
> "ARTICLE 20.
> The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
> 
> In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.'


*(COMMENT)*

As I said before (in several distinct ways) only members of the Covenant can make the allegation that a member of the Covenant is acting contrary to the Covenant.  When the members are silent in the Covenant, this is call exercising "neutrality."

*NEUTRALITY AND THE LEAGUE COVENANT - Pages Last Para 370- First Para 371*

QUOTE:  Including citations from the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL] on Self-Determination
It may be concluded from the foregoing survey of the Covenant's provisions that neutrality of League members is possible, within the framework of the Covenant:

(1) in wars of execution, where a League member takes up arms to enforce its rights under a duly made arbitral award, judicial decision or conciliatory report; such neutrality is obligatory;
(2) in duel wars, wars fought out between the contestants after exhausting the irenic procedure of the League; here, too, members are compulsorily neutral;
(3) in wars outside the League, when the parties have not been invited to use the conciliatory procedure under the Covenant, or when they have declined to submit their dispute; this neutrality is optional, subject to the procedural limitations on the resort by members to war.​All these instances presuppose the abstention of the other members from intervention under Article 11 or from the application of sanctions under Article 16. What the situation is under sanctions will presently be seen. All three of the foregoing may be regarded as tolerated wars; only the first two as licit within the general scheme of the Covenant.​To date, 98 years later, NO Country that was a member of the Covenant has intervened under Article 11 or Article 16.  It should be noted that under the terms of the Covenant, The action of the League under this Covenant shall be effected through the instrumentality of an Assembly and of a Council, with a permanent Secretariat.  It has been the effective policy of the Arab Palestinian, since 1919, not to use the standing "Dispute Resolution" Process.  It was just as true then (1919) as it is today with the Oslo Agreements and the Declaration on Principles of International Law.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the thieves do not see a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, wait.  Go back to what you asked.  You stated Arab Palestinians want self-determination.  You stated the Jewish people want self-determination.  And you wanted to know if that was a problem.
> 
> Its a big enough sandbox for everyone.  Everyone is already there in the sandbox.  Give me one good reason why the sandbox can NOT be divided.
> 
> Don't give me a narrative -- give me a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the Zionists want to pig the place for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Narrative.  I asked for a reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Zionists always wanted all of Palestine without the Palestinians. They never intended to share anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Narrative.  I asked for a reason why the sandbox could not be divided.
Click to expand...

Why does it need to be divided?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Why does it need to be divided?



You asked the question.  The Arab Palestinians want self-determination.  The Jewish people want self-determination.  If we divide it then they can both have it.  

Now, is there a reason why it can't be divided?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Nothing in the Covenant requires the Allied Powers to acquiesce in favor of the Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory.


After the Treaty of Lausanne Palestine was no longer enemy territory. It was a successor state.

Different set of rules.


Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be divided?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked the question.  The Arab Palestinians want self-determination.  The Jewish people want self-determination.  If we divide it then they can both have it.
> 
> Now, is there a reason why it can't be divided?
Click to expand...

That would violate the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> That would violate the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity.



Are you trying to claim that peoples with rights to self-determination can NEVER, by treaty and mutual agreement, make a State into two (or more smaller ones)?  Because of "territorial integrity"?

Give me a break.  There have been dozens of instances of this happening globally in the past 100 years.


----------



## montelatici

What you can't do, is take an action against the wishes of a people that causes said people to lose the ability to exercise their right to self-determination.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> What you can't do, is take an action against the wishes of a people that causes said people to lose the ability to exercise their right to self-determination.



Are you for real?  Let me get this straight.  Do you actually want Israel to grant the Palestinians self determination without Israel to suck off of to support them any longer?  I could never wish such a punishment upon the Palestinians.


----------



## montelatici

You are confused and have nothing to add to the discussion.  The issue in question is the legality of the Partition, Israel did not exist at the time.  Palestinians are supported by the International community, Israel collects taxes from the Palestinians and sucks off them.  You have as much credibility in this discussion as in the one of about your Muslim Archbishop.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OK, just a couple minor corrections here.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the Covenant requires the Allied Powers to acquiesce in favor of the Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> 
> 
> After the Treaty of Lausanne Palestine was no longer enemy territory. It was a successor state.
> 
> Different set of rules.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

•  In *April 1920*, San Remo Agreement:  The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.

"Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection."​•  The EOTA transitioned to a Civil Administration in *July 1920*. 

•  With the Treaty of Sevres in *August 1920*.  

•  Actually, *there was no actual Successor State*, because* there was no original state* corresponding to Palestine.  The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.  It became the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." Palestine Order in Council



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be divided?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked the question.  The Arab Palestinians want self-determination.  The Jewish people want self-determination.  If we divide it then they can both have it.
> 
> Now, is there a reason why it can't be divided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would violate the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

No where, after the Ottoman Surrender at Mudros (1918) and prior to the Treaty of Lausanne (1924), do the Arab Palestinians achieve supreme authority or sovereignty; with the exception of Trans-jordan. 

The "Right of Territorial Integrity" can not be exercised is the people do not have a territory they have control over (sovereignty).  That is not to say that the right is not available, it just cannot be applied.  

You have the "Right to Wash Your Car."   
Except, you don't own a car.  
No one is going to give you a car 
just because you have a Right to Wash your  Car.​
Having the "Right to Territorial Integrity" is meaningless if there is no territory to maintain the integrity over.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, just a couple minor corrections here.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the Covenant requires the Allied Powers to acquiesce in favor of the Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> 
> 
> After the Treaty of Lausanne Palestine was no longer enemy territory. It was a successor state.
> 
> Different set of rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  In *April 1920*, San Remo Agreement:  The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
> 
> "Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection."​•  The EOTA transitioned to a Civil Administration in *July 1920*.
> 
> •  With the Treaty of Sevres in *August 1920*.
> 
> •  Actually, *there was no actual Successor State*, because* there was no original state* corresponding to Palestine.  The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.  It became the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." Palestine Order in Council
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be divided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked the question.  The Arab Palestinians want self-determination.  The Jewish people want self-determination.  If we divide it then they can both have it.
> 
> Now, is there a reason why it can't be divided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would violate the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No where, after the Ottoman Surrender at Mudros (1918) and prior to the Treaty of Lausanne (1924), do the Arab Palestinians achieve supreme authority or sovereignty; with the exception of Trans-jordan.
> 
> The "Right of Territorial Integrity" can not be exercised is the people do not have a territory they have control over (sovereignty).  That is not to say that the right is not available, it just cannot be applied.
> 
> You have the "Right to Wash Your Car."
> Except, you don't own a car.
> No one is going to give you a car
> just because you have a Right to Wash your  Car.​
> Having the "Right to Territorial Integrity" is meaningless if there is no territory to maintain the integrity over.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Pfffft, you are grasping at straws. Only Israeli propaganda says that there was no Palestine.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, just a couple minor corrections here.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the Covenant requires the Allied Powers to acquiesce in favor of the Arab Population of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> 
> 
> After the Treaty of Lausanne Palestine was no longer enemy territory. It was a successor state.
> 
> Different set of rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  In *April 1920*, San Remo Agreement:  The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
> 
> "Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection."​•  The EOTA transitioned to a Civil Administration in *July 1920*.
> 
> •  With the Treaty of Sevres in *August 1920*.
> 
> •  Actually, *there was no actual Successor State*, because* there was no original state* corresponding to Palestine.  The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers.  It became the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine." Palestine Order in Council
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it need to be divided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked the question.  The Arab Palestinians want self-determination.  The Jewish people want self-determination.  If we divide it then they can both have it.
> 
> Now, is there a reason why it can't be divided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would violate the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No where, after the Ottoman Surrender at Mudros (1918) and prior to the Treaty of Lausanne (1924), do the Arab Palestinians achieve supreme authority or sovereignty; with the exception of Trans-jordan.
> 
> The "Right of Territorial Integrity" can not be exercised is the people do not have a territory they have control over (sovereignty).  That is not to say that the right is not available, it just cannot be applied.
> 
> You have the "Right to Wash Your Car."
> Except, you don't own a car.
> No one is going to give you a car
> just because you have a Right to Wash your  Car.​
> Having the "Right to Territorial Integrity" is meaningless if there is no territory to maintain the integrity over.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


W.C. Fields had your number Rocco.  "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull." That's your debating technique.  But it doesn't impress those far more clever than you.  

Your post is not relevant nor accurate.  It's just your usual nonsense as neither the inhabitants of any other former Turkish territory (or Jews who were in Europe) had sovereignty over any of the former Turkish territories.

Mentioning the Treaty of Sevres, however, which in Article 95 specifically applies Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to Palestine, is called "hoisting oneself on one's own petard".  






Let's review what Article 22 states in part:

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

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

Stop the bullshitting Rocco.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> What you can't do, is take an action against the wishes of a people that causes said people to lose the ability to exercise their right to self-determination.



Arab Palestinian people have not lost their right to self-determination.  They have that right to this very day.  Its an inherent and inviolable right.  

Nor has their ability to exercise that right been removed from them.  They have that right to this very day.  

I just wish they would hurry up and get on with it.


----------



## montelatici

Without a military success against a far more powerful occupying force, the Palestinians have no way to exercise their right to self-determination.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Without a military success against a far more powerful occupying force, the Palestinians have no way to exercise their right to self-determination.



Only because, like Tinmore, you can only see Arab Palestinians self-determination as the absence of Jewish self-determination.  You are looking for a zero sum game.  Instead of sharing the sandbox. 

The Arab Palestinians don't need a military victory.  They need economic development, trade agreements, water management plans, education, technological development and a functional government.


----------



## montelatici

The Israeli Jews have no intention to permit the non-Jews to establish a sovereign state.  Their actions and now formal statements make that clear.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Without a military success against a far more powerful occupying force, the Palestinians have no way to exercise their right to self-determination.


I wouldn't necessarily wait for a military success achieved by your Islamic terrorist heroes. Neighboring Arab states have no interest in waging a war with Israel. And more to the point, neighboring Arab states have little interest in Pal'istanians. 

What a shame that the Islamic terrorist Pal'istanians have made every effort to avoid taking the steps required to build a functioning society and instead have chosen failure and incompetence over success and a better future.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The Israeli Jews have no intention to permit the non-Jews to establish a sovereign state.  Their actions and now formal statements make that clear.


How cute. Conspiracy theories.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> The Israeli Jews have no intention to permit the non-Jews to establish a sovereign state.  Their actions and now formal statements make that clear.



Israel met the Palestinian demand for a Jew free Gaza.  And Israel got rocket missiles from Gaza for a thank you.  Hey I have an idea.  Let's have Israel also give the Palestinians all of the West Bank & all of Jerusalem for a lasting peace.  Right Monte?


----------



## Hollie

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israeli Jews have no intention to permit the non-Jews to establish a sovereign state.  Their actions and now formal statements make that clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel met the Palestinian demand for a Jew free Gaza.  And Israel got rocket missiles from Gaza for a thank you.  Hey I have an idea.  Let's have Israel also give the Palestinians all of the West Bank & all of Jerusalem for a lasting peace.  Right Monte?
Click to expand...


Maybe it's time to resurrect the "peace partner" slogan.

*“Slice open the enemy’s chest - slice it!” - Fatah song on PA TV - PMW Bulletins

Fatah: “Slice open the enemy’s chest - slice it!”*

*Song on PA TV broadcast 11 times 
during Seventh Fatah Conference

*
Or, maybe not.


----------



## Shusha

Hey, now, if we interfere with Arab Palestinian's right to kill Jews we are preventing their self-determination.


----------



## montelatici

The ability for the Muslims and Christians to exercise their self-determination and independence as a national state was stunted in 1920 by the British who elected to observe the Balfour Declaration rather than the articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  Why anyone thinks that it is possible for the Muslims and the few Christians that haven't joined the Diaspora to achieve it now is beyond me.  It's not going to happen, the Jews will not allow it.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The ability for the Muslims and Christians to exercise their self-determination and independence as a national state was stunted in 1920 by the British who elected to observe the Balfour Declaration rather than the articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  Why anyone thinks that it is possible for the Muslims and the few Christians that haven't joined the Diaspora to achieve it now is beyond me.  It's not going to happen, the Jews will not allow it.


I certainly agree that "stunted" has defined the ability of the Arabs-Moslems to achieve self-determination and a functioning society. However, your description of "stunted" can aptly be assigned to the majority of Arab-Moslem societies which ultimately are train wrecks of social justice, women's rights and all of the values that separate western democracies from Islamist dystopias.

For all the Pom Pom flailing you do for Islamism and your Islamist paradises, it's quite apparent that you're going to remain safely ensconced in the Great Satan.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ability for the Muslims and Christians to exercise their self-determination and independence as a national state was stunted in 1920 by the British who elected to observe the Balfour Declaration rather than the articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  Why anyone thinks that it is possible for the Muslims and the few Christians that haven't joined the Diaspora to achieve it now is beyond me.  It's not going to happen, the Jews will not allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly agree that "stunted" has defined the ability of the Arabs-Moslems to achieve self-determination and a functioning society. However, your description of "stunted" can aptly be assigned to the majority of Arab-Moslem societies which ultimately are train wrecks of social justice, women's rights and all of the values that separate western democracies from Islamist dystopias.
> 
> For all the Pom Pom flailing you do for Islamism and your Islamist paradises, it's quite apparent that you're going to remain safely ensconced in the Great Satan.
Click to expand...


But the Palestinians were Christians as well as Muslims. I only present facts and do not participate in cheer leading as you do.  I'm a Christian, Extremist Islam and extremist Judaism are both disgusting sects to me.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ability for the Muslims and Christians to exercise their self-determination and independence as a national state was stunted in 1920 by the British who elected to observe the Balfour Declaration rather than the articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  Why anyone thinks that it is possible for the Muslims and the few Christians that haven't joined the Diaspora to achieve it now is beyond me.  It's not going to happen, the Jews will not allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly agree that "stunted" has defined the ability of the Arabs-Moslems to achieve self-determination and a functioning society. However, your description of "stunted" can aptly be assigned to the majority of Arab-Moslem societies which ultimately are train wrecks of social justice, women's rights and all of the values that separate western democracies from Islamist dystopias.
> 
> For all the Pom Pom flailing you do for Islamism and your Islamist paradises, it's quite apparent that you're going to remain safely ensconced in the Great Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Palestinians were Christians as well as Muslims. I only present facts and do not participate in cheer leading as you do.  I'm a Christian, Extremist Islam and extremist Judaism are both disgusting sects to me.
Click to expand...


How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed native or indigenous Palestinians --- WERE JEWS.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ability for the Muslims and Christians to exercise their self-determination and independence as a national state was stunted in 1920 by the British who elected to observe the Balfour Declaration rather than the articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  Why anyone thinks that it is possible for the Muslims and the few Christians that haven't joined the Diaspora to achieve it now is beyond me.  It's not going to happen, the Jews will not allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly agree that "stunted" has defined the ability of the Arabs-Moslems to achieve self-determination and a functioning society. However, your description of "stunted" can aptly be assigned to the majority of Arab-Moslem societies which ultimately are train wrecks of social justice, women's rights and all of the values that separate western democracies from Islamist dystopias.
> 
> For all the Pom Pom flailing you do for Islamism and your Islamist paradises, it's quite apparent that you're going to remain safely ensconced in the Great Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Palestinians were Christians as well as Muslims. I only present facts and do not participate in cheer leading as you do.  I'm a Christian, Extremist Islam and extremist Judaism are both disgusting sects to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed native or indigenous Palestinians --- WERE JEWS.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
Click to expand...


Well you also thought that Archbishops were Muslims. And, you are wrong about this too. The indigenous and native people of Palestine were the ones that lived there before the Jewish invasion from Europe, and the vast majority practiced the Muslim and Christian religions. As confirmed below.  

*"30 July 1921*

*AN INTERIM REPORT*
*ON THE*
*CIVIL ADMINISTRATION*
*OF*

*PALESTINE,*

*during the period*
*1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*


*AN INTERIM REPORT*
*ON THE*
*CIVIL ADMINISTRATION*
*OF*
*PALESTINE.*

*I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.

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

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

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/349B02280A930813052565E90048ED1C


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ability for the Muslims and Christians to exercise their self-determination and independence as a national state was stunted in 1920 by the British who elected to observe the Balfour Declaration rather than the articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  Why anyone thinks that it is possible for the Muslims and the few Christians that haven't joined the Diaspora to achieve it now is beyond me.  It's not going to happen, the Jews will not allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly agree that "stunted" has defined the ability of the Arabs-Moslems to achieve self-determination and a functioning society. However, your description of "stunted" can aptly be assigned to the majority of Arab-Moslem societies which ultimately are train wrecks of social justice, women's rights and all of the values that separate western democracies from Islamist dystopias.
> 
> For all the Pom Pom flailing you do for Islamism and your Islamist paradises, it's quite apparent that you're going to remain safely ensconced in the Great Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Palestinians were Christians as well as Muslims. I only present facts and do not participate in cheer leading as you do.  I'm a Christian, Extremist Islam and extremist Judaism are both disgusting sects to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed native or indigenous Palestinians --- WERE JEWS.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you also thought that Archbishops were Muslims. And, you are wrong about this too. The indigenous and native people of Palestine were the ones that lived there before the Jewish invasion from Europe, and the vast majority practiced the Muslim and Christian religions. As confirmed below.
> 
> *"30 July 1921*
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF*
> 
> *PALESTINE,*
> 
> *during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*
> 
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.*
> 
> *I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.
> 
> *There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine.
> 
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/349B02280A930813052565E90048ED1C
Click to expand...

Archbishops are Muslims???  I didn't know that.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ability for the Muslims and Christians to exercise their self-determination and independence as a national state was stunted in 1920 by the British who elected to observe the Balfour Declaration rather than the articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  Why anyone thinks that it is possible for the Muslims and the few Christians that haven't joined the Diaspora to achieve it now is beyond me.  It's not going to happen, the Jews will not allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly agree that "stunted" has defined the ability of the Arabs-Moslems to achieve self-determination and a functioning society. However, your description of "stunted" can aptly be assigned to the majority of Arab-Moslem societies which ultimately are train wrecks of social justice, women's rights and all of the values that separate western democracies from Islamist dystopias.
> 
> For all the Pom Pom flailing you do for Islamism and your Islamist paradises, it's quite apparent that you're going to remain safely ensconced in the Great Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Palestinians were Christians as well as Muslims. I only present facts and do not participate in cheer leading as you do.  I'm a Christian, Extremist Islam and extremist Judaism are both disgusting sects to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed native or indigenous Palestinians --- WERE JEWS.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you also thought that Archbishops were Muslims. And, you are wrong about this too. The indigenous and native people of Palestine were the ones that lived there before the Jewish invasion from Europe, and the vast majority practiced the Muslim and Christian religions. As confirmed below.
> 
> *"30 July 1921*
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF*
> 
> *PALESTINE,*
> 
> *during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*
> 
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.*
> 
> *I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.
> 
> *There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Archbishops are Muslims???  I didn't know that.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep doing this. Is it not humiliating when I post the link to thread you started that demonstrates you believd a Muslim Archbishop was fired by a Christian. Well here is the link again. You know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. 


Palestinian Archbishop Fired by Greek Orthodox Christians


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly agree that "stunted" has defined the ability of the Arabs-Moslems to achieve self-determination and a functioning society. However, your description of "stunted" can aptly be assigned to the majority of Arab-Moslem societies which ultimately are train wrecks of social justice, women's rights and all of the values that separate western democracies from Islamist dystopias.
> 
> For all the Pom Pom flailing you do for Islamism and your Islamist paradises, it's quite apparent that you're going to remain safely ensconced in the Great Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Palestinians were Christians as well as Muslims. I only present facts and do not participate in cheer leading as you do.  I'm a Christian, Extremist Islam and extremist Judaism are both disgusting sects to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed native or indigenous Palestinians --- WERE JEWS.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you also thought that Archbishops were Muslims. And, you are wrong about this too. The indigenous and native people of Palestine were the ones that lived there before the Jewish invasion from Europe, and the vast majority practiced the Muslim and Christian religions. As confirmed below.
> 
> *"30 July 1921*
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF*
> 
> *PALESTINE,*
> 
> *during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*
> 
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.*
> 
> *I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.
> 
> *There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Archbishops are Muslims???  I didn't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep doing this. Is it not humiliating when I post the link to thread you started that demonstrates you believd a Muslim Archbishop was fired by a Christian. Well here is the link again. You know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
> 
> 
> Palestinian Archbishop Fired by Greek Orthodox Christians
Click to expand...

This is fun.  How many times must I tell you a Muslim a Muslim cannot be an archbishop.  But a Palestinian can be.


----------



## montelatici

Well, it took quite a while for you to understand that a Muslim archbishop wasn't fired by the Greek Orthodox Church. See your comment below.  

"*Greek Orthodox Church In Jerusalem Fires Palestinian Archbishop"*

Greek Orthodox Church In Jerusalem Fires Palestinian Archbishop

*MJB Comments: "It is truly sad that Muslim Palestinians cannot even get along with fellow Christian Palestinians."
*
As in everything else, the local Zionist propagandists would have us believe that MJB's comment did not imply that MJB thought a Muslim Archbishop was fired by the Greek Orthodox Church.  It's the same technique they use for every fact about the IP conflict, deny, deny, deny in a fantastic display of cognizant dissonance.

Link to MJB's  thread starter:

Palestinian Archbishop Fired by Greek Orthodox Christians


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Well, it took quite a while for you to understand that a Muslim archbishop wasn't fired by the Greek Orthodox Church. See your comment below.
> 
> "*Greek Orthodox Church In Jerusalem Fires Palestinian Archbishop"*
> 
> Greek Orthodox Church In Jerusalem Fires Palestinian Archbishop
> 
> *MJB Comments: "It is truly sad that Muslim Palestinians cannot even get along with fellow Christian Palestinians."
> *
> As in everything else, the local Zionist propagandists would have us believe that MJB's comment did not imply that MJB thought a Muslim Archbishop was fired by the Greek Orthodox Church.  It's the same technique they use for every fact about the IP conflict, deny, deny, deny in a fantastic display of cognizant dissonance.
> 
> Link to MJB's  thread starter:
> 
> Palestinian Archbishop Fired by Greek Orthodox Christians



Eh,Monte?  Would you believe Jesus Christ was Jewish?  Get it yet?  Heh Heh!


----------



## montelatici

Eh MJ? Do you kanow understand that the Archbishop was not a Muslim? Get it yet? Heh, Heh!


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Eh MJ? Do you kanow understand that the Archbishop was not a Muslim? Get it yet? Heh, Heh!


Thank you for all the fun Monte.  Have a happy Hanukkah..


----------



## Hossfly

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ability for the Muslims and Christians to exercise their self-determination and independence as a national state was stunted in 1920 by the British who elected to observe the Balfour Declaration rather than the articles of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  Why anyone thinks that it is possible for the Muslims and the few Christians that haven't joined the Diaspora to achieve it now is beyond me.  It's not going to happen, the Jews will not allow it.
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly agree that "stunted" has defined the ability of the Arabs-Moslems to achieve self-determination and a functioning society. However, your description of "stunted" can aptly be assigned to the majority of Arab-Moslem societies which ultimately are train wrecks of social justice, women's rights and all of the values that separate western democracies from Islamist dystopias.
> 
> For all the Pom Pom flailing you do for Islamism and your Islamist paradises, it's quite apparent that you're going to remain safely ensconced in the Great Satan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Palestinians were Christians as well as Muslims. I only present facts and do not participate in cheer leading as you do.  I'm a Christian, Extremist Islam and extremist Judaism are both disgusting sects to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed native or indigenous Palestinians --- WERE JEWS.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you also thought that Archbishops were Muslims. And, you are wrong about this too. The indigenous and native people of Palestine were the ones that lived there before the Jewish invasion from Europe, and the vast majority practiced the Muslim and Christian religions. As confirmed below.
> 
> *"30 July 1921*
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF*
> 
> *PALESTINE,*
> 
> *during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*
> 
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.*
> 
> *I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.
> 
> *There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Archbishops are Muslims???  I didn't know that.
Click to expand...

 
I think, MJB, this video should be brought up.

 
It is amazing how the anti-Semites are trying so hard to prove that Israel shouldn't exist while they cry their crocodile tears for the Palestinians and at the same time they close their eyes to the actual genocide happening these days against the Muslims in Myanmar.  No Jews involved so what is happening there is not important.


----------



## montelatici

You do realize this is the Israel-Palestine folder, correct.  By the way, posting propaganda videos does not change the facts. 


*"PALESTINE.*

*CORRESPONDENCE *
*WITH THE*
*PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION*
*AND THE *
*ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*

*Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.*
*JUNE, 1922.*
*LONDON:*


"If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist _con-dominium, _put a stop to all alien immigration and grant *the People of Palestine *— who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unis...48a7e5584ee1403485256cd8006c3fbe?OpenDocument


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> You do realize this is the Israel-Palestine folder, correct.  By the way, posting propaganda videos does not change the facts.
> 
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:*
> 
> 
> "If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist _con-dominium, _put a stop to all alien immigration and grant *the People of Palestine *— who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."
> 
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unis...48a7e5584ee1403485256cd8006c3fbe?OpenDocument



All the same cut and paste spam. 

Unfortunately, your cut and paste spam only serves to reinforce how utterly helpless and inept Arabs-Moslems were, and still are, with regard to building functioning societies.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> You do realize this is the Israel-Palestine folder, correct.  By the way, posting propaganda videos does not change the facts.
> 
> 
> *"PALESTINE.*
> 
> *CORRESPONDENCE
> WITH THE
> PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
> AND THE
> ZIONIST ORGANISATION.*
> 
> *Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
> JUNE, 1922.
> LONDON:*
> 
> 
> "If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist _con-dominium, _put a stop to all alien immigration and grant *the People of Palestine *— who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration."
> 
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unis...48a7e5584ee1403485256cd8006c3fbe?OpenDocument


You do realize, of course, that we can check the forums that you Jew haters are on and see what you have posted or  not posted.  The Muslims are being killed elsewhere, and not a word from you on other forums.  Shed some more of your crocodile tears here because the Jews are involved.  No Jews involved -- no posts on other forums about what is happening to Muslims.

21,000 Muslims flee from Burma amid 'attempted genocide'


----------



## montelatici

What section is the Burma situation being discussed in?  If you can point me to it I will try to comment if I have some knowledge about the subject. I happen to know more about the Israel/Palestinian conflict because before attaining my BSEE and MSEE I earned a BA in Political Science with North Africa and the Middle East as my areas of concentration.  I don't know as much about the Indian subcontinent and Asia.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> What section is the Burma situation being discussed in?  If you can point me to it I will try to comment if I have some knowledge about the subject. I happen to know more about the Israel/Palestinian conflict because before attaining my BSEE and MSEE I earned a BA in Political Science with North Africa and the Middle East as my areas of concentration.  I don't know as much about the Indian subcontinent and Asia.


Comparisons, you dumb shit.


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What section is the Burma situation being discussed in?  If you can point me to it I will try to comment if I have some knowledge about the subject. I happen to know more about the Israel/Palestinian conflict because before attaining my BSEE and MSEE I earned a BA in Political Science with North Africa and the Middle East as my areas of concentration.  I don't know as much about the Indian subcontinent and Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> Comparisons, you dumb shit.
Click to expand...


What comparisons?  You ignorant piece of shit.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What section is the Burma situation being discussed in?  If you can point me to it I will try to comment if I have some knowledge about the subject. I happen to know more about the Israel/Palestinian conflict because before attaining my BSEE and MSEE I earned a BA in Political Science with North Africa and the Middle East as my areas of concentration.  I don't know as much about the Indian subcontinent and Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> Comparisons, you dumb shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What comparisons?  You ignorant piece of shit.
Click to expand...

I knew you were too dumb to understand.


----------



## montelatici

No, you are too stupid to understand that this section of the forum is related to the I/P situation.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> No, you are too stupid to understand that this section of the forum is related to the I/P situation.


I was talking about the P part. You know, like your Palestinians are Egyptian. And Jordanian. Also Syrian. There ain't no such animal as a "Palysteenian", Dopey.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> What section is the Burma situation being discussed in?  If you can point me to it I will try to comment if I have some knowledge about the subject. I happen to know more about the Israel/Palestinian conflict because before attaining my BSEE and MSEE I earned a BA in Political Science with North Africa and the Middle East as my areas of concentration.  I don't know as much about the Indian subcontinent and Asia.


You can give us all the baloney you want regarding your education.  I can tell you I have a PhD.  Would that make a difference to the viewers?  I doubt it. I think that the viewers, unless they are Jew haters, have caught on to you pretty fast. The bottom line is if you really cared about the Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere, you would be posting article after article in the appropriate forums instead of parking yourself on this one particular forum all day and shedding your crocodile tears because the  Jews happen to be involved


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> If a Power (Britain) prevented another party (the Palestinians) from exercising the right to self-determination, it is effectively taking the right way.  The effort to prevent the Christian and Muslim Palestinians from exercising the right to self-determination began in 1922, as per the official, on the record correspondence to the Palestinian Delegation from the British Colonial Office, and continued through to 1948.  This effort to prevent the Christian and Muslim Palestinians for exercising this right was adopted by the United Nations at the end of the Mandate through the Partition Plan which placed 1/3 of the Christians and Muslims (over 400 thousand) under Jew rule with no possible way to exercise self-determination.  All of which ran counter to the United Nations Charter and the Covenants on rights as per below.
> 
> 
> The second para. of first article of the United Nations Charter reads:
> 
> "The purposes of the United Nations are:
> 
> 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace...."
> 
> The first article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reads:
> 
> "1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development...."









 And just how did they do this, give an example of the whole 6 million people being refused the right to self determination by any group or nation ?

 Show where at any given time since 1945 when the UN was formed that the palestinians have been denied the right to self determination. Examples would be being stopped from leaving their homes when commanded by the arab league. Being denied the chance of joining Jordan as part of that nation, being stopped from attempting a coup take control. Not being allowed to be representated by the PLO and then forming a nation in 1988.


Show where at any given time they were denied the right to vote for the person they wished to represent them in international affairs from 1999 by outside forces, denied the right to elect a terrorist group as their government. Denied the right to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development by outside forces other than as a response to their violence, belligerence and terrorist attacks


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> I did not cut and pass moron, but thanks for the compliment. And, your reading comprehension is faulty.  I said the British and then the UN prevented the Christian and Muslim Palestinians from exercising said right.








 And once again monte is shown to be a complete idiot and that he has no intelligence to formulate an answer so he takes the words found in part of the UN charter and manipulates them to meet with his POV.


 What you say is only your POV and has no supporting evidence, the evidence shows you to be barking mad and unable to think straight when the Jews are involved. All because you have been brainwashed to hate the Jews because your church claims they killed your god


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who invaded the mandate of palestine in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews, and then had to be saved and protected by the UN when the poorly armed and lesser Jews were kicking their buts big time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was, in fact, in Palestine ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their homes? There were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees before the 1948 war. You know, the war that the liars say the Arabs started.
Click to expand...








 The actual war started in 1921 when the arab muslims invaded the mandate of palestine with the intent of wiping out the Jews and claiming the land as theirs. In 1947 the arab league started to move arab muslims out of the way so the combined armies had a clear route into the mandate of palestine.
 Thus the arab league started the war back in 1921 making you the LIAR once again


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like you to name the year the "war" started and the initiating event.
> 
> 
> I strongly suspect that your answer is "the day the Jewish people started moving home".  Which indicates, again, that the mere presence of Jews, the mere idea of having them as neighbors is the cause of the conflict and gives Arab Muslims the right to kill them.
> 
> Hey, guess what?  I agree with you.  The root cause of the conflict is the deep-seated, religiously supported, irrational, antisemitism of the Arab Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sad part is that you actually believe that crap. Here is a brief overview of the problem. Of course I would happily discuss anything she says that you feel is not true.
Click to expand...







 What is there to discus as all she spouts is palestinian talking points and islamnazi propaganda that has no relationship with the truth or reality. The historical evidence shows the true reason for the conflict is the religious commands to the muslims to kill or convert the whole world to islam and to take control of all the land


----------



## Phoenall

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What section is the Burma situation being discussed in?  If you can point me to it I will try to comment if I have some knowledge about the subject. I happen to know more about the Israel/Palestinian conflict because before attaining my BSEE and MSEE I earned a BA in Political Science with North Africa and the Middle East as my areas of concentration.  I don't know as much about the Indian subcontinent and Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> You can give us all the baloney you want regarding your education.  I can tell you I have a PhD.  Would that make a difference to the viewers?  I doubt it. I think that the viewers, unless they are Jew haters, have caught on to you pretty fast. The bottom line is if you really cared about the Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere, you would be posting article after article in the appropriate forums instead of parking yourself on this one particular forum all day and shedding your crocodile tears because the  Jews happen to be involved
Click to expand...








 Just ask the moron why he always brings up South Africa on this board when he knows it has nothing to do with the I/P conflict


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, you keep saying that.  But it is entirely the WRONG interpretation.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> You get this wrong every single time, as if repeating it over and over again will somehow change it.
> 
> •  Article 16 is in the first Part and first Section of the Treaty.    It is called:  "*TERRITORIAL CLAUSES."*
> 
> §  This section deals with the disposition of territory for which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic forfeits.  In this case, ALL the territory outside the frontiers of the Turkish Republic.  The only exception is territorial arrangements covered by special arrangements arising from some previously honored diplomatic relations.​•  Article 30 is in the first Part and second Section of the Treaty.  It is called "*NATIONALITY."*
> 
> §  This section deals with people who the question of nationality might be considered ambiguous under the operation of its law prior to this treaty.  It insures that there si a uniform understanding among the various Mandatories as to how certain people are addressed.  Although Article 30 mentions no particular territory, in its application relative to the territory under the Mandate of Palestine applies --- as the nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred:  The Government of Palestine.  That would be from the Mesopotamian Border to the Mediterranean Sea.  The use of the word "State" in this case, insures that the citizenship passes into the follow-on Sovereignty as defined by the Mandatory.  In this case, the population East of the Jordan River would become citizens of Trans-Jordan when Britain (the Mandatory) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state on 15 May 1923 under the leadership of the first Emir (Abdullah).​
> Section I, Article 16, does not determine citizenship, and Section II, Article 30 does not impact the Rights and Title of the Territory.  Article 30 says which citizenship the people are assigned based on the territorial determination on Article 16.  In the case of Palestine, that authority was delineated in (first) the Palestine Order in Council --- then the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> The Territorial Government drives Nationality, NOT the other way around.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are full of shit Rocco. The Citizenship Order was enacted by the British Government, not by the (territorial) Government of Palestine. Interestingly, this was the only such citizenship order enacted by Great Britain in any of their mandates or territories at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948.   There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT as Britain did what it could under its remit, it was the arab muslims that refused to talk so they lost. The Jews followed the rules and gained a nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians contacted Britain many times but were ignored. It was Britain who refused to negotiate.
Click to expand...







 WRONG look at C&P provided and you see the arab muslims refused to be involved in any discusions unless they were to be given all the lands as the new islamic state in the M.E. Until this was granted they were refusing to meet and talk and just demanded the same things over and over again. In reality all Britain could do was to send the details of the arab muslims demands to the LoN and present them at the annual LoN mandate of palestine meetting. The arab muslims being at best semi literate did not understand that Britain was just a caretaker until the " palestinians" were ready to declare independence and show the ability to stand on their own.


 SO YOU SEE BRITAIN WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO NEGOTIATE AS THEY DID NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, AND THIS IS SPELT OUT IN THE MANDATE OF PALESTINE

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you for real, what was seen as the Government of palestine from 1922 to 1948.   There was no arab muslim Government in place was there, no Jewish government and no Christian government. Just the appointed mandatory Government of palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and that is how Britain left it. Britain failed to do anything but start a hundred year war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to learn history. The Brits didn't start a "hundred year war" in the islamist occupied territories. It was the Islamist Entity that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973.... why don't you research the history and let me know if I missed any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another duck because you dont have a clue, so you resort to islamonazi propaganda talking points
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you care to refute anything he said?
> 
> Of course not.
Click to expand...






What is there left to refute that has not already been proven to be nothing more than palestinian talking points and islamonazi blood libels and propaganda lies


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Apples and Oranges.   You have not posted a proper question, thus you are looking for a flawed answer.
> 
> Mid-night, 14/15 May 1948 was a terminator between the end of the Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) and the beginning of the International Armed Conflict (IAC).
> The* definition of an IAC* is found in *Common Article 2 to the Fourth Geneva Conventions (GCIV)*.  It states that the rules of IAC apply to “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the *High Contracting Parties* . . . . “  Thus, an IAC can only be between two or more states.
> 
> After to 14/15 May 1948:
> 
> •   Israel is a "High Contracting Party (HCP)" having declared independence.
> •   All the Arab League participants:  Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen, and Egypt, are individually HCP.
> •   The Arab Palestinians are not constituents of a HCP.​Prior to 14/15 May 1948:
> 
> •  There is no State of Israel.  Thus a non-existent Israel could not be a HCP.
> •  There is no Sate of Palestine.  Thus the a non-existent Arab Palestinian State could not be a HCP.​
> THUS, by international Humanitarian Law (IHL) the Arab-Jewish conflict in the territory subject to the Mandate COULD NOT BE an IAC; neither being a HCP.  An IAC can only be between two or more HCPs.
> 
> HOWEVER, after the Declaration of Independence and recognition by at least one nation, Israel is a HCP, being invaded by elements of several HCPs of the Arab League; making it an IAC.
> 
> Therefore:
> 
> •  Prior to 14/15 May 1948, the Arab-Jewish Conflict in Palestine, as defined by the Allied Powers, was a NAIC.
> •  After 14/15 May 1948, the Arab-Jewish Conflict becomes an IAC.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948, who pointed the gun at who? I believe it was the Arab League that initiated the Armed Aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't try to start history in the middle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> YOU are wrong!
> 
> The Arab Invasion by the Arab League marks the beginning of the NIAC.  It is not the middle of the history.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I have always said: you believe that the Palestinians are exempt from universal rights.
Click to expand...








No that is you in regards to the Jews, which is why you deflect and duck when asked what rights the Jews have.

The palestinians have the same rights as the Jews, and they came in to force at the same time as the Jews rights. They can not be back dated to suit your POV unless you want to state a cut of point for the rights


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is a HCP, being invaded by elements of several HCPs of the Arab League; making it an IAC.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but Israel was not invaded.
Click to expand...






Not until May 14 at 24:00 when the declaration of independence was issued. That was Israel in existence and the arab muslims could do nothing about it, from that time on the arab league and palestinians were in breach of the UN charter, Geneva conventions and IHL.

AND NOTHING YOU PRODUCE PROVES OTHER WISE


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Well, the facts confirm that the British were at fault, dear little Hollie.









 NO THEY DONT    which is why you manipulate the links you provide


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who invaded the mandate of palestine in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews, and then had to be saved and protected by the UN when the poorly armed and lesser Jews were kicking their buts big time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was, in fact, in Palestine ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their homes? There were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees before the 1948 war. You know, the war that the liars say the Arabs started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual war started in 1921 when the arab muslims invaded the mandate of palestine with the intent of wiping out the Jews and claiming the land as theirs. In 1947 the arab league started to move arab muslims out of the way so the combined armies had a clear route into the mandate of palestine.
> Thus the arab league started the war back in 1921 making you the LIAR once again
Click to expand...

Holy load of crap, Batman!
 
Where do you get this shit?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is a HCP, being invaded by elements of several HCPs of the Arab League; making it an IAC.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but Israel was not invaded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not until May 14 at 24:00 when the declaration of independence was issued. That was Israel in existence and the arab muslims could do nothing about it, from that time on the arab league and palestinians were in breach of the UN charter, Geneva conventions and IHL.
> 
> AND NOTHING YOU PRODUCE PROVES OTHER WISE
Click to expand...

How so? All you have is BS Israeli talking points. There is nothing there to prove your point.


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly agree that "stunted" has defined the ability of the Arabs-Moslems to achieve self-determination and a functioning society. However, your description of "stunted" can aptly be assigned to the majority of Arab-Moslem societies which ultimately are train wrecks of social justice, women's rights and all of the values that separate western democracies from Islamist dystopias.
> 
> For all the Pom Pom flailing you do for Islamism and your Islamist paradises, it's quite apparent that you're going to remain safely ensconced in the Great Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Palestinians were Christians as well as Muslims. I only present facts and do not participate in cheer leading as you do.  I'm a Christian, Extremist Islam and extremist Judaism are both disgusting sects to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed native or indigenous Palestinians --- WERE JEWS.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you also thought that Archbishops were Muslims. And, you are wrong about this too. The indigenous and native people of Palestine were the ones that lived there before the Jewish invasion from Europe, and the vast majority practiced the Muslim and Christian religions. As confirmed below.
> 
> *"30 July 1921*
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF*
> 
> *PALESTINE,*
> 
> *during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*
> 
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.*
> 
> *I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.
> 
> *There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. *Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.* In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Archbishops are Muslims???  I didn't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, MJB, this video should be brought up.
> 
> 
> It is amazing how the anti-Semites are trying so hard to prove that Israel shouldn't exist while they cry their crocodile tears for the Palestinians and at the same time they close their eyes to the actual genocide happening these days against the Muslims in Myanmar.  No Jews involved so what is happening there is not important.
Click to expand...


Yes but somehow, someway those Zionists must have made them do it.


----------



## MJB12741

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What section is the Burma situation being discussed in?  If you can point me to it I will try to comment if I have some knowledge about the subject. I happen to know more about the Israel/Palestinian conflict because before attaining my BSEE and MSEE I earned a BA in Political Science with North Africa and the Middle East as my areas of concentration.  I don't know as much about the Indian subcontinent and Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> You can give us all the baloney you want regarding your education.  I can tell you I have a PhD.  Would that make a difference to the viewers?  I doubt it. I think that the viewers, unless they are Jew haters, have caught on to you pretty fast. The bottom line is if you really cared about the Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere, you would be posting article after article in the appropriate forums instead of parking yourself on this one particular forum all day and shedding your crocodile tears because the  Jews happen to be involved
Click to expand...


So true.  But he sure is fun to play with.  Go Monte!


----------



## montelatici

Hossfly said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What section is the Burma situation being discussed in?  If you can point me to it I will try to comment if I have some knowledge about the subject. I happen to know more about the Israel/Palestinian conflict because before attaining my BSEE and MSEE I earned a BA in Political Science with North Africa and the Middle East as my areas of concentration.  I don't know as much about the Indian subcontinent and Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> You can give us all the baloney you want regarding your education.  I can tell you I have a PhD.  Would that make a difference to the viewers?  I doubt it. I think that the viewers, unless they are Jew haters, have caught on to you pretty fast. The bottom line is if you really cared about the Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere, you would be posting article after article in the appropriate forums instead of parking yourself on this one particular forum all day and shedding your crocodile tears because the  Jews happen to be involved
Click to expand...


I can present the facts regarding my education,  and you can ignore them or not, I don't really give a crap. It was helpful  to explain why I happen to know more about this issue than others.

You decry the fact that I post on a forum that addresses subjects I know a great deal about rather than on forums that address issues and subjects I know very little about.  That doesn't make much sense.

I understand that the facts undermine the propaganda you constantly parrot. Tough.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What section is the Burma situation being discussed in?  If you can point me to it I will try to comment if I have some knowledge about the subject. I happen to know more about the Israel/Palestinian conflict because before attaining my BSEE and MSEE I earned a BA in Political Science with North Africa and the Middle East as my areas of concentration.  I don't know as much about the Indian subcontinent and Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> You can give us all the baloney you want regarding your education.  I can tell you I have a PhD.  Would that make a difference to the viewers?  I doubt it. I think that the viewers, unless they are Jew haters, have caught on to you pretty fast. The bottom line is if you really cared about the Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere, you would be posting article after article in the appropriate forums instead of parking yourself on this one particular forum all day and shedding your crocodile tears because the  Jews happen to be involved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  But he sure is fun to play with.  Go Monte!
Click to expand...


The Muslim archbishop dimwit can't help himself.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What section is the Burma situation being discussed in?  If you can point me to it I will try to comment if I have some knowledge about the subject. I happen to know more about the Israel/Palestinian conflict because before attaining my BSEE and MSEE I earned a BA in Political Science with North Africa and the Middle East as my areas of concentration.  I don't know as much about the Indian subcontinent and Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> You can give us all the baloney you want regarding your education.  I can tell you I have a PhD.  Would that make a difference to the viewers?  I doubt it. I think that the viewers, unless they are Jew haters, have caught on to you pretty fast. The bottom line is if you really cared about the Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere, you would be posting article after article in the appropriate forums instead of parking yourself on this one particular forum all day and shedding your crocodile tears because the  Jews happen to be involved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  But he sure is fun to play with.  Go Monte!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslim archbishop dimwit can't help himself.
Click to expand...


HUH?  A Muslim Archbishop is a dimwit???  Don't that beat all.


----------



## montelatici

You are just drawing attention to yourself. moron.  

Palestinian Archbishop Fired by Greek Orthodox Christians


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, was it or was it not the _Islamist Entity™_ that started wars in 1948, 1967, 1973... and others I might have missed.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who invaded the mandate of palestine in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews, and then had to be saved and protected by the UN when the poorly armed and lesser Jews were kicking their buts big time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was, in fact, in Palestine ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their homes? There were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees before the 1948 war. You know, the war that the liars say the Arabs started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual war started in 1921 when the arab muslims invaded the mandate of palestine with the intent of wiping out the Jews and claiming the land as theirs. In 1947 the arab league started to move arab muslims out of the way so the combined armies had a clear route into the mandate of palestine.
> Thus the arab league started the war back in 1921 making you the LIAR once again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy load of crap, Batman!
> 
> Where do you get this shit?
Click to expand...








 From the real history books based on reality and fact, not your islamonazi propaganda lies.    Are you denying that the arab muslims reneged on an agreement made and started to attack the Jews in palestine leading to the massacre in Hebron in 1929 ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is a HCP, being invaded by elements of several HCPs of the Arab League; making it an IAC.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but Israel was not invaded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not until May 14 at 24:00 when the declaration of independence was issued. That was Israel in existence and the arab muslims could do nothing about it, from that time on the arab league and palestinians were in breach of the UN charter, Geneva conventions and IHL.
> 
> AND NOTHING YOU PRODUCE PROVES OTHER WISE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so? All you have is BS Israeli talking points. There is nothing there to prove your point.
Click to expand...







 Evidence based on actual facts and reality are not Israeli talking points.

 Did the British mandatory cease at 12:00 on may 14 1948
 Did the Jews declare independence on all the lands granted to them for their national home at the same time
 Did arab league forces invade the former mandate of palestine at the same time 
 Does this show that the arab league and palestinians are in breach of the UN charter by invading and attacking with the intent to wipe out the Jews and steal their lands.


Prove any of this wrong if you can


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What section is the Burma situation being discussed in?  If you can point me to it I will try to comment if I have some knowledge about the subject. I happen to know more about the Israel/Palestinian conflict because before attaining my BSEE and MSEE I earned a BA in Political Science with North Africa and the Middle East as my areas of concentration.  I don't know as much about the Indian subcontinent and Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> You can give us all the baloney you want regarding your education.  I can tell you I have a PhD.  Would that make a difference to the viewers?  I doubt it. I think that the viewers, unless they are Jew haters, have caught on to you pretty fast. The bottom line is if you really cared about the Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere, you would be posting article after article in the appropriate forums instead of parking yourself on this one particular forum all day and shedding your crocodile tears because the  Jews happen to be involved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can present the facts regarding my education,  and you can ignore them or not, I don't really give a crap. It was helpful  to explain why I happen to know more about this issue than others.
> 
> You decry the fact that I post on a forum that addresses subjects I know a great deal about rather than on forums that address issues and subjects I know very little about.  That doesn't make much sense.
> 
> I understand that the facts undermine the propaganda you constantly parrot. Tough.
Click to expand...







 And how are we to know that they are true, after all you can buy faked documents anywhere.    But any idiot can be book smart and fail when it comes to working in the field, most practical exams are now done on computer and not physically


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> You are just drawing attention to yourself. moron.
> 
> Palestinian Archbishop Fired by Greek Orthodox Christians







And he was sacked for spreading islamonazi propaganda, making him an islamonazi propagandist


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. You are starting your history in the middle of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who invaded the mandate of palestine in 1947 with the intention of wiping out the Jews, and then had to be saved and protected by the UN when the poorly armed and lesser Jews were kicking their buts big time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was, in fact, in Palestine ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their homes? There were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees before the 1948 war. You know, the war that the liars say the Arabs started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual war started in 1921 when the arab muslims invaded the mandate of palestine with the intent of wiping out the Jews and claiming the land as theirs. In 1947 the arab league started to move arab muslims out of the way so the combined armies had a clear route into the mandate of palestine.
> Thus the arab league started the war back in 1921 making you the LIAR once again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy load of crap, Batman!
> 
> Where do you get this shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the real history books based on reality and fact, not your islamonazi propaganda lies.    Are you denying that the arab muslims reneged on an agreement made and started to attack the Jews in palestine leading to the massacre in Hebron in 1929 ?
Click to expand...


But how can this be?  You see, we learned on this board that prior to 1948 the Palestinians were a noble, life loving, peace loving people.


----------



## montelatici

MJB, do you still believe that the Palestinian archbishop was a Muslim?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB, do you still believe that the Palestinian archbishop was a Muslim?


Oh Monte.  So nice to see you all pissed off.  Please post here more often.


----------



## montelatici

Will do.  But how your  Muslim archbishop doing.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Will do.  But how your  Muslim archbishop doing.



He's now conducting a Catechism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Are you denying that the arab muslims reneged on an agreement made


What agreement did the Palestinians make that they reneged on?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Did the Jews declare independence on all the lands granted to them for their national home at the same time


Nobody gave the Jews any land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Did arab league forces invade the former mandate of palestine at the same time


They did not attack Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying that the arab muslims reneged on an agreement made
> 
> 
> 
> What agreement did the Palestinians make that they reneged on?
Click to expand...

That the Jews could have 22% of palestine for their National home, then they reneged on Oslo 1 and 2


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying that the arab muslims reneged on an agreement made
> 
> 
> 
> What agreement did the Palestinians make that they reneged on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That the Jews could have 22% of palestine for their National home, then they reneged on Oslo 1 and 2
Click to expand...

You forgot to quote the passages.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying that the arab muslims reneged on an agreement made
> 
> 
> 
> What agreement did the Palestinians make that they reneged on?
Click to expand...

That the Jews could have 22% of palestine for their National home, then they reneged on Oslo 1 and 2


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying that the arab muslims reneged on an agreement made
> 
> 
> 
> What agreement did the Palestinians make that they reneged on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That the Jews could have 22% of palestine for their National home, then they reneged on Oslo 1 and 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot to quote the passages.
Click to expand...









 NO you forgot to ask for it, so you lose again

 By the way they have been given thousands of times and you have just ignored them every time


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying that the arab muslims reneged on an agreement made
> 
> 
> 
> What agreement did the Palestinians make that they reneged on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That the Jews could have 22% of palestine for their National home, then they reneged on Oslo 1 and 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot to quote the passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO you forgot to ask for it, so you lose again
> 
> By the way they have been given thousands of times and you have just ignored them every time
Click to expand...

Your standard duck.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying that the arab muslims reneged on an agreement made
> 
> 
> 
> What agreement did the Palestinians make that they reneged on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That the Jews could have 22% of palestine for their National home, then they reneged on Oslo 1 and 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot to quote the passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO you forgot to ask for it, so you lose again
> 
> By the way they have been given thousands of times and you have just ignored them every time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your standard duck.
Click to expand...









 How is it a duck when it answers your question in full. not my fault you delete those posts rather than read them and be educated. You are the one that ducks all the time when you bring up the same of topic video's


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you denying that the arab muslims reneged on an agreement made
> 
> 
> 
> What agreement did the Palestinians make that they reneged on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That the Jews could have 22% of palestine for their National home, then they reneged on Oslo 1 and 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot to quote the passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO you forgot to ask for it, so you lose again
> 
> By the way they have been given thousands of times and you have just ignored them every time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your standard duck.
Click to expand...


What legal rights do the Palestinians have to the land they stole?


----------



## montelatici

The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.



You are beginning to sound like this: 






Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the foreword to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.


Actually, the land area you incorrectly believe to be the "country of Pal'istan" was controlled by the Ottoman's, not your invented Pal'istanians in your invented country of Pal'istan". 

The land area was later ceded to the Brits. Your invented Pal'istanians in your invented "country of Pal'istan" never owned the land. As we know from the Ottoman land records, foreigners actually owned much of the land area of your imagined "country of Pal'istan"


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the forward to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the land area you incorrectly believe to be the "country of Pal'istan" was controlled by the Ottoman's, not your invented Pal'istanians in your invented country of Pal'istan".
> 
> The land area was later ceded to the Brits. Your invented Pal'istanians in your invented "country of Pal'istan" never owned the land. As we know from the Ottoman land records, foreigners actually owned much of the land area of your imagined "country of Pal'istan"
Click to expand...




Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the forward to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


UN Resolution A/363 which examined the land registry data contained in the Survey and elsewhere clarified that the Arab population only owned 85% of the land.  Extrapolating from the Survey table it can be determined that 9% of the land was owned by non-Jews that did not make up part of the Arab population of Palestine. This fact is difficult to accept after decades of brainwashing, but that is the fact.  In any event, what incentive would the drafters of the partition resolution, who were promoters that were driven to establish a Jewish state, have had to understate Jewish ownership of land or overstate the Arab population's ownership? It boggles the mind how you people try to dodge the facts.

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the foreword to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
Click to expand...




Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the foreword to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Shh!  Don,t tell him.


Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the foreword to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Please don't irritate him with the truth or we may lose him on this board.  What fun he is to play with.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the forward to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the land area you incorrectly believe to be the "country of Pal'istan" was controlled by the Ottoman's, not your invented Pal'istanians in your invented country of Pal'istan".
> 
> The land area was later ceded to the Brits. Your invented Pal'istanians in your invented "country of Pal'istan" never owned the land. As we know from the Ottoman land records, foreigners actually owned much of the land area of your imagined "country of Pal'istan"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the forward to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UN Resolution A/363 which examined the land registry data contained in the Survey and elsewhere clarified that the Arab population only owned 85% of the land.  Extrapolating from the Survey table it can be determined that 9% of the land was owned by non-Jews that did not make up part of the Arab population of Palestine. This fact is difficult to accept after decades of brainwashing, but that is the fact.  In any event, what incentive would the drafters of the partition resolution, who were promoters that were driven to establish a Jewish state, have had to understate Jewish ownership of land or overstate the Arab population's ownership? It boggles the mind how you people try to dodge the facts.
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."
> 
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3
Click to expand...

You're subjective re-writing of the historical data is not necessary when we have the Ottoman land records. 

The Ottoman land records refute your re-writing of the facts.


----------



## montelatici

Verbatim text from the A/364 Resolution and the Survey is not subjective, it is objective fact.

The Ottoman land records refute nothing.  How could they, the Ottomans were long gone when the Jews began buying land in earnest in Palestine.  

In any case, Turkish (post-Ottoman) land registry data was used to baseline land ownership up to 1917, when the British conquered Palestine.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Verbatim text from the A/364 Resolution and the Survey is not subjective, it is objective fact.
> 
> The Ottoman land records refute nothing.  How could they, the Ottomans were long gone when the Jews began buying land in earnest in Palestine.
> 
> In any case, Turkish (post-Ottoman) land registry data was used to baseline land ownership up to 1917, when the British conquered Palestine.


Actually, the Ottoman Iand records refute your article. We know that foreign absentee Iand owners controlled large portions of your invented "country of Pal'istan" and that much of the land area was kept as an islamo-waqf. 

You need to find some new articles to cut and paste.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Verbatim text from the A/364 Resolution and the Survey is not subjective, it is objective fact.
> 
> The Ottoman land records refute nothing.  How could they, the Ottomans were long gone when the Jews began buying land in earnest in Palestine.
> 
> In any case, Turkish (post-Ottoman) land registry data was used to baseline land ownership up to 1917, when the British conquered Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Ottoman Iand records refute your article. We know that foreign absentee Iand owners controlled large portions of your invented "country of Pal'istan" and that much of the land area was kept as an islamo-waqf.
> 
> You need to find some new articles to cut and paste.
Click to expand...


The Ottoman records confirm that prior to 1917 more than at least 90% of the land in Palestine was owned by the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine. This was the baseline used to prepare the Survey and Resolution A/364 which confirm the fact.

In any case, the Ottoman records would have no data post 1917, how could the Ottoman records refute Resolution A/364 of 1947 or the Survey completed in 1946?    The definitive statement of the resolution is below:

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Verbatim text from the A/364 Resolution and the Survey is not subjective, it is objective fact.
> 
> The Ottoman land records refute nothing.  How could they, the Ottomans were long gone when the Jews began buying land in earnest in Palestine.
> 
> In any case, Turkish (post-Ottoman) land registry data was used to baseline land ownership up to 1917, when the British conquered Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Ottoman Iand records refute your article. We know that foreign absentee Iand owners controlled large portions of your invented "country of Pal'istan" and that much of the land area was kept as an islamo-waqf.
> 
> You need to find some new articles to cut and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ottoman records confirm that prior to 1917 more than at least 90% of the land in Palestine was owned by the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine. This was the baseline used to prepare the Survey and Resolution A/364 which confirm the fact.
> 
> In any case, the Ottoman records would have no data post 1917, how could the Ottoman records refute Resolution A/364 of 1947 or the Survey completed in 1946?    The definitive statement of the resolution is below:
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
Click to expand...

As we know, the Ottoman's were the entity that controlled your invented "country of Pal'istan'. We know from their records that foreigners from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon owned large tracts of land. We also know from the Ottoman records that the Ottoman's kept majority land areas as an islamist waqf.

I'm afraid you're just uninformed.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Verbatim text from the A/364 Resolution and the Survey is not subjective, it is objective fact.
> 
> The Ottoman land records refute nothing.  How could they, the Ottomans were long gone when the Jews began buying land in earnest in Palestine.
> 
> In any case, Turkish (post-Ottoman) land registry data was used to baseline land ownership up to 1917, when the British conquered Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Ottoman Iand records refute your article. We know that foreign absentee Iand owners controlled large portions of your invented "country of Pal'istan" and that much of the land area was kept as an islamo-waqf.
> 
> You need to find some new articles to cut and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ottoman records confirm that prior to 1917 more than at least 90% of the land in Palestine was owned by the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine. This was the baseline used to prepare the Survey and Resolution A/364 which confirm the fact.
> 
> In any case, the Ottoman records would have no data post 1917, how could the Ottoman records refute Resolution A/364 of 1947 or the Survey completed in 1946?    The definitive statement of the resolution is below:
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As we know, the Ottoman's were the entity that controlled your invented "country of Pal'istan'. We know from their records that foreigners from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon owned large tracts of land. We also know from the Ottoman records that the Ottoman's kept majority land areas as an islamist waqf.
> 
> I'm afraid you're just uninformed.
Click to expand...


Just making things up doesn't make them true.  You know nothing from the Ottoman records that conflict with the British adoption of said records for the baseline of the British land registry for Palestine. The UN clearly stated the amount of land owned by the Arab population of Palestine in 1947 via resolution A/364.

If you have a source documents that conflict with the UN's reading of the Ottoman land records which the UN based their determination on, I suggest you contact  the UN so that they may correct the error. If you don't have the source documentation, then shut up and accept the facts, as per A/364 para 164 below:

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."

A/364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Verbatim text from the A/364 Resolution and the Survey is not subjective, it is objective fact.
> 
> The Ottoman land records refute nothing.  How could they, the Ottomans were long gone when the Jews began buying land in earnest in Palestine.
> 
> In any case, Turkish (post-Ottoman) land registry data was used to baseline land ownership up to 1917, when the British conquered Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Ottoman Iand records refute your article. We know that foreign absentee Iand owners controlled large portions of your invented "country of Pal'istan" and that much of the land area was kept as an islamo-waqf.
> 
> You need to find some new articles to cut and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ottoman records confirm that prior to 1917 more than at least 90% of the land in Palestine was owned by the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine. This was the baseline used to prepare the Survey and Resolution A/364 which confirm the fact.
> 
> In any case, the Ottoman records would have no data post 1917, how could the Ottoman records refute Resolution A/364 of 1947 or the Survey completed in 1946?    The definitive statement of the resolution is below:
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As we know, the Ottoman's were the entity that controlled your invented "country of Pal'istan'. We know from their records that foreigners from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon owned large tracts of land. We also know from the Ottoman records that the Ottoman's kept majority land areas as an islamist waqf.
> 
> I'm afraid you're just uninformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just making things up doesn't make them true.  You know nothing from the Ottoman records that conflict with the British adoption of said records for the baseline of the British land registry for Palestine. The UN clearly stated the amount of land owned by the Arab population of Palestine in 1947 via resolution A/364.
> 
> If you have a source documents that conflict with the UN's reading of the Ottoman land records which the UN based their determination on, I suggest you contact  the UN so that they may correct the error. If you don't have the source documentation, then shut up and accept the facts, as per A/364 para 164 below:
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
Click to expand...

You're getting quite frantic over issues you're befuddled about. We know from the official Ottoman land records that foreigners owned large tracts of land and that the Ottoman's controlled a majority of your invented "country of Pal'istan" an an islamist waqf.

I understand your feelings are hurt because your frantic cutting and pasting was a waste of time.


----------



## Shusha

Oh monte, it is a fruitless hope that you will actually READ the documents from which you quote and which are the source materials from the documents you quote.  

Survey of Palestine, Volume 1, page 257 and 258:

_80.  A considerable area of land is purchased or acquired by Government.  This, of course, becomes *private property of the Government*, although some, such as roads and irrigation channels is devoted to use by the community.  

81. The account given above describes the various divisions of of legal tenure in which *public lands are controlled by the State*.  Land which ... is found to *belong to the State* is registered ... in trust for the Government of Palestine.  

82.  The Royal Commission of 1937 found that a really final and reliable statement of the Government domains and waste lands would not be possible until the operations of the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance was concluded over the whole country.  *Some 12, 577 sq kms lie in the deserts of Beersheba.  It is possible that there might be private claims to over 2000 sq kms which are cultivated from time to time. *_ _*The remainder might be considered mewat or empty miri.* *None of it has come under the operation of the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance*.  Excluding Beersheba, the remaining land of Palestine is 13, 743 sq kms.  Some 3000 of this is represented by the *tract of mountainous wilderness east of Hebron, Jerusalem and Nablus*.  When this comes under settlement of title, *a large part of it will doubtless be found to be empty State land.*  In the remaining 10, 743 sq kms ... more than 7000 are cultivated and may be assumed to contain a preponderance of private property, some will no doubt to be found to be part of village land.  In addition to the area of 660 sq km settled as State Domain of Palestine, there is an area of 900 sq kms in respect of which there are certain records indicating that *this is probably Government property.*  When the settlement of rights is complete* there is no doubt that the figure 1560 sq kms (ie 660 plus 900) will be considerably increased*..._

Let's do some math, shall we?

12577 less 2000 of possible private ownership because it is sometimes cultivated = 10577 sq kms of State Land
13743 less 10743 = 3000 more sq kms of State Land
10743 less 7000 of cultivation (estimated) = 3000 more sq kms of State Land

Which gives us a total of 16,577 sq kms of Land which is not cultivated and is either dead land (mewat) or empty land (miri) and is most certainly not under any private ownership, let alone private ownership of residents of Palestine.  Which is roughly 63% of the total sq kms of "Palestine".


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The UN clearly stated the amount of land owned by the Arab population of Palestine in 1947 via resolution A/364.



Yeah, well the UN states that Jewish self-determination is racist and that the Holy Places in Jerusalem are exclusively Muslim.  Doesn't make it true. 

And the document you've been quoting from (A364) is a report to the UNGA, not a resolution.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Sometimes you guys really -- crack me up.



montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Verbatim text from the A/364 Resolution and the Survey is not subjective, it is objective fact.
> 
> The Ottoman land records refute nothing.  How could they, the Ottomans were long gone when the Jews began buying land in earnest in Palestine.
> 
> In any case, Turkish (post-Ottoman) land registry data was used to baseline land ownership up to 1917, when the British conquered Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Ottoman Iand records refute your article. We know that foreign absentee Iand owners controlled large portions of your invented "country of Pal'istan" and that much of the land area was kept as an islamo-waqf.
> 
> You need to find some new articles to cut and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ottoman records confirm that prior to 1917 more than at least 90% of the land in Palestine was owned by the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine. This was the baseline used to prepare the Survey and Resolution A/364 which confirm the fact.
> 
> In any case, the Ottoman records would have no data post 1917, how could the Ottoman records refute Resolution A/364 of 1947 or the Survey completed in 1946?    The definitive statement of the resolution is below:
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

If you examine A/364, You will discover that the document you are using as evidence, is one of the documents and feeder reports that the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) used as the "recommendation" that was ultimately adopted as A/RES/181(II) (Sometimes called the Partition Plan).

*Three Passages worth considering:*

*Passage #1:*

"We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words "the establishment in Palestine of the National Home' were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State. It could only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews, whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State."​
*Passage #2:*

"This definition of the National Home has sometimes been taken to preclude the establishment of a Jewish State. But, though the phraseology was clearly intended to conciliate, as far as might be, Arab antagonism to the National Home, there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended."​
*Passage #3:*

"The right of any community to use force as a means of gaining its political ends is not admitted in the British Commonwealth. Since the beginning of 1945 the Jews have implicitly claimed this right and have supported by an organized campaign of lawlessness, murder and sabotage their contention that, whatever other interests might be concerned, nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of a Jewish State and free Jewish immigration into Palestine. It is true that large numbers of Jews do not today attempt to defend the crimes that have been committed in the name of these political aspirations. They recognize the damage caused' to their good name by these methods in the court of world opinion.  Nevertheless, the Jewish community of Palestine still publicly refuses its help to the Administration in suppressing terrorism, on the ground that the Administration's policy is opposed to Jewish interests. The converse of this attitude is clear, and its result, however much the Jewish leaders themselves may not wish it, has been to give active encouragement to the dissidents and freer scope to their activities."​
Without regard to what those of us in the discussion group may think, what we should take into account is what the decision makers at the time thought.  Passage #3 has within it, many of the issues that we speak of today.  And there were voices with opinoins all around the compass.  And I imagine, Israel --- being outspoken as it is, still has commentary and opinions all around the compass.  Having said that, I do not think that there are many (not many at all) that wish to live under a regime anywhere resembling that of either HAMAS or the PLO (whichever faction you chose.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Oh monte, it is a fruitless hope that you will actually READ the documents from which you quote and which are the source materials from the documents you quote.
> 
> Survey of Palestine, Volume 1, page 257 and 258:
> 
> _80.  A considerable area of land is purchased or acquired by Government.  This, of course, becomes *private property of the Government*, although some, such as roads and irrigation channels is devoted to use by the community.
> 
> 81. The account given above describes the various divisions of of legal tenure in which *public lands are controlled by the State*.  Land which ... is found to *belong to the State* is registered ... in trust for the Government of Palestine.
> 
> 82.  The Royal Commission of 1937 found that a really final and reliable statement of the Government domains and waste lands would not be possible until the operations of the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance was concluded over the whole country.  *Some 12, 577 sq kms lie in the deserts of Beersheba.  It is possible that there might be private claims to over 2000 sq kms which are cultivated from time to time. *_ _*The remainder might be considered mewat or empty miri.* *None of it has come under the operation of the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance*.  Excluding Beersheba, the remaining land of Palestine is 13, 743 sq kms.  Some 3000 of this is represented by the *tract of mountainous wilderness east of Hebron, Jerusalem and Nablus*.  When this comes under settlement of title, *a large part of it will doubtless be found to be empty State land.*  In the remaining 10, 743 sq kms ... more than 7000 are cultivated and may be assumed to contain a preponderance of private property, some will no doubt to be found to be part of village land.  In addition to the area of 660 sq km settled as State Domain of Palestine, there is an area of 900 sq kms in respect of which there are certain records indicating that *this is probably Government property.*  When the settlement of rights is complete* there is no doubt that the figure 1560 sq kms (ie 660 plus 900) will be considerably increased*..._
> 
> Let's do some math, shall we?
> 
> 12577 less 2000 of possible private ownership because it is sometimes cultivated = 10577 sq kms of State Land
> 13743 less 10743 = 3000 more sq kms of State Land
> 10743 less 7000 of cultivation (estimated) = 3000 more sq kms of State Land
> 
> Which gives us a total of 16,577 sq kms of Land which is not cultivated and is either dead land (mewat) or empty land (miri) and is most certainly not under any private ownership, let alone private ownership of residents of Palestine.  Which is roughly 63% of the total sq kms of "Palestine".



Why do you assume that mewat or miri was "certainly not" under any private control?

The public lands were calculated and they do not represent a large percentage of the land, see below. You keep looking for a way to claim that the Anglo-American Commission and the UN, prior to partitioning Palestine, did not calculate land ownership as accurately as possible. Why do you think that the pre-partition UN resolution would state plainly that the 85% of the land was owned by the Arab population?


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Why do you assume that mewat or miri was "certainly not" under any private control?



Well, I don't actually assume it, but its mostly because the primary source document of the Survey says that of the 12577 sq kms only 2000 might have private claims, leaving the other 10577 to be not-private claims but mewat and miri, which, by definition, mean, um, not privately-owned land.  

Why do you try to conflate mewat and miri as privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh monte, it is a fruitless hope that you will actually READ the documents from which you quote and which are the source materials from the documents you quote.
> 
> Survey of Palestine, Volume 1, page 257 and 258:
> 
> _80.  A considerable area of land is purchased or acquired by Government.  This, of course, becomes *private property of the Government*, although some, such as roads and irrigation channels is devoted to use by the community.
> 
> 81. The account given above describes the various divisions of of legal tenure in which *public lands are controlled by the State*.  Land which ... is found to *belong to the State* is registered ... in trust for the Government of Palestine.
> 
> 82.  The Royal Commission of 1937 found that a really final and reliable statement of the Government domains and waste lands would not be possible until the operations of the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance was concluded over the whole country.  *Some 12, 577 sq kms lie in the deserts of Beersheba.  It is possible that there might be private claims to over 2000 sq kms which are cultivated from time to time. *_ _*The remainder might be considered mewat or empty miri.* *None of it has come under the operation of the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance*.  Excluding Beersheba, the remaining land of Palestine is 13, 743 sq kms.  Some 3000 of this is represented by the *tract of mountainous wilderness east of Hebron, Jerusalem and Nablus*.  When this comes under settlement of title, *a large part of it will doubtless be found to be empty State land.*  In the remaining 10, 743 sq kms ... more than 7000 are cultivated and may be assumed to contain a preponderance of private property, some will no doubt to be found to be part of village land.  In addition to the area of 660 sq km settled as State Domain of Palestine, there is an area of 900 sq kms in respect of which there are certain records indicating that *this is probably Government property.*  When the settlement of rights is complete* there is no doubt that the figure 1560 sq kms (ie 660 plus 900) will be considerably increased*..._
> 
> Let's do some math, shall we?
> 
> 12577 less 2000 of possible private ownership because it is sometimes cultivated = 10577 sq kms of State Land
> 13743 less 10743 = 3000 more sq kms of State Land
> 10743 less 7000 of cultivation (estimated) = 3000 more sq kms of State Land
> 
> Which gives us a total of 16,577 sq kms of Land which is not cultivated and is either dead land (mewat) or empty land (miri) and is most certainly not under any private ownership, let alone private ownership of residents of Palestine.  Which is roughly 63% of the total sq kms of "Palestine".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that mewat or miri was "certainly not" under any private control?
> 
> The public lands were calculated and they do not represent a large percentage of the land, see below. You keep looking for a way to claim that the Anglo-American Commission and the UN, prior to partitioning Palestine, did not calculate land ownership as accurately as possible. Why do you think that the pre-partition UN resolution would state plainly that the 85% of the land was owned by the Arab population?
> 
> View attachment 102229
Click to expand...

Your own document shows that public lands actually are a large percentage of land, just as the Ottoman land records identified.

Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh monte, it is a fruitless hope that you will actually READ the documents from which you quote and which are the source materials from the documents you quote.
> 
> Survey of Palestine, Volume 1, page 257 and 258:
> 
> _80.  A considerable area of land is purchased or acquired by Government.  This, of course, becomes *private property of the Government*, although some, such as roads and irrigation channels is devoted to use by the community.
> 
> 81. The account given above describes the various divisions of of legal tenure in which *public lands are controlled by the State*.  Land which ... is found to *belong to the State* is registered ... in trust for the Government of Palestine.
> 
> 82.  The Royal Commission of 1937 found that a really final and reliable statement of the Government domains and waste lands would not be possible until the operations of the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance was concluded over the whole country.  *Some 12, 577 sq kms lie in the deserts of Beersheba.  It is possible that there might be private claims to over 2000 sq kms which are cultivated from time to time. *_ _*The remainder might be considered mewat or empty miri.* *None of it has come under the operation of the Land (Settlement of Title) Ordinance*.  Excluding Beersheba, the remaining land of Palestine is 13, 743 sq kms.  Some 3000 of this is represented by the *tract of mountainous wilderness east of Hebron, Jerusalem and Nablus*.  When this comes under settlement of title, *a large part of it will doubtless be found to be empty State land.*  In the remaining 10, 743 sq kms ... more than 7000 are cultivated and may be assumed to contain a preponderance of private property, some will no doubt to be found to be part of village land.  In addition to the area of 660 sq km settled as State Domain of Palestine, there is an area of 900 sq kms in respect of which there are certain records indicating that *this is probably Government property.*  When the settlement of rights is complete* there is no doubt that the figure 1560 sq kms (ie 660 plus 900) will be considerably increased*..._
> 
> Let's do some math, shall we?
> 
> 12577 less 2000 of possible private ownership because it is sometimes cultivated = 10577 sq kms of State Land
> 13743 less 10743 = 3000 more sq kms of State Land
> 10743 less 7000 of cultivation (estimated) = 3000 more sq kms of State Land
> 
> Which gives us a total of 16,577 sq kms of Land which is not cultivated and is either dead land (mewat) or empty land (miri) and is most certainly not under any private ownership, let alone private ownership of residents of Palestine.  Which is roughly 63% of the total sq kms of "Palestine".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that mewat or miri was "certainly not" under any private control?
> 
> The public lands were calculated and they do not represent a large percentage of the land, see below. You keep looking for a way to claim that the Anglo-American Commission and the UN, prior to partitioning Palestine, did not calculate land ownership as accurately as possible. Why do you think that the pre-partition UN resolution would state plainly that the 85% of the land was owned by the Arab population?
> 
> View attachment 102229
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your own document shows that public lands actually are a large percentage of land, just as the Ottoman land records identified.
> 
> Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
Click to expand...


The public land breakdown shows a little less than 1,000 dunams of public land, the total land in table 1. was over 26,000.  Your math is a little lacking.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that mewat or miri was "certainly not" under any private control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't actually assume it, but its mostly because the primary source document of the Survey says that of the 12577 sq kms only 2000 might have private claims, leaving the other 10577 to be not-private claims but mewat and miri, which, by definition, mean, um, not privately-owned land.
> 
> Why do you try to conflate mewat and miri as privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine?
Click to expand...


The breakdown shows less than 1,000 dunams of public land out of the 26,000 total from table 1.  I still don't understand why you are trying to deny the facts.  What incentive would there have been for the UN to say that the Arab population still owned 85% of the land pre-partition?  Amazing how the cognizant dissonance affects you. LOL


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that mewat or miri was "certainly not" under any private control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't actually assume it, but its mostly because the primary source document of the Survey says that of the 12577 sq kms only 2000 might have private claims, leaving the other 10577 to be not-private claims but mewat and miri, which, by definition, mean, um, not privately-owned land.
> 
> Why do you try to conflate mewat and miri as privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The breakdown shows less than 1,000 dunams of public land out of the 26,000 total from table 1.  I still don't understand why you are trying to deny the facts.  What incentive would there have been for the UN to say that the Arab population still owned 85% of the land pre-partition?  Amazing how the cognizant dissonance affects you. LOL
Click to expand...

You seem to be suffering from cognitive dissonance as opposed to the cognizant type. LOL.

Read the chart you fumbled. You fumbled the math.

At any rate, we know from the actual Ottoman records that your article is in error.


----------



## montelatici

Listen, this technique of yours to use big lies doesn't work. 1,000 is a lot less than 26,000.  That's just a fact.  Do you think your silly internet forum tricks fool anyone? I could post the two tables together.  One more stupid response and I will.


----------



## montelatici

montelatici said:


> Listen, this technique of yours to use big lies doesn't work. 1,000 is a lot less than 26,000.  That's just a fact.  Do you think your silly internet forum tricks fool anyone? I could post the two tables together.  One more stupid response and I will.



~26,000,000 versus 900,000


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Listen, this technique of yours to use big lies doesn't work. 1,000 is a lot less than 26,000.  That's just a fact.  Do you think your silly internet forum tricks fool anyone? I could post the two tables together.  One more stupid response and I will.


Stomping your feet now? 

That's so cute. However, there is still the cognizant dissonance issue of the Ottoman land records that refute your article.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, this technique of yours to use big lies doesn't work. 1,000 is a lot less than 26,000.  That's just a fact.  Do you think your silly internet forum tricks fool anyone? I could post the two tables together.  One more stupid response and I will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~26,000,000 versus 900,000
> 
> View attachment 102246View attachment 102245
> 
> View attachment 102245
Click to expand...

What's interesting is the Arabs and other non-Jews column. That's in concert with the what the Ottoman land records show, that large portions of your invented "country of Pal'istan" was owned by foreigners from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

Of course, you could always threaten to cut and the same article in a different order.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, this technique of yours to use big lies doesn't work. 1,000 is a lot less than 26,000.  That's just a fact.  Do you think your silly internet forum tricks fool anyone? I could post the two tables together.  One more stupid response and I will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~26,000,000 versus 900,000
> 
> View attachment 102246View attachment 102245
> 
> View attachment 102245
Click to expand...

You cut and pasted table 2 twice. "Cognizant dissonance"?


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, this technique of yours to use big lies doesn't work. 1,000 is a lot less than 26,000.  That's just a fact.  Do you think your silly internet forum tricks fool anyone? I could post the two tables together.  One more stupid response and I will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~26,000,000 versus 900,000
> 
> View attachment 102246View attachment 102245
> 
> View attachment 102245
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's interesting is the Arabs and other non-Jews column. That's in concert with the what the Ottoman land records show, that large portions of your invented "country of Pal'istan" was owned by foreigners from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Of course, you could always threaten to cut and the same article in a different order.
Click to expand...


You have no idea what the "Ottoman Records" show.  You are just making things up.  You just can't accept the truth.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, this technique of yours to use big lies doesn't work. 1,000 is a lot less than 26,000.  That's just a fact.  Do you think your silly internet forum tricks fool anyone? I could post the two tables together.  One more stupid response and I will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~26,000,000 versus 900,000
> 
> View attachment 102246View attachment 102245
> 
> View attachment 102245
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's interesting is the Arabs and other non-Jews column. That's in concert with the what the Ottoman land records show, that large portions of your invented "country of Pal'istan" was owned by foreigners from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Of course, you could always threaten to cut and the same article in a different order.
Click to expand...


What you don't seem to understand, is that you cut and paste articles.  I cut and paste text from official, source documents.  Like the text below, from para. 164 of the pre-partition UN resolution A/364. 


"164. *The Arab population*, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, *at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. *"

A/364 of 3 September 1947

Terrible when the facts don't match the myth you have believed for so long.


----------



## Shusha

Hollie said:


> What's interesting is the Arabs and other non-Jews column. That's in concert with the what the Ottoman land records show, that large portions of your invented "country of Pal'istan" was owned by foreigners from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.



Here's a list of specific families who owned large tracts of land and sold them to Jews, by nationality:


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The public land breakdown shows a little less than 1,000 dunams of public land, the total land in table 1. was over 26,000.  Your math is a little lacking.



My math is lacking?  You can't even keep dunums and sq kms straight.  The total land area of Palestine (sans Jordan) is 26,000 sq kms.  Roughly half of that is wilderness and desert. 

Village Statistics 1945 page 29

_"Land which has not been granted or assigned to anyone and is consequently unregistered and which is distant from cultivation or habitation is called mewat ie dead land.  The mewat lands are part of public domain.  When such lands are found to be free from any private rights, they are registered in the name of the Government."

_


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.









 How can you steal what is yours under international law ?


----------



## Shusha

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you steal what is yours under international law ?
Click to expand...



Sigh.  He's conflating private ownership of land with sovereignty again.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the foreword to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
Click to expand...







 You cant tell him anything, he has a degree in propaganda so knows everything there is to know about everything.  He started out posting two pages from that novel until it was pointed out they did not match and said different things. Then when the truth was produced about the committee and its holiday in Jerusalem he ignored it and claimed it was Jewish propaganda.He also ignores the fact that trans Jordan was included in many figures to pad them out, otherwise they looked as if "palestine" was an empty land.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the forward to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the land area you incorrectly believe to be the "country of Pal'istan" was controlled by the Ottoman's, not your invented Pal'istanians in your invented country of Pal'istan".
> 
> The land area was later ceded to the Brits. Your invented Pal'istanians in your invented "country of Pal'istan" never owned the land. As we know from the Ottoman land records, foreigners actually owned much of the land area of your imagined "country of Pal'istan"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the forward to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> UN Resolution A/363 which examined the land registry data contained in the Survey and elsewhere clarified that the Arab population only owned 85% of the land.  Extrapolating from the Survey table it can be determined that 9% of the land was owned by non-Jews that did not make up part of the Arab population of Palestine. This fact is difficult to accept after decades of brainwashing, but that is the fact.  In any event, what incentive would the drafters of the partition resolution, who were promoters that were driven to establish a Jewish state, have had to understate Jewish ownership of land or overstate the Arab population's ownership? It boggles the mind how you people try to dodge the facts.
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land."
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
Click to expand...








 WHY DO YOU LIE as un res a/363 did not examine the land registry data at all, it dealt with UNSCOP and its formation and its task of looking at the problems in palestine.

 Why do you manipulate everything you cut and paste, as in the above which continues with

  The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land.


And is preceded by

163. The Arabs of Palestine consider themselves as having a "natural" right to that country, *although they have not been in possession of it as a sovereign nation.*


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you steal what is yours under international law ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  He's conflating private ownership of land with sovereignty again.
Click to expand...








 He has a degree in stupidity so knows what he is talking about


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Verbatim text from the A/364 Resolution and the Survey is not subjective, it is objective fact.
> 
> The Ottoman land records refute nothing.  How could they, the Ottomans were long gone when the Jews began buying land in earnest in Palestine.
> 
> In any case, Turkish (post-Ottoman) land registry data was used to baseline land ownership up to 1917, when the British conquered Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the Ottoman Iand records refute your article. We know that foreign absentee Iand owners controlled large portions of your invented "country of Pal'istan" and that much of the land area was kept as an islamo-waqf.
> 
> You need to find some new articles to cut and paste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ottoman records confirm that prior to 1917 more than at least 90% of the land in Palestine was owned by the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine. This was the baseline used to prepare the Survey and Resolution A/364 which confirm the fact.
> 
> In any case, the Ottoman records would have no data post 1917, how could the Ottoman records refute Resolution A/364 of 1947 or the Survey completed in 1946?    The definitive statement of the resolution is below:
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."
> 
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3
Click to expand...







 SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, this technique of yours to use big lies doesn't work. 1,000 is a lot less than 26,000.  That's just a fact.  Do you think your silly internet forum tricks fool anyone? I could post the two tables together.  One more stupid response and I will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~26,000,000 versus 900,000
> 
> View attachment 102246View attachment 102245
> 
> View attachment 102245
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's interesting is the Arabs and other non-Jews column. That's in concert with the what the Ottoman land records show, that large portions of your invented "country of Pal'istan" was owned by foreigners from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Of course, you could always threaten to cut and the same article in a different order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you don't seem to understand, is that you cut and paste articles.  I cut and paste text from official, source documents.  Like the text below, from para. 164 of the pre-partition UN resolution A/364.
> 
> 
> "164. *The Arab population*, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, *at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. *"
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> Terrible when the facts don't match the myth you have believed for so long.
Click to expand...








 Which you have manipulated to meet your current POV. Why did you leave out half of the article that shows you to be a LIAR. And since when has possession meant owned. If I steal your car I am in possession of it, but I dont own it do I


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the foreword to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant tell him anything, he has a degree in propaganda so knows everything there is to know about everything.  He started out posting two pages from that novel until it was pointed out they did not match and said different things. Then when the truth was produced about the committee and its holiday in Jerusalem he ignored it and claimed it was Jewish propaganda.He also ignores the fact that trans Jordan was included in many figures to pad them out, otherwise they looked as if "palestine" was an empty land.
Click to expand...


Most important we should be careful not to piss him off with documented facts.  Where would we go for fun & laughs if he leaves us?


----------



## montelatici

You are the only one confused.  The UN made it clear who owned the land.  Why would the UN make such a claim in the pre-partition resolution?  When they stated clearly in Resolution A/364 that:

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "

Do you think it was a typo?  LOL


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the foreword to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant tell him anything, he has a degree in propaganda so knows everything there is to know about everything.  He started out posting two pages from that novel until it was pointed out they did not match and said different things. Then when the truth was produced about the committee and its holiday in Jerusalem he ignored it and claimed it was Jewish propaganda.He also ignores the fact that trans Jordan was included in many figures to pad them out, otherwise they looked as if "palestine" was an empty land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most important we should be careful not to piss him off with documented facts.  Where would we go for fun & laughs if he leaves us?
Click to expand...


You have no documented facts, moron.  You only have bad propaganda that attempts to justify the Jewish land grab.

"164. *The Arab population*, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately *85 per cent of the land.* 

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> You are the only one confused.  The UN made it clear who owned the land.  Why would the UN make such a claim in the pre-partition resolution?  When they stated clearly in Resolution A/364 that:
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "
> 
> Do you think it was a typo?  LOL


Although, as we know, the facts prove you wrong.

Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority

Even before 1917, Jewish and Zionist institutions had purchased large tracts of land in Palestine from absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon. These landlords had previously leased their property to local farmers, but were happy to sell it for the right price, without giving a thought to their tenant farmers. Nevertheless, Palestinians view these sales as more legitimate than those that took place during the British occupation that began in 1917.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the foreword to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant tell him anything, he has a degree in propaganda so knows everything there is to know about everything.  He started out posting two pages from that novel until it was pointed out they did not match and said different things. Then when the truth was produced about the committee and its holiday in Jerusalem he ignored it and claimed it was Jewish propaganda.He also ignores the fact that trans Jordan was included in many figures to pad them out, otherwise they looked as if "palestine" was an empty land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most important we should be careful not to piss him off with documented facts.  Where would we go for fun & laughs if he leaves us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no documented facts, moron.  You only have bad propaganda that attempts to justify the Jewish land grab.
> 
> "164. *The Arab population*, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately *85 per cent of the land.*
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
Click to expand...



Now now Monte.  No need to get so pissed off.  Try a course in anger management?  'Atta boy!


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> You are the only one confused.  The UN made it clear who owned the land.  Why would the UN make such a claim in the pre-partition resolution?  When they stated clearly in Resolution A/364 that:
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "
> 
> Do you think it was a typo?  LOL



Not a typo.  It was taken from a report which assigned all land not under direct private Jewish ownership to "Arabs".  And you are using it, incorrectly and disingenuously as legally or morally relevant and somehow legally or morally binding.  

Again, even if 85% of the land was privately owned by resident Arab Palestinians (completely and totally false), it still means absolutely nothing with respect to sovereignty.  The ethnicity the person in private ownership of a parcel of land does not affect sovereignty.  The fact that there are whole neighborhoods of people of a specific ethnicity (think Little Italy or Chinatown) own private property does not make these neighborhoods the sovereign territory of Italy or China.  

I am seriously at a loss as to why you continue to bring this subject up.  Its meaningless drivel.


----------



## montelatici

You are making things up.  The drafters of the resolution had no reason to specify the fact that the Arab population owned 85% of the land if it were not the case. You are just trying to rewrite history.  The usual Zionist attempt at justifying the theft of land. It is becoming ridiculous to argue with people that make up fairy tales when the facts are available in black and white. 


"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "

There is no qualification, no reservation or caveat in that statement.  Your prevarication is just a lie, you are trying to skirt the truth with bullshit.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> You are making things up.



I am making things up?!  So, Chinatown is under the sovereignty of China?  Is that really what you are asserting?


----------



## Shusha

My posts #1582 and 1583 show, in black and white, that not all land in Palestine was privately owned by Arab residents.  You are just wrong.  Shockingly, outer space worthy wrong.


----------



## montelatici

Your posts demonstrate nothing of the sort.  The UN statement regarding land ownership clearly states that the Arab population owned 85% of the land prior to partition. What part of 85% do you not understand.  I guess if it makes you feel better to believe the UN was making it up, then bully for you.


----------



## Shusha

I'm not saying that they were making it up.  I'm saying you are conflating private ownership of Arab residents with other things.  

Canada is in possession of 100% of her land is NOT the same thing as saying 100% of land in Canada is privately owned by people who are residents of Canada.  There are vast tracts of wilderness in Canada.  Its State land (we call it Crown land).  Its not privately owned by individual Canadians.  

Why is this so hard to understand?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> You are making things up.  The drafters of the resolution had no reason to specify the fact that the Arab population owned 85% of the land if it were not the case. You are just trying to rewrite history.  The usual Zionist attempt at justifying the theft of land. It is becoming ridiculous to argue with people that make up fairy tales when the facts are available in black and white.
> 
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "
> 
> There is no qualification, no reservation or caveat in that statement.  Your prevarication is just a lie, you are trying to skirt the truth with bullshit.



You comment depicts a fundamental ignorance of the facts


Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority

Even before 1917, Jewish and Zionist institutions had purchased large tracts of land in Palestine from absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon. These landlords had previously leased their property to local farmers, but were happy to sell it for the right price, without giving a thought to their tenant farmers. Nevertheless, Palestinians view these sales as more legitimate than those that took place during the British occupation that began in 1917.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> I'm not saying that they were making it up.  I'm saying you are conflating private ownership of Arab residents with other things.
> 
> Canada is in possession of 100% of her land is NOT the same thing as saying 100% of land in Canada is privately owned by people who are residents of Canada.  There are vast tracts of wilderness in Canada.  Its State land (we call it Crown land).  Its not privately owned by individual Canadians.
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?



Why is it so difficult to understand that when the UN stated that the Arab population owned 85% of the land, they meant that the Arab population owned 98% of the land.  Now if you want to go into the difference between monarchies where the royal family (the crown) owns land that isn't privately owned, and other forms of government in which land that is not publicly owned is owned by the inhabitants/citizens, then that's another discussion.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that they were making it up.  I'm saying you are conflating private ownership of Arab residents with other things.
> 
> Canada is in possession of 100% of her land is NOT the same thing as saying 100% of land in Canada is privately owned by people who are residents of Canada.  There are vast tracts of wilderness in Canada.  Its State land (we call it Crown land).  Its not privately owned by individual Canadians.
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so difficult to understand that when the UN stated that the Arab population owned 85% of the land, they meant that the Arab population owned 98% of the land.  Now if you want to go into the difference between monarchies where the royal family (the crown) owns land that isn't privately owned, and other forms of government in which land that is not publicly owned is owned by the inhabitants/citizens, then that's another discussion.
Click to expand...


That's exactly the discussion you're not able to understand. 

Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority

Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land. Some of this land was later sold or transferred to pre-state Jewish institutions. Other portions belonged to the Muslim waqf (religious trust), and these, according to Islamic law, cannot be sold. However, there was no orderly registration process; ownership was determined primarily using records such as tax payments.



So, as you should be able to -finally - understand, your false representation regarding land ownership is so determined.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that they were making it up.  I'm saying you are conflating private ownership of Arab residents with other things.
> 
> Canada is in possession of 100% of her land is NOT the same thing as saying 100% of land in Canada is privately owned by people who are residents of Canada.  There are vast tracts of wilderness in Canada.  Its State land (we call it Crown land).  Its not privately owned by individual Canadians.
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so difficult to understand that when the UN stated that the Arab population owned 85% of the land, they meant that the Arab population owned 98% of the land.  Now if you want to go into the difference between monarchies where the royal family (the crown) owns land that isn't privately owned, and other forms of government in which land that is not publicly owned is owned by the inhabitants/citizens, then that's another discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the discussion you're not able to understand.
> 
> Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land. Some of this land was later sold or transferred to pre-state Jewish institutions. Other portions belonged to the Muslim waqf (religious trust), and these, according to Islamic law, cannot be sold. However, there was no orderly registration process; ownership was determined primarily using records such as tax payments.
> 
> 
> 
> So, as you should be able to -finally - understand, your false representation regarding land ownership is so determined.
Click to expand...


There is nothing false about the UN's representation of land ownership.  It is fact.  And. the news article you quote does not say anything different from the official UN statement.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that they were making it up.  I'm saying you are conflating private ownership of Arab residents with other things.
> 
> Canada is in possession of 100% of her land is NOT the same thing as saying 100% of land in Canada is privately owned by people who are residents of Canada.  There are vast tracts of wilderness in Canada.  Its State land (we call it Crown land).  Its not privately owned by individual Canadians.
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so difficult to understand that when the UN stated that the Arab population owned 85% of the land, they meant that the Arab population owned 98% of the land.  Now if you want to go into the difference between monarchies where the royal family (the crown) owns land that isn't privately owned, and other forms of government in which land that is not publicly owned is owned by the inhabitants/citizens, then that's another discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the discussion you're not able to understand.
> 
> Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land. Some of this land was later sold or transferred to pre-state Jewish institutions. Other portions belonged to the Muslim waqf (religious trust), and these, according to Islamic law, cannot be sold. However, there was no orderly registration process; ownership was determined primarily using records such as tax payments.
> 
> 
> 
> So, as you should be able to -finally - understand, your false representation regarding land ownership is so determined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing false about the UN's representation of land ownership.  It is fact.  And. the news article you quote does not say anything different from the official UN statement.
Click to expand...


Actually, the UN article is both false and non-factual.

"Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land"

You're having difficulty understanding so I'll lend an assist. Read the quoted text above. Read it again. 

Anything?


----------



## Hossfly

Shusha said:


> I'm not saying that they were making it up.  I'm saying you are conflating private ownership of Arab residents with other things.
> 
> Canada is in possession of 100% of her land is NOT the same thing as saying 100% of land in Canada is privately owned by people who are residents of Canada.  There are vast tracts of wilderness in Canada.  Its State land (we call it Crown land).  Its not privately owned by individual Canadians.
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?


We have something similar to that here.  It is called the Bureau of Land Management, and they administer thousands and thousands of acres of public lands for our government.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that they were making it up.  I'm saying you are conflating private ownership of Arab residents with other things.
> 
> Canada is in possession of 100% of her land is NOT the same thing as saying 100% of land in Canada is privately owned by people who are residents of Canada.  There are vast tracts of wilderness in Canada.  Its State land (we call it Crown land).  Its not privately owned by individual Canadians.
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so difficult to understand that when the UN stated that the Arab population owned 85% of the land, they meant that the Arab population owned 98% of the land.  Now if you want to go into the difference between monarchies where the royal family (the crown) owns land that isn't privately owned, and other forms of government in which land that is not publicly owned is owned by the inhabitants/citizens, then that's another discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the discussion you're not able to understand.
> 
> Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land. Some of this land was later sold or transferred to pre-state Jewish institutions. Other portions belonged to the Muslim waqf (religious trust), and these, according to Islamic law, cannot be sold. However, there was no orderly registration process; ownership was determined primarily using records such as tax payments.
> 
> 
> 
> So, as you should be able to -finally - understand, your false representation regarding land ownership is so determined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing false about the UN's representation of land ownership.  It is fact.  And. the news article you quote does not say anything different from the official UN statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the UN article is both false and non-factual.
> 
> "Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land"
> 
> You're having difficulty understanding so I'll lend an assist. Read the quoted text above. Read it again.
> 
> Anything?
Click to expand...


You have difficulty in understanding that the Ottoman records, even if they were applicable, don't state anything of the sort.  You are just making things up as usual.  The UN stated the facts, as they had to do prior to partition.


----------



## Hossfly

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that they were making it up.  I'm saying you are conflating private ownership of Arab residents with other things.
> 
> Canada is in possession of 100% of her land is NOT the same thing as saying 100% of land in Canada is privately owned by people who are residents of Canada.  There are vast tracts of wilderness in Canada.  Its State land (we call it Crown land).  Its not privately owned by individual Canadians.
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so difficult to understand that when the UN stated that the Arab population owned 85% of the land, they meant that the Arab population owned 98% of the land.  Now if you want to go into the difference between monarchies where the royal family (the crown) owns land that isn't privately owned, and other forms of government in which land that is not publicly owned is owned by the inhabitants/citizens, then that's another discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the discussion you're not able to understand.
> 
> Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land. Some of this land was later sold or transferred to pre-state Jewish institutions. Other portions belonged to the Muslim waqf (religious trust), and these, according to Islamic law, cannot be sold. However, there was no orderly registration process; ownership was determined primarily using records such as tax payments.
> 
> 
> 
> So, as you should be able to -finally - understand, your false representation regarding land ownership is so determined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing false about the UN's representation of land ownership.  It is fact.  And. the news article you quote does not say anything different from the official UN statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the UN article is both false and non-factual.
> 
> "Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land"
> 
> You're having difficulty understanding so I'll lend an assist. Read the quoted text above. Read it again.
> 
> Anything?
Click to expand...


I read an interesting article today.  I wonder if the author's wife's grandparents didn't see all these so-called Palestinians earlier in their lives, how in the world did these poor Arabs who came from impoverished countries all of a sudden become landowners?  They were probably what we call sharecroppers here.

'The grandparents of the author's wife were born in the Holy Land in the 19th century. They saw with their own eyes how empty the land was at the time. They also lived through and experienced first-hand the British conquest and the Arab immigration that followed. This immigration ended in 1948 with the evacuation of the British from the land and the declaration of the state of Israel. "

The Arabs in the Holy Land - Natives or Aliens?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> You are the only one confused.  The UN made it clear who owned the land.  Why would the UN make such a claim in the pre-partition resolution?  When they stated clearly in Resolution A/364 that:
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "
> 
> Do you think it was a typo?  LOL









Nope but you are wishing it was right now as possession is not the same as owned is it. I steal your car and I have possession of it, but I dont own it.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The land was owned by the Palestinian Arabs and stolen by the Jews, since they only owned 6% of the land before partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are beginning to sound like this:
> 
> View attachment 102179
> 
> 
> Posting the same table, over and over, which has already been shown not to say what you think it says isn't furthering your argument. Especially when the foreword to your table explains that the the column "Arabs and other non-Jews" includes everything not privately owned by Jews.  Its the total land area of "Palestine" minus the privately owned Jewish land.  Claiming that 16 million dunums of uncultivated and uncultivable land in the wilderness and desert is privately owned by Arab residents of Palestine is ridiculous. Claiming that there was virtually no state land is ridiculous.  Claiming that there were no foreign Arab owners of land is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant tell him anything, he has a degree in propaganda so knows everything there is to know about everything.  He started out posting two pages from that novel until it was pointed out they did not match and said different things. Then when the truth was produced about the committee and its holiday in Jerusalem he ignored it and claimed it was Jewish propaganda.He also ignores the fact that trans Jordan was included in many figures to pad them out, otherwise they looked as if "palestine" was an empty land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most important we should be careful not to piss him off with documented facts.  Where would we go for fun & laughs if he leaves us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no documented facts, moron.  You only have bad propaganda that attempts to justify the Jewish land grab.
> 
> "164. *The Arab population*, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately *85 per cent of the land.*
> 
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3
Click to expand...










 "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, *at present remains in possession *of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "




 Note the deliberate use of the word possession and not the word owned, seems that you are having problems comprehending English again. Or you are trying to manipulate the actual meaning of the article to meet with your POV.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one confused.  The UN made it clear who owned the land.  Why would the UN make such a claim in the pre-partition resolution?  When they stated clearly in Resolution A/364 that:
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "
> 
> Do you think it was a typo?  LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a typo.  It was taken from a report which assigned all land not under direct private Jewish ownership to "Arabs".  And you are using it, incorrectly and disingenuously as legally or morally relevant and somehow legally or morally binding.
> 
> Again, even if 85% of the land was privately owned by resident Arab Palestinians (completely and totally false), it still means absolutely nothing with respect to sovereignty.  The ethnicity the person in private ownership of a parcel of land does not affect sovereignty.  The fact that there are whole neighborhoods of people of a specific ethnicity (think Little Italy or Chinatown) own private property does not make these neighborhoods the sovereign territory of Italy or China.
> 
> I am seriously at a loss as to why you continue to bring this subject up.  Its meaningless drivel.
Click to expand...








 Because it is what he does until the other board members get sick of his spamming and then have him banned. Ask him about it and see what he says.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> You are making things up.  The drafters of the resolution had no reason to specify the fact that the Arab population owned 85% of the land if it were not the case. You are just trying to rewrite history.  The usual Zionist attempt at justifying the theft of land. It is becoming ridiculous to argue with people that make up fairy tales when the facts are available in black and white.
> 
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. "
> 
> There is no qualification, no reservation or caveat in that statement.  Your prevarication is just a lie, you are trying to skirt the truth with bullshit.









 But they didnt say that did they, they said they had possession of the land. If I entered your home while you were away through an open window and stayed there then I would be in possession of it. But I could never Own it as it is not mine.

 It is you that LIES all the time to support and justify your Jew hatred


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> I'm not saying that they were making it up.  I'm saying you are conflating private ownership of Arab residents with other things.
> 
> Canada is in possession of 100% of her land is NOT the same thing as saying 100% of land in Canada is privately owned by people who are residents of Canada.  There are vast tracts of wilderness in Canada.  Its State land (we call it Crown land).  Its not privately owned by individual Canadians.
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?







Because he thinks like a muslim in concepts of dar al harb and dar al islam


----------



## P F Tinmore

Is settler colonialism legitimate?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that they were making it up.  I'm saying you are conflating private ownership of Arab residents with other things.
> 
> Canada is in possession of 100% of her land is NOT the same thing as saying 100% of land in Canada is privately owned by people who are residents of Canada.  There are vast tracts of wilderness in Canada.  Its State land (we call it Crown land).  Its not privately owned by individual Canadians.
> 
> Why is this so hard to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so difficult to understand that when the UN stated that the Arab population owned 85% of the land, they meant that the Arab population owned 98% of the land.  Now if you want to go into the difference between monarchies where the royal family (the crown) owns land that isn't privately owned, and other forms of government in which land that is not publicly owned is owned by the inhabitants/citizens, then that's another discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly the discussion you're not able to understand.
> 
> Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land. Some of this land was later sold or transferred to pre-state Jewish institutions. Other portions belonged to the Muslim waqf (religious trust), and these, according to Islamic law, cannot be sold. However, there was no orderly registration process; ownership was determined primarily using records such as tax payments.
> 
> 
> 
> So, as you should be able to -finally - understand, your false representation regarding land ownership is so determined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing false about the UN's representation of land ownership.  It is fact.  And. the news article you quote does not say anything different from the official UN statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the UN article is both false and non-factual.
> 
> "Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land"
> 
> You're having difficulty understanding so I'll lend an assist. Read the quoted text above. Read it again.
> 
> Anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have difficulty in understanding that the Ottoman records, even if they were applicable, don't state anything of the sort.  You are just making things up as usual.  The UN stated the facts, as they had to do prior to partition.
Click to expand...

You have difficulty understanding the Ottoman land records because they refute your position. You are just inventing an argument because you have nothing to bolster your argument.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Is settler colonialism legitimate?








 You think it is when it is being done by arab muslims, as you claim they are the legal land owners without producing any proof,


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Is settler colonialism legitimate?



Had it not been for the Arab countries uniting to annihilate Israel there would have been no captured land to build settlements on.  Golly gee, do you think maybe the Arabs made a big mistake that harmed the Palestinians?


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is settler colonialism legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had it not been for the Arab countries uniting to annihilate Israel there would have been no captured land to build settlements on.  Golly gee, do you think maybe the Arabs made a big mistake that harmed the Palestinians?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Is settler colonialism legitimate?


Ask that question in the context of Islamism. You should learn your koranology and study Islamist history. That history is one of war, rapine, conquest and colonialism beginning after the death of Islam's inventor.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is settler colonialism legitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> Ask that question in the context of Islamism. You should learn your koranology and study Islamist history. That history is one of war, rapine, conquest and colonialism beginning after the death of Islam's inventor.
Click to expand...


True.  All Muslim countries are stolen countries conquered by force.  Case in point --- "It's Istanbul, not Constantinople."  And what happened to native Zoroastrians of Iran after Islamic rule?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Is settler colonialism legitimate?



I think you are asking the wrong question.  Settler migration happens.

The question is whether or not, and in what context, it should be prevented or undone.

For example, should all non-Jews be expected to leave Israel, Judea and Samaria?  Why or why not?  Or should all Jews be required to leave Europe and other places and return to their homeland in Israel?  Why or why not?


----------



## Shusha

Or wait.  My family moved to Canada from Wicklow, Ireland in the mid 1800s.  If settler migration is not legitimate does that mean I have to move back to Ireland?  I even know the exact farm and property that my ancestors (well, some of them) came from.  Does that mean I have to go back to that exact property?  Or can I just go back to any place in Ireland?

Or, wait....if I return to Ireland, does that mean I am a settler from Canada?  Am I creating a Canadian colony there?  Oh dear.  

This is most confusing.


----------



## montelatici

Did the people from Wicklow expel most of the native people and declare a state in which the people of Wicklow would rule over the native people they did not expel.?


----------



## fncceo

montelatici said:


> Did the people from Wicklow expel most of the native people and declare a state in which the people of Wicklow would rule over the native people they did not expel.?



No, and neither did Israel.  And to insinuate that they did is perfidious to the point of obscenity.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Or wait.  My family moved to Canada from Wicklow, Ireland in the mid 1800s.  If settler migration is not legitimate does that mean I have to move back to Ireland?  I even know the exact farm and property that my ancestors (well, some of them) came from.  Does that mean I have to go back to that exact property?  Or can I just go back to any place in Ireland?
> 
> Or, wait....if I return to Ireland, does that mean I am a settler from Canada?  Am I creating a Canadian colony there?  Oh dear.
> 
> This is most confusing.


Did they move to Canada to be Canadian?


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Did the people from Wicklow expel most of the native people and declare a state in which the people of Wicklow would rule over the native people they did not expel.?



You aren't making sense.  The "people from Wicklow" would be the native people, wouldn't they?  Or do you mean people from elsewhere invading Wicklow and expelling the native people?  Or people simply migrating from one place to another.  

If I was one of the natives, and I was expelled, would I be permitted to return?  What if I was one of the invaders, would I be permitted to return?  What if I was an invader originally, but lived there a really, really long time?  And then I was kicked out?  Would I be allowed to return?  If I return, am I a native?  Or an invader?  Or a colonist from Canada?  

Come on, Monte -- think this through.  What is your "rule" here.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Did they move to Canada to be Canadian?



One would assume.  Not sure that anyone knew what that meant at the time.  

But...your point is what?  What if people migrate in order to adopt the local culture it is fine, but if they want to override or supersede the local culture its problematic?  If yes, what should be done about it?  Should we somehow try to unbreak the eggs?  How do we choose which eggs to try to unbreak?  Give me some concrete, objective parameters here.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> What if people migrate in order to adopt the local culture it is fine, but if they want to override or supersede the local culture its problematic?


Good questions. That would depend on their intent.

If people go to Palestine to be Palestinians and live with the Palestinians that is one thing. If people go to Palestine to replace the Palestinians that is another.

The former would be immigrants. The latter would be invaders.


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> Or wait.  My family moved to Canada from Wicklow, Ireland in the mid 1800s.  If settler migration is not legitimate does that mean I have to move back to Ireland?  I even know the exact farm and property that my ancestors (well, some of them) came from.  Does that mean I have to go back to that exact property?  Or can I just go back to any place in Ireland?
> 
> Or, wait....if I return to Ireland, does that mean I am a settler from Canada?  Am I creating a Canadian colony there?  Oh dear.
> 
> This is most confusing.









 Am I glad that I can trace my ancestry back to the 11C in England and so be seen as truly indigenous


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> ... If people go to Palestine to replace the Palestinians that is another.



Define what you mean by "replace the Palestinians?"  Do you mean physically remove them (exile, ethnic cleansing), kill them or just replace their culture with your own?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Did the people from Wicklow expel most of the native people and declare a state in which the people of Wicklow would rule over the native people they did not expel.?









 You mean like the Romans did, then the Roman Catholics, arab muslims and then non arab muslims did to Israel ? Then claimed they were indigenous when they invaded yet again in the early 20C because the true land owners were returning home.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or wait.  My family moved to Canada from Wicklow, Ireland in the mid 1800s.  If settler migration is not legitimate does that mean I have to move back to Ireland?  I even know the exact farm and property that my ancestors (well, some of them) came from.  Does that mean I have to go back to that exact property?  Or can I just go back to any place in Ireland?
> 
> Or, wait....if I return to Ireland, does that mean I am a settler from Canada?  Am I creating a Canadian colony there?  Oh dear.
> 
> This is most confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> Did they move to Canada to be Canadian?
Click to expand...








 Did your ancestors move to America to be Mohican, Sioux, Najaho or Cherokee ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if people migrate in order to adopt the local culture it is fine, but if they want to override or supersede the local culture its problematic?
> 
> 
> 
> Good questions. That would depend on their intent.
> 
> If people go to Palestine to be Palestinians and live with the Palestinians that is one thing. If people go to Palestine to replace the Palestinians that is another.
> 
> The former would be immigrants. The latter would be invaders.
Click to expand...








 So the Jews were immigrants, and the arab muslims invaders using your criteria


----------



## fncceo

Phoenall said:


> Am I glad that I can trace my ancestry back to the 11C in England and so be seen as truly indigenous



Since the Norman Conquest occurred in 1066, there is a distinct possibility that your British ancestors were not, in fact, indigenous Saxons or Celts.


----------



## Phoenall

fncceo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I glad that I can trace my ancestry back to the 11C in England and so be seen as truly indigenous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Norman Conquest occurred in 1066, there is a distinct possibility that your British ancestors were not, in fact, indigenous Saxons or Celts.
Click to expand...







 It is also the time that records started to be kept, and I believe my ancestors were in this part of England before this time. Going on the names there is a possibility of them being from the tribe of Mycenae led by Boedecia


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... If people go to Palestine to replace the Palestinians that is another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define what you mean by "replace the Palestinians?"  Do you mean physically remove them (exile, ethnic cleansing), kill them or just replace their culture with your own?
Click to expand...

Yes.


----------



## aris2chat

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is a nice little jingle; but then there is the meaning and implication.  The Ant-Israeli Jingle states a premise for the backdrop to asked the compound questions:
> 
> *Backdrop:*
> 
> •  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "full of hate."
> •  The "Arabs won't recognized the Jewish State."
> •  The "Palestinians won't accept Jewish Rule on their Holy Ground."
> •  The neighboring "Arab don't accept their new neighbors" [Israel].
> •  Palestinians do not approve of Israel as a neighboring state.
> •  The Arabs and the Palestinians "do not respect" Israel.​*The Chorus Questions:*
> 
> •  "Where are " [Israelis] borders?
> •  Where are the borders "drawn in Black and White"?
> •  "Do they" [the borders] "include:
> 
> √  The West Bank?
> √  Gaza?
> √  Golan Heights​
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another song and dance in place of a coherent response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS and EXHIBITS)*
> 
> •  Israel-PLO Recognition: Exchange of Letters Between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat:
> 
> 1. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN: September 9, 1993
> √  "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."
> 
> 2. LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO NORWEGIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: September 9, 1993
> √  "PLO encourages and calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic develoment and cooperation."
> 
> 3. LETTER FROM PRIME MINISTER RABIN TO YASSER ARAFAT:  September 9, 1993
> √  [T]he Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.​
> •  Treaties outlining the Internationally Recognized boundaries:
> 
> √  Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel, 26 March 1979​
> ∆  Article II
> 
> The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.​​
> √   Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty,  26 October 1994,
> [T]he treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time, putting an end to the dangerous and false Zionist claim that “Jordan is Palestine.”
> ​∆    Article 3 - International Boundary
> 
> 
> 1. The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein.
> 2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognized international boundary between Jordan and Israel, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
> 3. The Parties recognize the international boundary, as well as each other's territory, territorial waters and airspace, as inviolable, and will respect and comply with them.
> 4. The demarcation of the boundary will take place as set forth in Appendix (I) to Annex I and will be concluded not later than 9 months after the signing of the Treaty.​​
> •  General Map of the Golan Heights Annexed by Israel.
> View attachment 99521​
> *(DISCUSSION and COMMENTS)*
> 
> I think that, beyond that of a normal Israeli Citizen, PM Netanyahu it no more hateful of the Arab Palestinian as may normally be expected towards a nation that sponsors Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
> 
> The honesty, integrity and moral fiber of the Arab Palestinian is very much demonstrated in its political flip-flop on the question of recognition.  As you can see, there is no one single voice that speaks with authority for the Arab Palestinians.  But, there was a time when the Arab Palestinians did recognize the State of Israel.  But on the question of recognizing the Jewish State, that is a matter of discrimination at the political level based on religion.   It is committed in the context of an Arab Palestinian regime of systematic domination by one racial Islamic group committed with the intention of suppressing the Jewish State in favor of an Islamic State.  NOTE:  *ARTICLE 6   Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933  *The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. *Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.  *The importance here relates to the allegation that Israel is truly concerned about the actual recognition by the Arab Palestinians.  Actually, the Israelis are calling into question the competency of the Arab Palestinian regime in its attempt to shift its position in the face of customary practices in diplomatic relations. If the PLO _*(the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People)*_ recognized Israel in 1993 (See Exchange of Letters); then how can it withdraw the recognition?  And *IF* that is possible because they question the development of the people towards self-governance, *THEN* is anything the Palestinians say or agree to valid?
> 
> With the exception of the Temple Mount, there is no other area considered of religious or sacred significance.  While the Arab Palestinian want to make an issue on this point, all three major religions are stakeholders in this argument; operating under the same Supreme Being _(The God of Abraham)_.  However, many of the Hostile Arabs have chosen to scramble this point and make it an exploitable factor in the confrontation.
> 
> Whether or not the Arab Palestinians approve or disapprove of Israel as a neighboring state is totally irrelevant.  The only way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to rectify this issue in their favor is to dismantle the Jewish State.  And that would be contrary to the original intention to erect a national home to protect and preserve the culture that has come under abuse so many times in history.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

This last month Abbas said they would not recognize is real and hamas said they would not make peace as long as is real exists.
Both sides of their mouth, there is no unity among pals

Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES BY PROVING IT IS A LIE USING UNBIASED SOURCES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts on the ground prove my point. Nothing in Resolution 181 really happened. The UN created nothing.
Click to expand...

Israel has been a member of the UN more than 60 yrs.  Pals are observers in waiting 


P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what you are reduced to comical songs that would not even raise a penny if he sat in a N.Y subway station performing them.
> 
> You are now scraping underneath the barrel for any residue your anti semitic/anti Israel/anti Jew videos have been proven wrong so many times now
> 
> 
> 
> Calling names is a sign of losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that is why you have done this so many times in the past.
> 
> Now were is the name calling in pointing out that you are desperate for new material after seeing your old lot debunked, destroyed and proven to be lies ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Telling lies and calling names does not debunk anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail the lies and name calling please, as your word on these matters is far from trustworthy and believable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understanding this situation requires clear thinking. Your thinking stops at the end of Israeli propaganda. That is why it is confusing to you.
Click to expand...



Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
Click to expand...

Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.  
Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.

Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app


----------



## P F Tinmore

aris2chat said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.
> Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.
> 
> Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Click to expand...

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

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

28 September 1948


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

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
Recognition by other states is not a requirement. That being said, five other states recognized Palestine at that time.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... If people go to Palestine to replace the Palestinians that is another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define what you mean by "replace the Palestinians?"  Do you mean physically remove them (exile, ethnic cleansing), kill them or just replace their culture with your own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...






And when has this taken place other than to Christian and Jewish palestinians by islamonazi terrorist scum ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.
> Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.
> 
> Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> Recognition by other states is not a requirement. That being said, five other states recognized Palestine at that time.
Click to expand...







 And this was 6 months too late as the Jews had already declared independence on this land. The APG did not have the authority to make any decisions for the palestinian muslims in the west bank as they had already set their stall out with Trans Jordan.
You cant make stupid comments without them then being used against you at a later date.

 Recognition of the declaration of independence by the UN is and the APG would never have that being a construct of the arab league


----------



## aris2chat

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.
> Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.
> 
> Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> Recognition by other states is not a requirement. That being said, five other states recognized Palestine at that time.
Click to expand...




They rejected the UN partition and are not member of the UN

They could have had statehood a number of times and backed away

Pals can't run their own authority and are at war with themselves.

Some don't want statehood, they want the destruction of Israel, to the last drop of blood.

Any wonder why Israel wants security????


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.
> Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.
> 
> Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> Recognition by other states is not a requirement. That being said, five other states recognized Palestine at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was 6 months too late as the Jews had already declared independence on this land. The APG did not have the authority to make any decisions for the palestinian muslims in the west bank as they had already set their stall out with Trans Jordan.
> You cant make stupid comments without them then being used against you at a later date.
> 
> Recognition of the declaration of independence by the UN is and the APG would never have that being a construct of the arab league
Click to expand...

I hear your blabber but I don't see any proof.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> ​I hear your blabber but I don't see any proof.



Proof of what?  That Israel exists as a State and that Palestine does not?  That is just silly.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​I hear your blabber but I don't see any proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof of what?  That Israel exists as a State and that Palestine does not?  That is just silly.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.
> Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.
> 
> Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> Recognition by other states is not a requirement. That being said, five other states recognized Palestine at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was 6 months too late as the Jews had already declared independence on this land. The APG did not have the authority to make any decisions for the palestinian muslims in the west bank as they had already set their stall out with Trans Jordan.
> You cant make stupid comments without them then being used against you at a later date.
> 
> Recognition of the declaration of independence by the UN is and the APG would never have that being a construct of the arab league
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear your blabber but I don't see any proof.
Click to expand...







 The proof is there if you only opened your eyes and looked. Can I now claim independence on the land already claimed by the arab muslims, because you seem to think I can. Or does this only apply to muslims ?
 Israel had declared their intentions and had been accepted by the UN, the arab muslims came along 4 months later and said we want this land so we will claim it AND TO HELL WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, UN RESOLUTIONS AND THE UN CHARTER. Have you got it yet ?

And the APG did not have the authority of the palestinians to make this declaration did they ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​I hear your blabber but I don't see any proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof of what?  That Israel exists as a State and that Palestine does not?  That is just silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
Click to expand...






 What was the question ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.
> Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.
> 
> Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> Recognition by other states is not a requirement. That being said, five other states recognized Palestine at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was 6 months too late as the Jews had already declared independence on this land. The APG did not have the authority to make any decisions for the palestinian muslims in the west bank as they had already set their stall out with Trans Jordan.
> You cant make stupid comments without them then being used against you at a later date.
> 
> Recognition of the declaration of independence by the UN is and the APG would never have that being a construct of the arab league
Click to expand...

Could you explain what you mean by too late?

About 80 leaders from around Palestine declared independence from the Mandate that had previously left Palestine. They declared independence for all of the people of Palestine on their own land inside their own international borders. According to the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements the land was still Palestine and Palestine's international borders were still intact.

Israel, on the other hand, was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization and excluded the majority of the people. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration, only one was born in Palestine and his parents were not. Israel had no defined territory in its declaration. And, still has no defined territory.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.
> Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.
> 
> Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> Recognition by other states is not a requirement. That being said, five other states recognized Palestine at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was 6 months too late as the Jews had already declared independence on this land. The APG did not have the authority to make any decisions for the palestinian muslims in the west bank as they had already set their stall out with Trans Jordan.
> You cant make stupid comments without them then being used against you at a later date.
> 
> Recognition of the declaration of independence by the UN is and the APG would never have that being a construct of the arab league
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you explain what you mean by too late?
> 
> About 80 leaders from around Palestine declared independence from the Mandate that had previously left Palestine. They declared independence for all of the people of Palestine on their own land inside their own international borders. According to the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements the land was still Palestine and Palestine's international borders were still intact.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization and excluded the majority of the people. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration, only one was born in Palestine and his parents were not. Israel had no defined territory in its declaration. And, still has no defined territory.
Click to expand...








 Simple the Jews entered a declaration on may 15 1948 and it was accepted. Anything other than a declaration on resolution 181 guidelines was too late to be accepted as having any validity. 
How could a foriegn power declare for the palestinians when they did not have the authority from 75% of them to do so, all they had was gaza and that was not what they declared on.
Wrong it was still mandate of palestine lands as the mandate is still running until the arab muslims declare fully
The problem with your argument is that this body was the one accepted by the LoN/UN and the worlds Jews to talk and accept on behalf of the majority of the worlds Jews. Something the arab muslims dont seem capable of putting in place.
 The land of Israel does have defined terrotory and it is that laid down in the LoN mandate of palestine as the extent of the Jewish National Home.


 Once again you inability to comprehend English shows that you are lacking in even basic intelligence and understanding


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.
> Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.
> 
> Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> Recognition by other states is not a requirement. That being said, five other states recognized Palestine at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was 6 months too late as the Jews had already declared independence on this land. The APG did not have the authority to make any decisions for the palestinian muslims in the west bank as they had already set their stall out with Trans Jordan.
> You cant make stupid comments without them then being used against you at a later date.
> 
> Recognition of the declaration of independence by the UN is and the APG would never have that being a construct of the arab league
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you explain what you mean by too late?
> 
> About 80 leaders from around Palestine declared independence from the Mandate that had previously left Palestine. They declared independence for all of the people of Palestine on their own land inside their own international borders. According to the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements the land was still Palestine and Palestine's international borders were still intact.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization and excluded the majority of the people. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration, only one was born in Palestine and his parents were not. Israel had no defined territory in its declaration. And, still has no defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple the Jews entered a declaration on may 15 1948 and it was accepted. Anything other than a declaration on resolution 181 guidelines was too late to be accepted as having any validity.
> How could a foriegn power declare for the palestinians when they did not have the authority from 75% of them to do so, all they had was gaza and that was not what they declared on.
> Wrong it was still mandate of palestine lands as the mandate is still running until the arab muslims declare fully
> The problem with your argument is that this body was the one accepted by the LoN/UN and the worlds Jews to talk and accept on behalf of the majority of the worlds Jews. Something the arab muslims dont seem capable of putting in place.
> The land of Israel does have defined terrotory and it is that laid down in the LoN mandate of palestine as the extent of the Jewish National Home.
> 
> 
> Once again you inability to comprehend English shows that you are lacking in even basic intelligence and understanding
Click to expand...

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

You didn't refute anything in my post.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.
> Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.
> 
> Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> 
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> Recognition by other states is not a requirement. That being said, five other states recognized Palestine at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this was 6 months too late as the Jews had already declared independence on this land. The APG did not have the authority to make any decisions for the palestinian muslims in the west bank as they had already set their stall out with Trans Jordan.
> You cant make stupid comments without them then being used against you at a later date.
> 
> Recognition of the declaration of independence by the UN is and the APG would never have that being a construct of the arab league
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could you explain what you mean by too late?
> 
> About 80 leaders from around Palestine declared independence from the Mandate that had previously left Palestine. They declared independence for all of the people of Palestine on their own land inside their own international borders. According to the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements the land was still Palestine and Palestine's international borders were still intact.
> 
> Israel, on the other hand, was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization and excluded the majority of the people. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration, only one was born in Palestine and his parents were not. Israel had no defined territory in its declaration. And, still has no defined territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple the Jews entered a declaration on may 15 1948 and it was accepted. Anything other than a declaration on resolution 181 guidelines was too late to be accepted as having any validity.
> How could a foriegn power declare for the palestinians when they did not have the authority from 75% of them to do so, all they had was gaza and that was not what they declared on.
> Wrong it was still mandate of palestine lands as the mandate is still running until the arab muslims declare fully
> The problem with your argument is that this body was the one accepted by the LoN/UN and the worlds Jews to talk and accept on behalf of the majority of the worlds Jews. Something the arab muslims dont seem capable of putting in place.
> The land of Israel does have defined terrotory and it is that laid down in the LoN mandate of palestine as the extent of the Jewish National Home.
> 
> 
> Once again you inability to comprehend English shows that you are lacking in even basic intelligence and understanding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy smokescreen, Batman!
> 
> You didn't refute anything in my post.
Click to expand...








 Only in your eyes, but then anything that goes against your POV is ignored and not read

 THE WHOLE LOT WAS REFUTED


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.
> Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.
> 
> Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> Recognition by other states is not a requirement. That being said, five other states recognized Palestine at that time.
Click to expand...


I just love it how you want "self determination" for Palestinians.  So do I.  No more sucking off of Israel to provide for them.  Oh what a punishment self determination for Palestinians would be.  And so well deserved.


----------



## MJB12741

So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.
> Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.
> 
> Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> Recognition by other states is not a requirement. That being said, five other states recognized Palestine at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it how you want "self determination" for Palestinians.  So do I.  No more sucking off of Israel to provide for them.  Oh what a punishment self determination for Palestinians would be.  And so well deserved.
Click to expand...


Why does Israel continue to control and occupy the Palestinians if they are "sucking off Israel"?  Because you lying piece of crap, the Israelis make money off the Palestinians who are funded by the EU and others.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?


Nobody has posted any proof of that.

Just song and dance.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
Click to expand...


Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.  

All peoples have the right to self-determination.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
Click to expand...

Indeed, do the French have the right to self determination in Britain?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
Click to expand...


Not non-inhabitants at the expense of the inhabitants. That's called an invasion.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not non-inhabitants at the expense of the inhabitants. That's called an invasion.
Click to expand...

That would obviously apply to the various Arab invaders. As we know, and, as you don't, the mandatory established the process for Jewish migration. 

You're still suffering from your self-imposed ignorance regarding the facts. Your invented "country of Pal'istan" was never any such thing. Your invented "Pal'istanians" were never any such thing. The Ottoman Turks controlled large swaths of the geographic area called Pal'istan and foreign land owners from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon also owned large areas. 

You're still befuddled, right?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
Click to expand...

I rest my case.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case.
Click to expand...


Without a pointless YouTube video?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, do the French have the right to self determination in Britain?



Your point being what?  That the the Jewish people have the right to self-determination, but it can't be in their ancestral homeland where they originated?  That seems rather like saying that the French have a right to self-determination, as long as its not in France.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Not non-inhabitants at the expense of the inhabitants. That's called an invasion.



So, possession is 10/10s of the law?  Cool.  Israel is winning at that.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not non-inhabitants at the expense of the inhabitants. That's called an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, possession is 10/10s of the law?  Cool.  Israel is winning at that.
Click to expand...


Yes, they have won. What makes you think they haven't? They successfully illegally invaded Palestine and now control it, with no apparent consequences.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case.
Click to expand...



Oh....wait for it.....wait for it.....the Jewish people aren't a people argument, coming right up!


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not non-inhabitants at the expense of the inhabitants. That's called an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, possession is 10/10s of the law?  Cool.  Israel is winning at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have won. What makes you think they haven't? They successfully illegally invaded Palestine and now control it, with no apparent consequences.
Click to expand...


And they are now the "inhabitants", so according to you, not a moral problem.


----------



## montelatici

The moral problem is that they now oppress and rule over a few million of the original inhabitants.   But I am sure that does not pose a problem for your moral compass.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The moral problem is that they now oppress and rule over a few million of the original inhabitants.   But I am sure that does not pose a problem for your moral compass.


What original inhabitants would you be whining about? What timeline is used to establish your version of recent Islamist invaders / colonizers as the original inhabitants?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I don't really care what high horse you seem to judge from, but your understanding of the "why" is really outside the the real reason.



montelatici said:


> The moral problem is that they now oppress and rule over a few million of the original inhabitants.   But I am sure that does not pose a problem for your moral compass.


*(COMMENT)*

Nearly all of the actions Israel has taken, relative to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank fit largely (90% or more) into three broad categories.

•  To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors _(most of which are from with the Arab League)_ in the reach for regional hegemonic power --- and --- align the geopolitical focus on the defense against direct conventional warfare attacks from long-term threats _(a continuation of the 1948 War)_ to Israeli national security. 

•  To protect Israel against espionage, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities. 

•  To restore and maintain civil security, public order and citizen/protected persons safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.  And to protect against criminal Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, Arab Resistance Movements and Asymmetric Fighters
activities intended to harm the Occupying Power.​
Normally a hostile threat is not as larger as non-conventional threats from a hostile population that is approximately 3.6M strong.   There is no real countermeasure for a generationally spread hatred that starts indoctrination at birth.  Thus, there is no reason to believe that _(as an outside observer)_ any relaxation of of security controls and containment will lead to a path to peace.

The Arab Palestinian, as a people, can be corrupted more and disintegrated faster a culture thoroughly as does its _moral agnosticism_, that a people must not assume that their religious or political convictions have any moral high ground.    The Israelis _(and much of the Western World)_ have a difficult time associating any good moral values that in a people _(like the Arab Palestinians)_ that pledge Jihad and Armed Struggle, by any means available.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors


Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't really care what high horse you seem to judge from, but your understanding of the "why" is really outside the the real reason.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moral problem is that they now oppress and rule over a few million of the original inhabitants.   But I am sure that does not pose a problem for your moral compass.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nearly all of the actions Israel has taken, relative to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank fit largely (90% or more) into three broad categories.
> 
> •  To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors _(most of which are from with the Arab League)_ in the reach for regional hegemonic power --- and --- align the geopolitical focus on the defense against direct conventional warfare attacks from long-term threats _(a continuation of the 1948 War)_ to Israeli national security.
> 
> •  To protect Israel against espionage, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.
> 
> •  To restore and maintain civil security, public order and citizen/protected persons safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.  And to protect against criminal Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, Arab Resistance Movements and Asymmetric Fighters
> activities intended to harm the Occupying Power.​
> Normally a hostile threat is not as larger as non-conventional threats from a hostile population that is approximately 3.6M strong.   There is no real countermeasure for a generationally spread hatred that starts indoctrination at birth.  Thus, there is no reason to believe that _(as an outside observer)_ any relaxation of of security controls and containment will lead to a path to peace.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a people, can be corrupted more and disintegrated faster a culture thoroughly as does its _moral agnosticism_, that a people must not assume that their religious or political convictions have any moral high ground.    The Israelis _(and much of the Western World)_ have a difficult time associating any good moral values that in a people _(like the Arab Palestinians)_ that pledge Jihad and Armed Struggle, by any means available.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Bull  Shit Rocco......Israel started with Terrorism,continued with Terrorism and is Run By Terrorism against the People of Palestine...Viva Palestine the Birth Place of Jesus Christ......themagnificent


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think, more correctly, the Jewish People, like many other peoples of the same time and place were provided with the opportunity to develop self-determination on territory left sovereignless by the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The sovereignty lies in the people. By international law and the Treaty of Lausanne, the former Turkish citizens would be Palestinian citizens. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The sovereignty of the government is merely an extension of the peoples sovereignty.
> 
> Preventing the people from forming their own government at the point of a gun does not negate their rights. It is a violation of their rights. Holding their territory at the point of a gun is not sovereignty, it is a military occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pals did not form legit state when Jordan or Egypt controlled the land.
> Pals refuse to agreement for a state now.
> 
> Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *PALESTINE PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
> MEDIATOR ON PALESTINE*
> 
> *CABLEGRAM DATED 28 SEPTEMBER 1948 FROM THE PREMIER AND
> ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT
> TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING
> CONSTITUTION OF ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT*
> 
> 28 September 1948
> 
> 
> I HAVE THE HONOR TO INFORM YOUR EXCELLENCY THAT IN VIRTUE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OF PALESTINE FOR SELF-DETERMINATION WHICH PRINCIPLE IS SUPPORTED BY THE CHARTERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS, THE UNITED NATIONS AND OTHERS AND IN VIEW OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE WHICH HAD PREVENTED THE ARABS FROM EXERCISING THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE ARABS OF PALESTINE WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COUNTRY AND ITS INDIGENOUS INHABITANTS AND WHO CONSTITUTE THE GREAT MAJORITY OF ITS LEGAL POPULATION HAVE SOLEMNLY RESOLVED TO DECLARE PALESTINE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES AS ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE AN INDEPENDENT STATE AND CONSTITUTED A GOVERNMENT UNDER THE NAME OF THE ALL-PALESTINE GOVERNMENT DERIVING ITS AUTHORITY FROM A REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL BASED ON DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES AND AIMING TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES AND FOREIGNERS PROTECT THE HOLY PLACES AND GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF WORSHIP TO ALL COMMUNITIES
> 
> AHMED HILMI PASHA
> PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
> Recognition by other states is not a requirement. That being said, five other states recognized Palestine at that time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just love it how you want "self determination" for Palestinians.  So do I.  No more sucking off of Israel to provide for them.  Oh what a punishment self determination for Palestinians would be.  And so well deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does Israel continue to control and occupy the Palestinians if they are "sucking off Israel"?  Because you lying piece of crap, the Israelis make money off the Palestinians who are funded by the EU and others.
Click to expand...







 And how is that done, if the EU gives the terrorists money to buy weapons how does it benefit Israel ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Just song and dance.
Click to expand...







 Have yiiu read the UN charter lately. Because if Israel does not have the right to exist then niether does palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Saudi


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Just song and dance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have yiiu read the UN charter lately. Because if Israel does not have the right to exist then niether does palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Saudi
Click to expand...

Link with passage?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, do the French have the right to self determination in Britain?
Click to expand...






 Do the Syrians. Jordanians, Iraqi's and Iranians have the right to self determination in the Jewish national home ?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not non-inhabitants at the expense of the inhabitants. That's called an invasion.
Click to expand...







Like the Roman Catholic invasion of Israel and the arab muslim invasion of Israel, is that what you mean ?


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, do the French have the right to self determination in Britain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the Syrians. Jordanians, Iraqi's and Iranians have the right to self determination in the Jewish national home ?
Click to expand...

Where are the Mongols when you need them


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
Click to expand...







You mean the Jews who are fighting against just that, read the many islamonazi charters that say this, and the letters you link sent by the arab muslim terrorists to the LoN, Britain and the UN


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Just song and dance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have yiiu read the UN charter lately. Because if Israel does not have the right to exist then niether does palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Saudi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link with passage?
Click to expand...







 All people have the right to free determination and to live in peace


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, do the French have the right to self determination in Britain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the Syrians. Jordanians, Iraqi's and Iranians have the right to self determination in the Jewish national home ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are the Mongols when you need them
Click to expand...






In wallawong getting treatment for their genetic birth defect


----------



## theliq

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
Click to expand...

But NOT at the expense of destroying other people as is the case with the Jews over the thousands of years......your meaning of self-determination means slaughter,maiming,expulsion etc of the Palestinian people,driving them BY FORCE INTO EXILE and STEALING THEIR LAND AND PROPERTY......You are a fool to write such NON SENCE ON HERE.Like all Rabid Zionists ad-nausium......Eff Off


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, do the French have the right to self determination in Britain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the Syrians. Jordanians, Iraqi's and Iranians have the right to self determination in the Jewish national home ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are the Mongols when you need them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In wallawong getting treatment for their genetic birth defect
Click to expand...

Well you would have some Mongol DNA in you...fact but I doubt any Jew,being as you are an unrelated Asian Khasar from who knows where....your only attatchment to the 12 Tribes is that you begged to become a Zionist......Ya Waster.


42.4 C here today


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, do the French have the right to self determination in Britain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the Syrians. Jordanians, Iraqi's and Iranians have the right to self determination in the Jewish national home ?
Click to expand...

Stupid post. The Jewish home was to be inside Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I rest my case.
Click to expand...








 So you admit defeat and accept that Israel has a right to exist under the UN charter, and because they got in first with their declaration of independence. They showed they had free determination, the ability to stand on their own and had a basis for a government leaving the arab muslims out on a limb.

 When will the arab muslims show their free determination, ability to stand on their own and show even a rudimentary government ?


----------



## theliq

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, do the French have the right to self determination in Britain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the Syrians. Jordanians, Iraqi's and Iranians have the right to self determination in the Jewish national home ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid post. The Jewish home was to be inside Palestine.
Click to expand...

Stupid and IGNORANT Tinnie,steve


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Just song and dance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have yiiu read the UN charter lately. Because if Israel does not have the right to exist then niether does palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Saudi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link with passage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All people have the right to free determination and to live in peace
Click to expand...

That is what the Palestinians are calling for.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not non-inhabitants at the expense of the inhabitants. That's called an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, possession is 10/10s of the law?  Cool.  Israel is winning at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have won. What makes you think they haven't? They successfully illegally invaded Palestine and now control it, with no apparent consequences.
Click to expand...







Like the muslims did and before them the Catholics. Any comment on your own religions invasions over the last 2000 years, when they did just what you are claiming the Jews are doing


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The moral problem is that they now oppress and rule over a few million of the original inhabitants.   But I am sure that does not pose a problem for your moral compass.







 A few million of the original 350,000 original inhabitants. How did that happen without anyone noticing it taking place. Or is it the new mathmatics called montelatici quantum where bullshit and lies play a major part in the equations and then using propaganda to support the 1 + 1 = 1,000 answer


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, do the French have the right to self determination in Britain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the Syrians. Jordanians, Iraqi's and Iranians have the right to self determination in the Jewish national home ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where are the Mongols when you need them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In wallawong getting treatment for their genetic birth defect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you would have some Mongol DNA in you...fact but I doubt any Jew,being as you are an unrelated Asian Khasar from who knows where....your only attatchment to the 12 Tribes is that you begged to become a Zionist......Ya Waster.
> 
> 
> 42.4 C here today
Click to expand...





No mongol DNA here old chap, and as yiou have been shown khazars never existed outside of the hate sites. They are a figment of an authors imagination, like Harry Potter.
You dont beg to be a Zionist you just are, it is something all decent intelligent people become, not supporters of islamonazi terrorism and genocides


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, do the French have the right to self determination in Britain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the Syrians. Jordanians, Iraqi's and Iranians have the right to self determination in the Jewish national home ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid post. The Jewish home was to be inside Palestine.
Click to expand...





Which it is if you look at the 1917 maps of the LoN that show 78% of palestine to be trans Jordan. It also took in part or Egypt, Saudi, Syria and Lebanon being an ill defined area on the map. Something that seems to confuse you all the time how an area can also be a state after an illiterate group steals it's name


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, do the French have the right to self determination in Britain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do the Syrians. Jordanians, Iraqi's and Iranians have the right to self determination in the Jewish national home ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid post. The Jewish home was to be inside Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stupid and IGNORANT Tinnie,steve
Click to expand...









 Yes you two are aren't you


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Just song and dance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have yiiu read the UN charter lately. Because if Israel does not have the right to exist then niether does palestine, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Saudi
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link with passage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All people have the right to free determination and to live in peace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what the Palestinians are calling for.
Click to expand...







Then why dont they do what is needed to secure it, and that is not demand it be handed to them on a plate or engage in terrorism, violence and mass murder. They just need to stand up at the UN and say from this day we are a nation with a valid government standing on our own and proving we have free determination. Then the money from the UN stops and they have to rely on their own abilities. Any act of violence that goes unpunished will result in repercussions and censure by the UN. They will be liable for any debts they incur and could see their power and water shut off. If after 1 year they have not breached the laws then the blockade and occupation will be lifted and they will be free to rule over what lands they have negotiated with their neighbours ( read the UN resolutions they have agreed to be tied to )


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
Click to expand...








 Yes the Jews are doing all that, and have done for the last 1400 years


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't really care what high horse you seem to judge from, but your understanding of the "why" is really outside the the real reason.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moral problem is that they now oppress and rule over a few million of the original inhabitants.   But I am sure that does not pose a problem for your moral compass.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nearly all of the actions Israel has taken, relative to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank fit largely (90% or more) into three broad categories.
> 
> •  To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors _(most of which are from with the Arab League)_ in the reach for regional hegemonic power --- and --- align the geopolitical focus on the defense against direct conventional warfare attacks from long-term threats _(a continuation of the 1948 War)_ to Israeli national security.
> 
> •  To protect Israel against espionage, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.
> 
> •  To restore and maintain civil security, public order and citizen/protected persons safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.  And to protect against criminal Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, Arab Resistance Movements and Asymmetric Fighters
> activities intended to harm the Occupying Power.​
> Normally a hostile threat is not as larger as non-conventional threats from a hostile population that is approximately 3.6M strong.   There is no real countermeasure for a generationally spread hatred that starts indoctrination at birth.  Thus, there is no reason to believe that _(as an outside observer)_ any relaxation of of security controls and containment will lead to a path to peace.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a people, can be corrupted more and disintegrated faster a culture thoroughly as does its _moral agnosticism_, that a people must not assume that their religious or political convictions have any moral high ground.    The Israelis _(and much of the Western World)_ have a difficult time associating any good moral values that in a people _(like the Arab Palestinians)_ that pledge Jihad and Armed Struggle, by any means available.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull  Shit Rocco......Israel started with Terrorism,continued with Terrorism and is Run By Terrorism against the People of Palestine...Viva Palestine the Birth Place of Jesus Christ......themagnificent
Click to expand...







 So there was no history of the land prior to May 15 1948. No mass murders of Jews by mo'mad in 635 C.E., no command from their god to " KILL THE JEWS ", no dhimmi laws, no pact of Umar. Or are these ignored because they go against your brainwashing.


 Yes Jesus Christ the Zionist Jew


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us Tinmore, does Israel have a legal right to exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has posted any proof of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the person who has posted the best proof of that, indeed, who posts proof of that as a mantra on this forum, is you.
> 
> All peoples have the right to self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But NOT at the expense of destroying other people as is the case with the Jews over the thousands of years......your meaning of self-determination means slaughter,maiming,expulsion etc of the Palestinian people,driving them BY FORCE INTO EXILE and STEALING THEIR LAND AND PROPERTY......You are a fool to write such NON SENCE ON HERE.Like all Rabid Zionists ad-nausium......Eff Off
Click to expand...







 So when did they become sovereign owners of the land, what treaty gave them this power ?

 Like what treaty gave you sovereignty over Australia ?


----------



## RoccoR

theliq,  et al,

You are using generic allegations _(theft, murder, and expulsion)_, not pinned to a particular event of period in time.  The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional.  The principle Factions now operating in _[what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177).  The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements: 

*§  *Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
*§  *People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964; 
*§  *Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
*§  *Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
*§  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968; 
*§  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
*§  *Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
*§  *Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983; 
*§  *Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987; 
*§  *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;​ 


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

*ARTICLE 68* ---  *STATES IN PART:* ---

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​Additional Protocol I
Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, _inter alia_, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

Additional Protocol II
Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.​
The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> You are using generic allegations _(theft, murder, and expulsion)_, not pinned to a particular event of period in time.  The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional.  The principle Factions now operating in _[what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177).  The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:
> 
> *§  *Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
> *§  *People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
> *§  *Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
> *§  *Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
> *§  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
> *§  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
> *§  *Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
> *§  *Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
> *§  *Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
> *§  *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> 
> *ARTICLE 68* ---  *STATES IN PART:* ---
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​Additional Protocol I
> Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
> The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, _inter alia_, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
> 
> Additional Protocol II
> Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
> shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.​
> The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Semantics is all you have......The Zionists only  AIM was to try to eliminate Palestinians from Palestine Their the Palestinians Chosen Land......where they had been for thousands of years,you can say what you like Rocco,but we know what you did,how you did it and the stain of Guiltiness you will always carry......it will bite you in the future,all on the Mad sayings of an Athiest Zionist Jew............Zionism is the Precurser to all Terrorism......Zionists are and always have been TERRORIST  ORGANIZATION.......despite all your protestations,anyhow what makes you imagine   Israels government are functional????  They are a Right Wing Terrorist Government,that is why decent Jews are leaving Israel in hordes........They have SEEN THE SUPPOSED DREAM .....AND DON'T LIKE IT ONE BIT........FACT...you and your Possee  ramble on about how Great Israel is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..Being a Zionist is nothing to be Proud Of>>>>>>>>steve....and why would I need to give you specific periods or time lines  when this has been going on since 1906....you are merely blurring my response to try to give yourself a superior angle....Fcuking does not work anymore Rocco,as I can see through you as if you were/are a sheet of plastic...........Shameful POST Rocco,I expect better from you...st


----------



## theliq

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't really care what high horse you seem to judge from, but your understanding of the "why" is really outside the the real reason.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moral problem is that they now oppress and rule over a few million of the original inhabitants.   But I am sure that does not pose a problem for your moral compass.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nearly all of the actions Israel has taken, relative to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank fit largely (90% or more) into three broad categories.
> 
> •  To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors _(most of which are from with the Arab League)_ in the reach for regional hegemonic power --- and --- align the geopolitical focus on the defense against direct conventional warfare attacks from long-term threats _(a continuation of the 1948 War)_ to Israeli national security.
> 
> •  To protect Israel against espionage, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.
> 
> •  To restore and maintain civil security, public order and citizen/protected persons safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.  And to protect against criminal Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, Arab Resistance Movements and Asymmetric Fighters
> activities intended to harm the Occupying Power.​
> Normally a hostile threat is not as larger as non-conventional threats from a hostile population that is approximately 3.6M strong.   There is no real countermeasure for a generationally spread hatred that starts indoctrination at birth.  Thus, there is no reason to believe that _(as an outside observer)_ any relaxation of of security controls and containment will lead to a path to peace.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a people, can be corrupted more and disintegrated faster a culture thoroughly as does its _moral agnosticism_, that a people must not assume that their religious or political convictions have any moral high ground.    The Israelis _(and much of the Western World)_ have a difficult time associating any good moral values that in a people _(like the Arab Palestinians)_ that pledge Jihad and Armed Struggle, by any means available.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull  Shit Rocco......Israel started with Terrorism,continued with Terrorism and is Run By Terrorism against the People of Palestine...Viva Palestine the Birth Place of Jesus Christ......themagnificent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there was no history of the land prior to May 15 1948. No mass murders of Jews by mo'mad in 635 C.E., no command from their god to " KILL THE JEWS ", no dhimmi laws, no pact of Umar. Or are these ignored because they go against your brainwashing.
> 
> 
> Yes Jesus Christ the Zionist Jew
Click to expand...


Jesus  would find ZIONISM........IMBISOLIC......and would cast you asunder.....Anyhow you ZIONIST don't believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God,which makes your post a complete JOKE as you are


----------



## SAYIT

theliq said:


> ...They are a Right Wing Terrorist Government,that is why decent Jews are leaving Israel in hordes....


You failed to post a link for that "fact" ... just an oversight I'm sure.


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> You are using generic allegations _(theft, murder, and expulsion)_, not pinned to a particular event of period in time.  The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional.  The principle Factions now operating in _[what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177).  The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:
> 
> *§  *Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
> *§  *People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
> *§  *Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
> *§  *Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
> *§  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
> *§  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
> *§  *Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
> *§  *Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
> *§  *Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
> *§  *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> 
> *ARTICLE 68* ---  *STATES IN PART:* ---
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​Additional Protocol I
> Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
> The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, _inter alia_, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
> 
> Additional Protocol II
> Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
> shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.​
> The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


No question that the Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy.  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  et al,
> 
> You are using generic allegations _(theft, murder, and expulsion)_, not pinned to a particular event of period in time.  The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional.  The principle Factions now operating in _[what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177).  The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:
> 
> *§  *Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
> *§  *People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
> *§  *Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
> *§  *Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
> *§  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
> *§  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
> *§  *Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
> *§  *Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
> *§  *Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
> *§  *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> 
> *ARTICLE 68* ---  *STATES IN PART:* ---
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​Additional Protocol I
> Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
> The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, _inter alia_, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
> 
> Additional Protocol II
> Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
> shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.​
> The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No question that the Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
Click to expand...


Native people that have been invaded by foreigners have every right to resist the invader in any way possible.  Pursuant to

"United Nations
*A/RES/37/43*

*


General Assembly*
Distr. GENERAL  

3 December 1982

ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH



.........................2.   Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
*including armed struggle*;"

A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

Would you say the Native American mentality that caused them to resist the European invasion was unreasonable?


----------



## RoccoR

theliq,  et al,



theliq said:


> Semantics is all you have......


*(COMMENT)*

"Semantics is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relationship between signifiers—like words, phrases, signs, and symbols—and what they stand for, their denotation." 

Maybe that is part of what I have.



theliq said:


> The Zionists only  AIM was to try to eliminate Palestinians from Palestine Their the Palestinians Chosen Land......where they had been for thousands of years,you can say what you like Rocco,but we know what you did,how you did it and the stain of Guiltiness you will always carry......it will bite you in the future,all on the Mad sayings of an Athiest Zionist Jew............


*(COMMENT)*

I have know Idea what you are talking about.



theliq said:


> Zionism is the Precurser to all Terrorism......Zionists are and always have been TERRORIST  ORGANIZATION.......despite all your protestations, anyhow what makes you imagine   Israels government are functional????


*(COMMENT)*

Zionism only arose in the mid-to-late 1800's.  I'm sure that the use of "terrorism" as an instrument of power predates both political Zionism and cultural Zionism. 

Israeli sovereignty covers a geographic area which is nearly three-quarters of the Israelis are Jewish _(of which 75% are Sabra). _ The major characteristics ethnoreligious components to the population come from Muslims 17.6%; with the remainder (≈7.4%) consisting of Christians, Druze and others.



theliq said:


> anyhow what makes you imagine   Israels government are functional????


*(COMMENT)*

Of all the nations in or adjacent to the Levant, Israel is the most economic and commercially successful --- with the highest  human development characteristics of any Arab League state.




theliq said:


> They are a Right Wing Terrorist Government, that is why decent Jews are leaving Israel in hordes........


*(COMMENT)*

Well, Israel is not the most prosperous country in the world, but it is maintains a steady and sustainable growth rate.



​


theliq said:


> They have SEEN THE SUPPOSED DREAM .....AND DON'T LIKE IT ONE BIT........FACT...you and your Possee  ramble on about how Great Israel is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..Being a Zionist is nothing to be Proud Of>>>>>>>>steve....


*(COMMENT)*

So, --- I suppose that the Arab Palestinians leaders offer a better way of life.

Think what you will of the Zionist of the 1906.   The principle objective of Zionism was the reconstituting their national home and Jewish sovereignty in the Ottoman Territory of Palestine.  Establishing a place of refugee for Jews from the antisemitic discrimination and persecution.

As a measure of success, you might compare the objective to the resulting outcome.



theliq said:


> and why would I need to give you specific periods or time lines  when this has been going on since 1906....


*(COMMENT)*

What "rights and title" did the Arabs of Ottoman Palestine have in 1906?  (Rhetorical)  The simple fact is that in 1906 all the territory of Ottoman Palestine was in the hands of Mehmed VI _(the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire)_.



theliq said:


> you are merely blurring my response to try to give yourself a superior angle....Fcuking does not work anymore Rocco,as I can see through you as if you were/are a sheet of plastic...........Shameful POST Rocco,I expect better from you...st


*(COMMENT)*

Think what you will of me --- tarnish what you can.  I think I can withstand any attack you might mount against my character.  But that does not diminish the content of the arguments I present. 

•  One plus One is Two.  Truth --- in accordance with the facts and the reality of the time, is still Truth, no matter the evil which might speak it.
------------------------------------------------------------    _R3, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, 1985_​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:


Indeed, they still reject the colonial project. Adopting General Assembly resolution 1514 would solve this problem. This isn't rocket science.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  P F Tinmore,  theliq, et al,

Yes, I've seen this argument before.



montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  et al,
> 
> You are using generic allegations _(theft, murder, and expulsion)_, not pinned to a particular event of period in time.  The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional.  The principle Factions now operating in _[what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177).  The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:
> 
> *§  *Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
> *§  *People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
> *§  *Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
> *§  *Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
> *§  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
> *§  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
> *§  *Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
> *§  *Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
> *§  *Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
> *§  *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> 
> *ARTICLE 68* ---  *STATES IN PART:* ---
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​Additional Protocol I
> Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
> The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, _inter alia_, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
> 
> Additional Protocol II
> Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
> shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.​
> The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No question that the Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native people that have been invaded by foreigners have every right to resist the invader in any way possible.  Pursuant to
> 
> "United Nations
> *A/RES/37/43*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *​*General Assembly*
> Distr. GENERAL
> 
> 3 December 1982
> 
> ORIGINAL:
> ENGLISH
> 
> 
> 
> .........................2.   Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
> independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
> colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
> *including armed struggle*;"
> 
> A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> Would you say the Native American mentality that caused them to resist the European invasion was unreasonable?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

No non-binding Resolution may supersede binding Treaty Law.  The Treaty Law that has been common since 1950 is the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV).  See the excerpts already cited above.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  et al,
> 
> You are using generic allegations _(theft, murder, and expulsion)_, not pinned to a particular event of period in time.  The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional.  The principle Factions now operating in _[what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177).  The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:
> 
> *§  *Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
> *§  *People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
> *§  *Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
> *§  *Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
> *§  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
> *§  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
> *§  *Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
> *§  *Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
> *§  *Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
> *§  *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> 
> *ARTICLE 68* ---  *STATES IN PART:* ---
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​Additional Protocol I
> Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
> The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, _inter alia_, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
> 
> Additional Protocol II
> Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
> shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.​
> The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No question that the Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native people that have been invaded by foreigners have every right to resist the invader in any way possible.  Pursuant to
> 
> "United Nations
> *A/RES/37/43*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *​*General Assembly*
> Distr. GENERAL
> 
> 3 December 1982
> 
> ORIGINAL:
> ENGLISH
> 
> 
> 
> .........................2.   Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
> independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
> colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
> *including armed struggle*;"
> 
> A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> Would you say the Native American mentality that caused them to resist the European invasion was unreasonable?
Click to expand...


As much as you would hope to encourage the Arabs-Moslems toward violence and armed attacks directed at the Israelis, nothing in your article provides an entitlement to kill israeli citizens. 

That's the problem you are confronted with when you mindlessly cut and paste articles without understanding some very basic principles.


----------



## montelatici

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  et al,
> 
> You are using generic allegations _(theft, murder, and expulsion)_, not pinned to a particular event of period in time.  The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional.  The principle Factions now operating in _[what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177).  The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:
> 
> *§  *Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
> *§  *People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
> *§  *Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
> *§  *Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
> *§  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
> *§  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
> *§  *Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
> *§  *Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
> *§  *Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
> *§  *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> 
> *ARTICLE 68* ---  *STATES IN PART:* ---
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​Additional Protocol I
> Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
> The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, _inter alia_, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
> 
> Additional Protocol II
> Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
> shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.​
> The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No question that the Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native people that have been invaded by foreigners have every right to resist the invader in any way possible.  Pursuant to
> 
> "United Nations
> *A/RES/37/43*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *​*General Assembly*
> Distr. GENERAL
> 
> 3 December 1982
> 
> ORIGINAL:
> ENGLISH
> 
> 
> 
> .........................2.   Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
> independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
> colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
> *including armed struggle*;"
> 
> A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> Would you say the Native American mentality that caused them to resist the European invasion was unreasonable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as you would hope to encourage the Arabs-Moslems toward violence and armed attacks directed at the Israelis, nothing in your article provides an entitlement to kill israeli citizens.
> 
> That's the problem you are confronted with when you mindlessly cut and paste articles without understanding some very basic principles.
Click to expand...


Your problem is that you confuse "articles" with excerpts of treaties, resolutions or laws. LOL


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> No non-binding Resolution may supersede binding Treaty Law.


There is a partial truth to that. However, a resolution that is based on relevant international law defines the applicability of existing law. Even if the resolution itself is non binding the referenced international law is binding.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  P F Tinmore,  theliq, et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this argument before.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  et al,
> 
> You are using generic allegations _(theft, murder, and expulsion)_, not pinned to a particular event of period in time.  The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional.  The principle Factions now operating in _[what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177).  The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:
> 
> *§  *Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
> *§  *People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
> *§  *Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
> *§  *Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
> *§  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
> *§  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
> *§  *Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
> *§  *Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
> *§  *Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
> *§  *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:
> 
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> 
> *ARTICLE 68* ---  *STATES IN PART:* ---
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​Additional Protocol I
> Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
> The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, _inter alia_, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
> 
> Additional Protocol II
> Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
> shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.​
> The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No question that the Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native people that have been invaded by foreigners have every right to resist the invader in any way possible.  Pursuant to
> 
> "United Nations
> *A/RES/37/43*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *​*General Assembly*
> Distr. GENERAL
> 
> 3 December 1982
> 
> ORIGINAL:
> ENGLISH
> 
> 
> 
> .........................2.   Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
> independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
> colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
> *including armed struggle*;"
> 
> A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> Would you say the Native American mentality that caused them to resist the European invasion was unreasonable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No non-binding Resolution may supersede binding Treaty Law.  The Treaty Law that has been common since 1950 is the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV).  See the excerpts already cited above.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


GA Resolution A/RES/37/43 merely clarifies the rights of occupied people. It does not supersede anything.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, yes, --- one more time.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they still reject the colonial project. Adopting General Assembly resolution 1514 would solve this problem. This isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

OK, everyone ready this closely.



			
				UN Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) said:
			
		

> The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).


You will note that there is no reference to any such Middle Eastern territory _(including Palestine, Gaza, West Bank, Jerusalem)_ requiring "Decolonization" listed on the Table of Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs).

You are absolutely correct.  You are passing along the demands.  The Arab Palestinians are simple terrorist blackmailers that hold peace and regional stability hostage for ransom _(that which they failed to achieve through diplomacy and statesmanship)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> You will note that there is no reference to any such Middle Eastern territory _(including Palestine, Gaza, West Bank, Jerusalem)_ requiring "Decolonization" listed on the Table of Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs).


So? That is based on politics not legalities. This says different.

A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights

3.   Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to
self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;​


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

That is an interpretation that you want; otherwise the justification and legitimacy of the Arab Palestine Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence fades away into lawlessness.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> No non-binding Resolution may supersede binding Treaty Law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a partial truth to that. However, a resolution that is based on relevant international law defines the applicability of existing law. Even if the resolution itself is non binding the referenced international law is binding.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I contend that many Arab Palestinian leaders violate the purposes and principles of the United Nations, that States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
Trying to persuade the discussion group that some "non-binding" resolution, --- for which further interpretation is required, --- gives _Carte Blanche_ to disregard the basic tenants of international law is absolutely absurd.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.


Is colonization an international dispute?

Just curious.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.
> 
> 
> 
> Is colonization an international dispute?
> 
> Just curious.
Click to expand...

Not in the case involving the establishment of the state of Israel. 

How would you describe the Arab-islamist invasion and colonization of the area described as Pal'istan. You choose to sidestep around that issue.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes --- As I said:  Your interpretation of the International Laws must be so, otherwise the Arab Palestinians lose thier legitimacy.  So they MUST TWIST the law in order to achieve the illusion of legitimacy.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will note that there is no reference to any such Middle Eastern territory _(including Palestine, Gaza, West Bank, Jerusalem)_ requiring "Decolonization" listed on the Table of Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs).
> 
> 
> 
> So? That is based on politics not legalities. This says different.
> 
> A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> 3.   Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
> Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to
> self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
> unity and sovereignty without outside interference;​
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

This is an example as to why, Israel must hold its position.  The Arab Palestinian "Right TO" self-determination, and national independence was exercised in 1988 and acknowledged (A/RES/43/177).

On the issue of territorial integrity, the Palestinians made no effort to form a treaty with the Israelis.

On the issue of national unity. "The Palestinians formed a Unity Government.  The Palestinian Unity Government of June 2014 was a national unity government from 2 June 2014 to 17 June 2015 under Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas."  It is not Israels fault that the Arab Palestinian cannot manage a government.

*Palestinian unity government resigns - Al Jazeera English*

The Palestinian unity government formed only a year ago has resigned after President Mahmoud Abbas said it was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.

The resignation came after it emerged that the Gaza Strip's rulers Hamas held separate indirect talks with Israel.​
On the matter of sovereignty:  Where is Arab Palestinian Sovereignty.  The "Right TO" is very different from the "Gift OF."  If the Arab Palestinians cannot hold their own government together, then what chance to they have that their government will be able to establish some "sovereignty?"

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

It is a Committee of 24 Issue.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.
> 
> 
> 
> Is colonization an international dispute?
> 
> Just curious.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Of the 17 Cases of NSGTs, only one erupted into conflict in the last century; the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).  The people of the Falkland Islands have not petitioned for a change in their status.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> That is an interpretation that you want; otherwise the justification and legitimacy of the Arab Palestine Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence fades away into lawlessness.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> No non-binding Resolution may supersede binding Treaty Law.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a partial truth to that. However, a resolution that is based on relevant international law defines the applicability of existing law. Even if the resolution itself is non binding the referenced international law is binding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I contend that many Arab Palestinian leaders violate the purposes and principles of the United Nations, that States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.
> 
> Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.
> 
> Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.
> 
> States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute
> 
> Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​
> Trying to persuade the discussion group that some "non-binding" resolution, --- for which further interpretation is required, --- gives _Carte Blanche_ to disregard the basic tenants of international law is absolutely absurd.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



What's absurd is your assertion that occupied people do not have a right to resist occupation through force of arms if necessary.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is a Committee of 24 Issue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.
> 
> 
> 
> Is colonization an international dispute?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Of the 17 Cases of NSGTs, only one erupted into conflict in the last century; the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).  The people of the Falkland Islands have not petitioned for a change in their status.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


It would seem that it is considered "international" by the UN.

"Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian
people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to
Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of
the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,"

A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> If the Arab Palestinians cannot hold their own government together, then what chance to they have that their government will be able to establish some "sovereignty?"


_Vanity Fair​_has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power.

The Gaza Bombshell​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> On the issue of territorial integrity, the Palestinians made no effort to form a treaty with the Israelis.


Palestine already has uncontested international borders. Why would they need a treaty with Israel?


----------



## montelatici

Strange that Rocco claims that the native people of Palestine have no right to armed resistance when the Geneva Conventions (Protocol II) apply to just that sort of conflict.

"1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of applications, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and *which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups......................"* 

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0321.pdf


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

You have to ask yourself, what is the end game that each question answers.  International law attempts to preserve the peace and security over the Question of Palestine.



montelatici said:


> What's absurd is your assertion that occupied people do not have a right to resist occupation through force of arms if necessary.


*(COMMENT)*

My assertion (no matter what you might make of it) has the outcome of peace and security.  Which is exactly what Article 43 of the Hague Regulation demands.

Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:"  resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.  It advocated conflict "through force of arms."  Nowhere in International Law does it encourage armed conflict _(Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence)_.   Your argument has a mere semblance of legal "right" to engage in conflict.  It uses  the "pretense or appearance of a right" by shaping the law such that a justification emerges.  We call this the color of law.  And it has been used many time over the centuries.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  et al,
> 
> You are using generic allegations _(theft, murder, and expulsion)_, not pinned to a particular event of period in time.  The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional.  The principle Factions now operating in _[what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177).  The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:
> 
> *§  *Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
> *§  *People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
> *§  *Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
> *§  *Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
> *§  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
> *§  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
> *§  *Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
> *§  *Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
> *§  *Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
> *§  *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> 
> *ARTICLE 68* ---  *STATES IN PART:* ---
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​Additional Protocol I
> Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
> The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, _inter alia_, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
> 
> Additional Protocol II
> Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
> shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.​
> The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semantics is all you have......The Zionists only  AIM was to try to eliminate Palestinians from Palestine Their the Palestinians Chosen Land......where they had been for thousands of years,you can say what you like Rocco,but we know what you did,how you did it and the stain of Guiltiness you will always carry......it will bite you in the future,all on the Mad sayings of an Athiest Zionist Jew............Zionism is the Precurser to all Terrorism......Zionists are and always have been TERRORIST  ORGANIZATION.......despite all your protestations,anyhow what makes you imagine   Israels government are functional????  They are a Right Wing Terrorist Government,that is why decent Jews are leaving Israel in hordes........They have SEEN THE SUPPOSED DREAM .....AND DON'T LIKE IT ONE BIT........FACT...you and your Possee  ramble on about how Great Israel is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..Being a Zionist is nothing to be Proud Of>>>>>>>>steve....and why would I need to give you specific periods or time lines  when this has been going on since 1906....you are merely blurring my response to try to give yourself a superior angle....Fcuking does not work anymore Rocco,as I can see through you as if you were/are a sheet of plastic...........Shameful POST Rocco,I expect better from you...st
Click to expand...






 You really do need to get some remedial English lessons as your syntax, context, spelling and comprehension is woefully lacking and looks like that of a 12 year old mummies boy.

 The palestinian arab muslims have not had control of the land since 1099 and then this only lasted 22 years. The real indigenous are theJews who were forcibly taken from their lands as slaves and shipped to Europe in their tens of thousands by the Roman Catholics.

Being a supporter and enabler of islamonazi terrorism and violence is nothing to be proud of at all, and just leads to you telling even more LIES.

So now you have changed your tune and are saying it happened starting in 1906 when the land was under the control of the Ottomans, and they did not allow it. Proving that you are a LIAR and an anti semitic Jew hater hiding behind anti semitism.

 The truth is the arab muslims have stolen more land from the Jews in 1949 when they evicted them from their homes and property equivalent to 10 times the land mass of Israel. 


NOW WHAT LAND HAS ISRAEL STOLEN SINCE 1906 ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *Palestinian unity government resigns - Al Jazeera English*
> 
> The Palestinian unity government formed only a year ago has resigned after President Mahmoud Abbas said it was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> The resignation came after it emerged that the Gaza Strip's rulers Hamas held separate indirect talks with Israel.


Interesting that nobody ever mentions why the split.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I don't really care what high horse you seem to judge from, but your understanding of the "why" is really outside the the real reason.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moral problem is that they now oppress and rule over a few million of the original inhabitants.   But I am sure that does not pose a problem for your moral compass.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Nearly all of the actions Israel has taken, relative to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank fit largely (90% or more) into three broad categories.
> 
> •  To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors _(most of which are from with the Arab League)_ in the reach for regional hegemonic power --- and --- align the geopolitical focus on the defense against direct conventional warfare attacks from long-term threats _(a continuation of the 1948 War)_ to Israeli national security.
> 
> •  To protect Israel against espionage, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.
> 
> •  To restore and maintain civil security, public order and citizen/protected persons safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.  And to protect against criminal Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, Arab Resistance Movements and Asymmetric Fighters
> activities intended to harm the Occupying Power.​
> Normally a hostile threat is not as larger as non-conventional threats from a hostile population that is approximately 3.6M strong.   There is no real countermeasure for a generationally spread hatred that starts indoctrination at birth.  Thus, there is no reason to believe that _(as an outside observer)_ any relaxation of of security controls and containment will lead to a path to peace.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian, as a people, can be corrupted more and disintegrated faster a culture thoroughly as does its _moral agnosticism_, that a people must not assume that their religious or political convictions have any moral high ground.    The Israelis _(and much of the Western World)_ have a difficult time associating any good moral values that in a people _(like the Arab Palestinians)_ that pledge Jihad and Armed Struggle, by any means available.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bull  Shit Rocco......Israel started with Terrorism,continued with Terrorism and is Run By Terrorism against the People of Palestine...Viva Palestine the Birth Place of Jesus Christ......themagnificent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there was no history of the land prior to May 15 1948. No mass murders of Jews by mo'mad in 635 C.E., no command from their god to " KILL THE JEWS ", no dhimmi laws, no pact of Umar. Or are these ignored because they go against your brainwashing.
> 
> 
> Yes Jesus Christ the Zionist Jew
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus  would find ZIONISM........IMBISOLIC......and would cast you asunder.....Anyhow you ZIONIST don't believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God,which makes your post a complete JOKE as you are
Click to expand...








 WRONG as it was what he believed in and preached when he said " Next year in Jerusalem "

 Time to get a new English teacher, or learn how to use a spell checker and Thesaurus


 Your last comment is yet another LIE as we non Jewish Zionists do believe in him as a prophet and teacher. You need to get your facts together


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is "flin-flam" artistry at its finest.  A twisting of the truth to make it appear to be legitimate.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the issue of territorial integrity, the Palestinians made no effort to form a treaty with the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine already has uncontested international borders. Why would they need a treaty with Israel?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Don't even attempt to use the boundaries of the former territory to which the Mandate applied as some sort of legitimate boundary for the Hostile Arab Palestinians to grab onto.  

And don't attempt to use the political language by the Khartoum Resolution (the 1967 three "no's") that attempts to not recognized Israel by calling the boundary something else.  

The Boundary of Israel is the extent to which Israeli law and sovereignty are made a reality.  Where is the territory to which Palestine (the PLO rebranded) law and sovereignty are made a reality. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.


Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?

Link?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Strange that Rocco claims that the native people of Palestine have no right to armed resistance when the Geneva Conventions (Protocol II) apply to just that sort of conflict.
> 
> "1. This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of applications, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and *which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups......................"*
> 
> https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0321.pdf








 Can you actually read and understand English, or do you just take a stab at what it says.

  and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)

which is the part before your highlighted section that puts meat on the bones and shows that it applies to civilians caught up in war.   The rules of armed resistance still apply and the arab muslims are still illegally attacking the IDF when they hide in civilian areas wearing civilian clothes


----------



## Phoenall

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You have to ask yourself, what is the end game that each question answers.  International law attempts to preserve the peace and security over the Question of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's absurd is your assertion that occupied people do not have a right to resist occupation through force of arms if necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> My assertion (no matter what you might make of it) has the outcome of peace and security.  Which is exactly what Article 43 of the Hague Regulation demands.
> 
> Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:"  resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.  It advocated conflict "through force of arms."  Nowhere in International Law does it encourage armed conflict _(Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence)_.   Your argument has a mere semblance of legal "right" to engage in conflict.  It uses  the "pretense or appearance of a right" by shaping the law such that a justification emerges.  We call this the color of law.  And it has been used many time over the centuries.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...







 Just monte supporting and defending islamonazi terrorism again because he is too much of a coward to fight himself


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is "flin-flam" artistry at its finest.  A twisting of the truth to make it appear to be legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the issue of territorial integrity, the Palestinians made no effort to form a treaty with the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine already has uncontested international borders. Why would they need a treaty with Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't even attempt to use the boundaries of the former territory to which the Mandate applied as some sort of legitimate boundary for the Hostile Arab Palestinians to grab onto.
> 
> And don't attempt to use the political language by the Khartoum Resolution (the 1967 three "no's") that attempts to not recognized Israel by calling the boundary something else.
> 
> The Boundary of Israel is the extent to which Israeli law and sovereignty are made a reality.  Where is the territory to which Palestine (the PLO rebranded) law and sovereignty are made a reality.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Oh jeese, Rocco, are you still shoveling Israeli shit?

When were Palestine's borders ever changed?

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes this is one of those conspiracy theories; where the perpetual victim (the Palestinians) fall prey to the big bad Americans.  (Or some such non-sense.)



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Palestinian unity government resigns - Al Jazeera English*
> 
> The Palestinian unity government formed only a year ago has resigned after President Mahmoud Abbas said it was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> The resignation came after it emerged that the Gaza Strip's rulers Hamas held separate indirect talks with Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that nobody ever mentions why the split.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The "why" is not important.  If the Hostile Arab Palestinian factions could not maintain their Unity Government, (June 2014 - June 2015) then that is their fault.  It was not really a "Unity Government to start with...

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Palestinian unity government resigns - Al Jazeera English*
> 
> The Palestinian unity government formed only a year ago has resigned after President Mahmoud Abbas said it was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> The resignation came after it emerged that the Gaza Strip's rulers Hamas held separate indirect talks with Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that nobody ever mentions why the split.
Click to expand...







 Simple because it is arab muslim mentality to fight for supremacy and to hell with how many arab muslims need to die in the process


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...







 Given hundreds of times, so go read the Geneva conventions in full like everyone else does.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is just another attempt to suggest that the Arab Palestinians had some sort of Rights and Title.



P F Tinmore said:


> Oh jeese, Rocco, are you still shoveling Israeli shit?
> 
> When were Palestine's borders ever changed?
> 
> Link?


*(COMMENT)*



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

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is "flin-flam" artistry at its finest.  A twisting of the truth to make it appear to be legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the issue of territorial integrity, the Palestinians made no effort to form a treaty with the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine already has uncontested international borders. Why would they need a treaty with Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't even attempt to use the boundaries of the former territory to which the Mandate applied as some sort of legitimate boundary for the Hostile Arab Palestinians to grab onto.
> 
> And don't attempt to use the political language by the Khartoum Resolution (the 1967 three "no's") that attempts to not recognized Israel by calling the boundary something else.
> 
> The Boundary of Israel is the extent to which Israeli law and sovereignty are made a reality.  Where is the territory to which Palestine (the PLO rebranded) law and sovereignty are made a reality.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, Rocco, are you still shoveling Israeli shit?
> 
> When were Palestine's borders ever changed?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...






When did they ever exist is the proper question to be asked, as the borders you mean are the borders of the mandate of palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes this is one of those conspiracy theories; where the perpetual victim (the Palestinians) fall prey to the big bad Americans.  (Or some such non-sense.)
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Palestinian unity government resigns - Al Jazeera English*
> 
> The Palestinian unity government formed only a year ago has resigned after President Mahmoud Abbas said it was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> The resignation came after it emerged that the Gaza Strip's rulers Hamas held separate indirect talks with Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that nobody ever mentions why the split.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The "why" is not important.  If the Hostile Arab Palestinian factions could not maintain their Unity Government, (June 2014 - June 2015) then that is their fault.  It was not really a "Unity Government to start with...
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Pfffft, another slime the Palestinians post. A coup fomented by the world's superpower and you call it Palestinian incompetence.

And you ducked the question.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is "flin-flam" artistry at its finest.  A twisting of the truth to make it appear to be legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the issue of territorial integrity, the Palestinians made no effort to form a treaty with the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine already has uncontested international borders. Why would they need a treaty with Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Don't even attempt to use the boundaries of the former territory to which the Mandate applied as some sort of legitimate boundary for the Hostile Arab Palestinians to grab onto.
> 
> And don't attempt to use the political language by the Khartoum Resolution (the 1967 three "no's") that attempts to not recognized Israel by calling the boundary something else.
> 
> The Boundary of Israel is the extent to which Israeli law and sovereignty are made a reality.  Where is the territory to which Palestine (the PLO rebranded) law and sovereignty are made a reality.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, Rocco, are you still shoveling Israeli shit?
> 
> When were Palestine's borders ever changed?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did they ever exist is the proper question to be asked, as the borders you mean are the borders of the mandate of palestine
Click to expand...

The mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily appointed administration.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  et al,
> 
> You are using generic allegations _(theft, murder, and expulsion)_, not pinned to a particular event of period in time.  The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional.  The principle Factions now operating in _[what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177).  The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:
> 
> *§  *Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
> *§  *People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
> *§  *Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
> *§  *Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
> *§  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
> *§  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
> *§  *Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
> *§  *Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
> *§  *Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
> *§  *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> 
> *ARTICLE 68* ---  *STATES IN PART:* ---
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​Additional Protocol I
> Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
> The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, _inter alia_, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
> 
> Additional Protocol II
> Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
> shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.​
> The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No question that the Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native people that have been invaded by foreigners have every right to resist the invader in any way possible.  Pursuant to
> 
> "United Nations
> *A/RES/37/43*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *​*General Assembly*
> Distr. GENERAL
> 
> 3 December 1982
> 
> ORIGINAL:
> ENGLISH
> 
> 
> 
> .........................2.   Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
> independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
> colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
> *including armed struggle*;"
> 
> A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> Would you say the Native American mentality that caused them to resist the European invasion was unreasonable?
Click to expand...









 But not to commit acts of terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity and murder. These will still be dealt with by due process.
 Armed struggle means fighting in areas that have no civilian component to get in the way, and as the evidence shows gaza is 50% empty land


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians had something to defend...



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


*(COMMENT)*

Please tell me what sovereignty the Arab Palestinians had to defend.

This is illusionary. 

Where is the boundaries for which the Arab Palestinians claims and maintains sovereignty?...  If they are actually defending their land, then their should be some land which the Title and Rights are established as theirs.  

In Israel, that is well established by the UNIFIL in the North, Jordanians to the East, and the Egyptians to the South.

Where are the Palestinians borders?  I'll give you Gaza...  But I'm not sure what Gaza is...   It is almost a tiny country by itself.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I'm confused.   Are you saying that there was an American orchestrated _coup d'état_ in 2014?



P F Tinmore said:


> Pfffft, another slime the Palestinians post. A coup fomented by the world's superpower and you call it Palestinian incompetence.
> 
> And you ducked the question.


*(COMMENT)*

I thought that in 2014, when the Unity Government was formed, that President Mahmoud Abbas said the Unity Government was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.

*Inability to operate in Gaza Strip cited as reason for possible disbanding amid talk of Hamas-Israel truce.*
*Al-Jazeera POLITICS  17 JUNE 2015*
An official said that Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah had handed his resignation to President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday afternoon, and Abbas had ordered him to form a new government.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

RoccoR said:


> Yes --- As I said:  Your interpretation of the International Laws must be so, otherwise the Arab Palestinians lose thier legitimacy.  So they MUST TWIST the law in order to achieve the illusion of legitimacy.



So true.  We see this over and over in this conflict.  Laws twisted and new meanings found for them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I'm confused.


Indeed!


RoccoR said:


> I thought that in 2014, when the Unity Government was formed, that President Mahmoud Abbas said the Unity Government was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.


OK, you are getting close.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians had something to defend...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Please tell me what sovereignty the Arab Palestinians had to defend.
> 
> This is illusionary.
> 
> Where is the boundaries for which the Arab Palestinians claims and maintains sovereignty?...  If they are actually defending their land, then their should be some land which the Title and Rights are established as theirs.
> 
> In Israel, that is well established by the UNIFIL in the North, Jordanians to the East, and the Egyptians to the South.
> 
> Where are the Palestinians borders?  I'll give you Gaza...  But I'm not sure what Gaza is...   It is almost a tiny country by itself.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Pursuant to Article 73 of the Charter of the United nations,which Britain signed, sovereignty was held in trust on behalf of the inhabitants of Palestine up and until the British ended the mandate.  The Muslim and Christian Arabs, who represented 70% of the population, as the majority, should have been supported in the creation of the independent state of Palestine.  It is clear that the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine’s constitutional organization,  it was for the majority of the inhabitants to decide, assuming minority protections, and they decided that: 

1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.

2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.

3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.

4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians had something to defend...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Please tell me what sovereignty the Arab Palestinians had to defend.
> 
> This is illusionary.
> 
> Where is the boundaries for which the Arab Palestinians claims and maintains sovereignty?...  If they are actually defending their land, then their should be some land which the Title and Rights are established as theirs.
> 
> In Israel, that is well established by the UNIFIL in the North, Jordanians to the East, and the Egyptians to the South.
> 
> Where are the Palestinians borders?  I'll give you Gaza...  But I'm not sure what Gaza is...   It is almost a tiny country by itself.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pursuant to Article 73 of the Charter of the United nations,which Britain signed, sovereignty was held in trust on behalf of the inhabitants of Palestine up and until the British ended the mandate.  The Muslim and Christian Arabs, who represented 70% of the population, as the majority, should have been supported in the creation of the independent state of Palestine.  It is clear that the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine’s constitutional organization,  it was for the majority of the inhabitants to decide, assuming minority protections, and they decided that:
> 
> 1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.
> 
> 2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.
> 
> 3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.
> 
> 4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.
Click to expand...

The 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence was completely in compliance of the law.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians had something to defend...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Please tell me what sovereignty the Arab Palestinians had to defend.
> 
> This is illusionary.
> 
> Where is the boundaries for which the Arab Palestinians claims and maintains sovereignty?...  If they are actually defending their land, then their should be some land which the Title and Rights are established as theirs.
> 
> In Israel, that is well established by the UNIFIL in the North, Jordanians to the East, and the Egyptians to the South.
> 
> Where are the Palestinians borders?  I'll give you Gaza...  But I'm not sure what Gaza is...   It is almost a tiny country by itself.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pursuant to Article 73 of the Charter of the United nations,which Britain signed, sovereignty was held in trust on behalf of the inhabitants of Palestine up and until the British ended the mandate.  The Muslim and Christian Arabs, who represented 70% of the population, as the majority, should have been supported in the creation of the independent state of Palestine.  It is clear that the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine’s constitutional organization,  it was for the majority of the inhabitants to decide, assuming minority protections, and they decided that:
> 
> 1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.
> 
> 2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.
> 
> 3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.
> 
> 4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence was completely in compliance of the law.
Click to expand...


You've fallen down and bumped your head again, right?


----------



## theliq

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  et al,
> 
> You are using generic allegations _(theft, murder, and expulsion)_, not pinned to a particular event of period in time.  The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional.  The principle Factions now operating in _[what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177).  The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:
> 
> *§  *Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
> *§  *People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
> *§  *Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
> *§  *Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
> *§  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
> *§  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
> *§  *Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
> *§  *Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
> *§  *Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
> *§  *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> To mitigate the emergence of multiple hostile foreign national aggressors
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> 
> *ARTICLE 68* ---  *STATES IN PART:* ---
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​Additional Protocol I
> Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
> The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, _inter alia_, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
> 
> Additional Protocol II
> Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
> shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.​
> The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No question that the Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native people that have been invaded by foreigners have every right to resist the invader in any way possible.  Pursuant to
> 
> "United Nations
> *A/RES/37/43*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *​*General Assembly*
> Distr. GENERAL
> 
> 3 December 1982
> 
> ORIGINAL:
> ENGLISH
> 
> 
> 
> .........................2.   Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
> independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
> colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
> *including armed struggle*;"
> 
> A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> Would you say the Native American mentality that caused them to resist the European invasion was unreasonable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as you would hope to encourage the Arabs-Moslems toward violence and armed attacks directed at the Israelis, nothing in your article provides an entitlement to kill israeli citizens.
> 
> That's the problem you are confronted with when you mindlessly cut and paste articles without understanding some very basic principles.
Click to expand...

NO one is  saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie,get REAL


----------



## RoccoR

theliq, et al,

I don't believe this is true.



theliq said:


> NO one is  saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL


*(COMMENT)*

Many have said they want violence.  Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.

It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter.  Violence is taught in summer camp for kids.   Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom.   Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation.  Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets.  Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same.  The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.

They want violence.  They are a threat to peace and security.  The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> theliq, et al,
> 
> I don't believe this is true.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO one is  saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Many have said they want violence.  Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.
> 
> It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter.  Violence is taught in summer camp for kids.   Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom.   Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation.  Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets.  Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same.  The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.
> 
> They want violence.  They are a threat to peace and security.  The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Come


----------



## Eloy

RoccoR said:


> theliq, et al,
> 
> I don't believe this is true.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO one is  saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Many have said they want violence.  Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.
> 
> It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter.  Violence is taught in summer camp for kids.   Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom.   Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation.  Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets.  Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same.  The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.
> 
> They want violence.  They are a threat to peace and security.  The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Resistance to Israelis is not resistance to Jews. _Israeli_ and _Jew_ are not interchangeable words.


----------



## theliq

RoccoR said:


> theliq, et al,
> 
> I don't believe this is true.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO one is  saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Many have said they want violence.  Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.
> 
> It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter.  Violence is taught in summer camp for kids.   Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom.   Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation.  Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets.  Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same.  The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.
> 
> They want violence.  They are a threat to peace and security.  The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

CC


Come off it Rocco,the Zionists have been  waging War on the Palestinians  prior to and ever since 1948........lets be honest here for a change(and yes some on here have stated that the Palestinians should be driven into the sea....you have seen all these negative Zionist commentary on here) all the Palestinians want is their own State/Country.FULL STOP.

Israel/Zionists have NO MORAL HIGH GROUND in this instance at all

As for your incendiary comment regarding the teaching of children to create violence towards Jews is churlish at best...........My Jewish friend allowed his two sons to go to Israel in their teens(a right of passage as it were) The boys were lovely kids....After 3 weeks of indoctorination they came back Rabid Haters of Palestinians.....much to the disappointment of their father and mother.......so pleasssseeeee stop all this nonsense about only the Palestinians because the Jews/Zionists are much worse....at least the Palestinian children see the violence and injustice as the live it every day....It is a shame that this type of thing occurs  from both sides as it just continues this schism.

I note you never criticize Zionists,but are happy to dump on the Palestinians all the time....it is just a form of mental myopia,if you get my drift........your post would have been more appropriate  if you had also gave a list of Jewish Terrorist etc., and dates of formation(which you more than most are quite capable of....but you chose not to..Why ?

And another thing Rocco,stop implying I somehow am trying to Tarnish you in any way......I was responding to your inaccurate post about the growth rate in Israel(which I might add,has been natrually sic created/occurred by the Ultras and Palestinians birth rates) and by immigrants coming to Israel.....as I said thousands of Jews have left and are leaving Israel.

I expect a lot from you Rocco I know but that is the way  it is.......I will take this opportunity of wishing Your Family and Yourself Seasons Greetings...steve


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> Resistance to Israelis is not resistance to Jews. _Israeli_ and _Jew_ are not interchangeable words.



Bullshit.  How many Arab Israelis have been stabbed or run over by cars?  How many clerics have called for the stabbing of Muslims?


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resistance to Israelis is not resistance to Jews. _Israeli_ and _Jew_ are not interchangeable words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  How many Arab Israelis have been stabbed or run over by cars?  How many clerics have called for the stabbing of Muslims?
Click to expand...

This is the first time you characterized any of my posts with an expletive. Do not expect to hear from me again.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> theliq, et al,
> 
> I don't believe this is true.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO one is  saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Many have said they want violence.  Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.
> 
> It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter.  Violence is taught in summer camp for kids.   Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom.   Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation.  Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets.  Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same.  The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.
> 
> They want violence.  They are a threat to peace and security.  The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Jews spend a day in Gaza. Funny, I don't see any violence.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that in 2014, when the Unity Government was formed, that President Mahmoud Abbas said the Unity Government was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, you are getting close.
Click to expand...








 Why dont you just provide the link and then watch as it is taken apart strand by strand and proven to be just another tinmore LIE


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians had something to defend...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Please tell me what sovereignty the Arab Palestinians had to defend.
> 
> This is illusionary.
> 
> Where is the boundaries for which the Arab Palestinians claims and maintains sovereignty?...  If they are actually defending their land, then their should be some land which the Title and Rights are established as theirs.
> 
> In Israel, that is well established by the UNIFIL in the North, Jordanians to the East, and the Egyptians to the South.
> 
> Where are the Palestinians borders?  I'll give you Gaza...  But I'm not sure what Gaza is...   It is almost a tiny country by itself.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pursuant to Article 73 of the Charter of the United nations,which Britain signed, sovereignty was held in trust on behalf of the inhabitants of Palestine up and until the British ended the mandate.  The Muslim and Christian Arabs, who represented 70% of the population, as the majority, should have been supported in the creation of the independent state of Palestine.  It is clear that the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine’s constitutional organization,  it was for the majority of the inhabitants to decide, assuming minority protections, and they decided that:
> 
> 1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.
> 
> 2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.
> 
> 3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.
> 
> 4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.
Click to expand...








 The arab and Christian refused to be part of the deal so lost out and in the process lost the ability to declare independence. Even my 7 year old grand daughter knows this and understands that you lose if you dont take part


1)   They have already said that no Jew born after 1870 will be allowed to live in palestine

2)   They made the same promise in 1988 and the world is still waiting for it to be put in place

3)   They have shown how they will do that by wiping them out

4)   They wont allow the Jews and Christians any access to their holy places now so what chance that crock of shit.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This question presupposes that the Arab Palestinians had something to defend...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assertion that the Arab Palestinians has the "Right TO:" resist occupation through force of arms, is exactly the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that the Palestinians are exempt from the right to defend themselves?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Please tell me what sovereignty the Arab Palestinians had to defend.
> 
> This is illusionary.
> 
> Where is the boundaries for which the Arab Palestinians claims and maintains sovereignty?...  If they are actually defending their land, then their should be some land which the Title and Rights are established as theirs.
> 
> In Israel, that is well established by the UNIFIL in the North, Jordanians to the East, and the Egyptians to the South.
> 
> Where are the Palestinians borders?  I'll give you Gaza...  But I'm not sure what Gaza is...   It is almost a tiny country by itself.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pursuant to Article 73 of the Charter of the United nations,which Britain signed, sovereignty was held in trust on behalf of the inhabitants of Palestine up and until the British ended the mandate.  The Muslim and Christian Arabs, who represented 70% of the population, as the majority, should have been supported in the creation of the independent state of Palestine.  It is clear that the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine’s constitutional organization,  it was for the majority of the inhabitants to decide, assuming minority protections, and they decided that:
> 
> 1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.
> 
> 2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.
> 
> 3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.
> 
> 4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 1948 Palestinian declaration of independence was completely in compliance of the law.
Click to expand...








 Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews, italso failed to show they had free determination and were capable of standing on their own. The declaration was made by a third party, the arab league, making it unlawful outside influence. So what you see as being in compliance with the law was no such thing, it was a tactic to circumvent the Jews already valid acceptance and it failed.


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq,  et al,
> 
> You are using generic allegations _(theft, murder, and expulsion)_, not pinned to a particular event of period in time.  The current ad hoc Government of Palestine is fractured and on the verge of being dysfunctional.  The principle Factions now operating in _[what has come to be called as the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt)]_ the territory occupied since 1967 (A/RES/43/177).  The oPt has a mixture of rejectionist groups including (but not limited to) Islamic and secular movements:
> 
> *§  *Selected elements of the People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded 1961;
> *§  *People’s Liberation Front (PLF) Founded in 1964;
> *§  *Selected elements of the Palestine Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) Founded in 1967;
> *§  *Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP) Founded 1967;
> *§  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC) Founded 1968;
> *§  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) Founded in 1969;
> *§  *Revolutionary Communist Party (RCPof Palestine) Founded 1982;
> *§  *Fatah Intifada (Abu Musa)Founded 1983;
> *§  *Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) Founded 1987;
> *§  *Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) Founded 1987;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the people fighting against theft, murder, and expulsion?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All that can be said, is in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which the UN Security Council directed to be applied in UNSC Resolution 237: and again in Resolution 446:
> Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
> PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY
> 
> *ARTICLE 68* ---  *STATES IN PART:* ---
> 
> Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
> 
> The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
> *-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​Additional Protocol I
> Article 43(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
> The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct of its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, _inter alia_, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
> 
> Additional Protocol II
> Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that the Protocol
> shall apply to all armed conflicts … which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.​
> The Arab Palestinians have no special rights or dispensation to Jihad and Armed Conflict.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No question that the Palestinians have been their own greatest enemy.  It's called Palestinian mentality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Native people that have been invaded by foreigners have every right to resist the invader in any way possible.  Pursuant to
> 
> "United Nations
> *A/RES/37/43*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *​*General Assembly*
> Distr. GENERAL
> 
> 3 December 1982
> 
> ORIGINAL:
> ENGLISH
> 
> 
> 
> .........................2.   Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
> independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
> colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,
> *including armed struggle*;"
> 
> A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights
> 
> Would you say the Native American mentality that caused them to resist the European invasion was unreasonable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as you would hope to encourage the Arabs-Moslems toward violence and armed attacks directed at the Israelis, nothing in your article provides an entitlement to kill israeli citizens.
> 
> That's the problem you are confronted with when you mindlessly cut and paste articles without understanding some very basic principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO one is  saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie,get REAL
Click to expand...







 Have youread the palestinian charter and the hamas charter recently. Or watched the videos of palestinians inciting violence against the Jews ?
 OR WILL YOU CLAIM THESE ARE ZIONIST LIES ?


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I don't believe this is true.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO one is  saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Many have said they want violence.  Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.
> 
> It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter.  Violence is taught in summer camp for kids.   Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom.   Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation.  Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets.  Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same.  The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.
> 
> They want violence.  They are a threat to peace and security.  The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Resistance to Israelis is not resistance to Jews. _Israeli_ and _Jew_ are not interchangeable words.
Click to expand...








 Then why do you use them as such ?


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Resistance to Israelis is not resistance to Jews. _Israeli_ and _Jew_ are not interchangeable words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  How many Arab Israelis have been stabbed or run over by cars?  How many clerics have called for the stabbing of Muslims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the first time you characterized any of my posts with an expletive. Do not expect to hear from me again.
Click to expand...







 Typical coward that backs out rather than fight the corner. Will you leave for good and not come back when everyone does the same thing to you


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I don't believe this is true.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO one is  saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Many have said they want violence.  Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.
> 
> It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter.  Violence is taught in summer camp for kids.   Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom.   Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation.  Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets.  Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same.  The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.
> 
> They want violence.  They are a threat to peace and security.  The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jews spend a day in Gaza. Funny, I don't see any violence.
Click to expand...







 You wont when the arab muslims are mooching of the left wing Jews, but let them say we have no more to give and the violence will erupt


----------



## Phoenall

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> theliq, et al,
> 
> I don't believe this is true.
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO one is  saying they want Violence against Jews......so STOP inferring such nonsense Hollie, get REAL
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Many have said they want violence.  Jihad and Armed Struggle is the preferred approach in answering the Question on Palestine.
> 
> It comes from the very first threat in February 1948, it is embedded in both the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement and the Palestinian National Charter.  Violence is taught in summer camp for kids.   Palestinian Leaders reinforce violence each time they praise martyrdom.   Palestinians, are rejectionists and make demands to provoke confrontation.  Palestinians promote themselves as warriors --- all the while attacking innocent and unarmed civilian targets.  Whether it is HAMAS that announces it has not abandoned the option of suicide bombings (2013); or - Palestinian groups called for launching a third intifada against Israel --- the outcome is always the same.  The Palestinians search for justification and means to inflict violence; generally in the form of cowardice attacks on unsuspecting innocents.
> 
> They want violence.  They are a threat to peace and security.  The Palestinians are unwilling to exercise Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> CC
> 
> 
> Come off it Rocco,the Zionists have been  waging War on the Palestinians  prior to and ever since 1948........lets be honest here for a change(and yes some on here have stated that the Palestinians should be driven into the sea....you have seen all these negative Zionist commentary on here) all the Palestinians want is their own State/Country.FULL STOP.
> 
> Israel/Zionists have NO MORAL HIGH GROUND in this instance at all
> 
> As for your incendiary comment regarding the teaching of children to create violence towards Jews is churlish at best...........My Jewish friend allowed his two sons to go to Israel in their teens(a right of passage as it were) The boys were lovely kids....After 3 weeks of indoctorination they came back Rabid Haters of Palestinians.....much to the disappointment of their father and mother.......so pleasssseeeee stop all this nonsense about only the Palestinians because the Jews/Zionists are much worse....at least the Palestinian children see the violence and injustice as the live it every day....It is a shame that this type of thing occurs  from both sides as it just continues this schism.
> 
> I note you never criticize Zionists,but are happy to dump on the Palestinians all the time....it is just a form of mental myopia,if you get my drift........your post would have been more appropriate  if you had also gave a list of Jewish Terrorist etc., and dates of formation(which you more than most are quite capable of....but you chose not to..Why ?
> 
> And another thing Rocco,stop implying I somehow am trying to Tarnish you in any way......I was responding to your inaccurate post about the growth rate in Israel(which I might add,has been natrually sic created/occurred by the Ultras and Palestinians birth rates) and by immigrants coming to Israel.....as I said thousands of Jews have left and are leaving Israel.
> 
> I expect a lot from you Rocco I know but that is the way  it is.......I will take this opportunity of wishing Your Family and Yourself Seasons Greetings...steve
Click to expand...






 Another change of date because you are being shown up as a LIAR once more.

How about a link to this alleged declaration of war by the Zionists, or will this turn out to be yet another of your LIES. I can provide you with links that show the arab league has declared war on Israel, and has it as part of their charter to drive the Jews into the sea. Again provide the links to show that it was others on here that said this

It is you without the MORAL HIGH GROUND after being caught in your constant LIES and LIBELS

Again you LIE as you have no Jewish friends, your Jew hatred seeps out of every pore and they woulld be able to smell it. But still you tell a good story and it is a pity that there is no call for islamonazi storybooks. But after 3 weeks in Israel you would come back hating the arab muslims as well after seeing them first hand inciting violenced and terrorism against children.  Cant be much violence looking at the pictures tinny posted yesterday of gaza, quite some place where the hamas leadership lives.

Because there is nothing to complain about as Zionists are just a political movement like hamas or fatah 

BULLSHIT   now go and play with the red backs and funnel webs like a good boy


----------



## RoccoR

Eloy,  et al,

In the absolute sense, this is true.  "The Israeli" (the people) is not interchangeable with "The Jews" (the people).  

Israeli --- is a political designation for a people; pinned to a bounded territory.
Jew --- is a religious designation for a people.​


Eloy said:


> Resistance to Israelis is not resistance to Jews. _Israeli_ and _Jew_ are not interchangeable words.


*(OBSERVATION FROM THE OUTSIDE)*

The Arab Position:

The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. They consider that imposing international alien immigrants on their country by force is nothing but an act of aggression and invasion, whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation therefore expects that the duty of the United Nations is to remove the said aggression and stop that invasion. *The creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression, it is something with no precedent in history.* It is an act of wiping out the existence of an Arab country, violating its integrity, subjecting its land and people to foreign Jewish domination. “​
In conclusion, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) Delegation wishes to stress the following:

•  The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.

•  The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.

•  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. ​
I think there is an importance, relative to the "intent:"

•  The intent of the Allied Powers was to allow for the creation of a Jewish Enclave referred to as a "National Home."  This Enclave would serve as a refuge for Jewish populations to retreat in times of persecution.  This Enclave was called "Israel" by those seeking to live in a place that provides shelter or protection.

•   The intent of the AHC - Palestinians was a deliberate effort by AHC-Palestinian armed force to undermine the establishment or reconstitution of a Jewish National Home (JNH) (the refuge).​*(COMMENT)*

From the AHC/Palestinian perspective, the endgame is the destruction of the JNH.  This is achieved by the elimination of all Jews (Article 4+6) who are willing to assist in the establishment of the JNH.  And to get to the Jews _(willing to assist in the establishment of the JNH)_, the AHC/Palestinian must attack the Israelis.

SO!  The rise in populism around the world carries disturbing echoes of anti-Semitism and the fascism of the 1930s, Britain’s Prince Charles warned in a BBC Radio interview this week. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that in 2014, when the Unity Government was formed, that President Mahmoud Abbas said the Unity Government was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, you are getting close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why dont you just provide the link and then watch as it is taken apart strand by strand and proven to be just another tinmore LIE
Click to expand...

I already have but they were not from israelibullshit.il so nobody looked at them.

Since I am never believed, I will let Rocco and others look it up themselves.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> The declaration was made by a third party, the arab league, making it unlawful outside influence.


And Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

So, what is your point?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> The arab and Christian refused to be part of the deal so lost out and in the process lost the ability to declare independence.


Do you have a link for that BS?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> How about a link to this alleged declaration of war by the Zionists,


Colonization is an act of aggression.

The Zionists and the British used this description regularly.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews,


I've heard that a Gazillion times.

I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Arab Position:
> 
> The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. *They consider that imposing international alien immigrants on their country by force is nothing but an act of aggression and invasion,* whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation therefore expects that the duty of the United Nations is to remove the said aggression and stop that invasion. *The creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression, it is something with no precedent in history.* It is an act of wiping out the existence of an Arab country, violating its integrity, subjecting its land and people to foreign Jewish domination. “


Thanks, Rocco. Every word is true.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> • 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.


There is that external interference thing again.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • 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.
> 
> 
> 
> There is that external interference thing again.
Click to expand...


It's been there before with the Arab-Moslem invaders to the geographic area of Pal'istan. It's obvious that you're just selective in your whining about external interference.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that in 2014, when the Unity Government was formed, that President Mahmoud Abbas said the Unity Government was unable to operate in the Gaza Strip.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, you are getting close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why dont you just provide the link and then watch as it is taken apart strand by strand and proven to be just another tinmore LIE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already have but they were not from israelibullshit.il so nobody looked at them.
> 
> Since I am never believed, I will let Rocco and others look it up themselves.
Click to expand...








 No you never provided a valid link that was unbiased that said what you claim. All you produced was the usual pallywood.net and islamonazonazi.org propaganda pieces.


 We still wait for your proof of the palestinian state prior to 1988, why are you refusing to show your evidence from israelibullshit.il that says it was not a nation ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The declaration was made by a third party, the arab league, making it unlawful outside influence.
> 
> 
> 
> And Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.
> 
> So, what is your point?
Click to expand...








 That the Jewish Agency was accepted as the body representing the Jews by the League of Nations in 1923 when the Mandates were put into International law. The arab muslims were given the same opportunity as the Jews to make representation at the LoN  and negotiate their position but they refused. This meant they lost any rights they might have had to any land they held that was given away by the Ottomans to the LoN. This means that the LoN was not duty bound by relevant international laws of that time to give anything to the arab muslims and so froze them out. They are their own worst enemies and never miss a chance to miss a chance and end up LOSERS as a result. And before you make false claims of rights they gave them up along with any claims of any lands when they refused to be party to any negotiations. So they have not had their rights taken away, they threw them away out of spite.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The arab and Christian refused to be part of the deal so lost out and in the process lost the ability to declare independence.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that BS?
Click to expand...








 Do you have a link to your bullshit of a nation of palestine prior to 1988


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about a link to this alleged declaration of war by the Zionists,
> 
> 
> 
> Colonization is an act of aggression.
> 
> The Zionists and the British used this description regularly.
Click to expand...







 So you dont and are now trying to deflect away.

Provide the link or be a LIAR and HYPOCRITE


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews,
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that a Gazillion times.
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
Click to expand...








 So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.

 See my other reply regarding the arab muslims refusal to be part of the LoN mandate system and so throwing away their rights to be part of the civilised world


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The declaration was made by a third party, the arab league, making it unlawful outside influence.
> 
> 
> 
> And Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.
> 
> So, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the Jewish Agency was accepted as the body representing the Jews by the League of Nations in 1923 when the Mandates were put into International law. The arab muslims were given the same opportunity as the Jews to make representation at the LoN  and negotiate their position but they refused. This meant they lost any rights they might have had to any land they held that was given away by the Ottomans to the LoN. This means that the LoN was not duty bound by relevant international laws of that time to give anything to the arab muslims and so froze them out. They are their own worst enemies and never miss a chance to miss a chance and end up LOSERS as a result. And before you make false claims of rights they gave them up along with any claims of any lands when they refused to be party to any negotiations. So they have not had their rights taken away, they threw them away out of spite.
Click to expand...

WOW, so many Israeli BS talking points.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Position:
> 
> The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. *They consider that imposing international alien immigrants on their country by force is nothing but an act of aggression and invasion,* whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation therefore expects that the duty of the United Nations is to remove the said aggression and stop that invasion. *The creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression, it is something with no precedent in history.* It is an act of wiping out the existence of an Arab country, violating its integrity, subjecting its land and people to foreign Jewish domination. “
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Rocco. Every word is true.
Click to expand...







 How can it be true if it is islamonazi.propaganda.net LIES. The land was owned by the LoN who held sovereignty over it, not the arab muslims so they lost when they refused to be part of the civilised world in 1923


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews,
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that a Gazillion times.
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.
> 
> See my other reply regarding the arab muslims refusal to be part of the LoN mandate system and so throwing away their rights to be part of the civilised world
Click to expand...

Deflection.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • 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.
> 
> 
> 
> There is that external interference thing again.
Click to expand...







 WRONG as this was before external influence became a buzz word for the arab muslims and their stooges. You cant backdate international laws or resolutions unless you want them to apply to you and your theft of lands in America


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The declaration was made by a third party, the arab league, making it unlawful outside influence.
> 
> 
> 
> And Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.
> 
> So, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the Jewish Agency was accepted as the body representing the Jews by the League of Nations in 1923 when the Mandates were put into International law. The arab muslims were given the same opportunity as the Jews to make representation at the LoN  and negotiate their position but they refused. This meant they lost any rights they might have had to any land they held that was given away by the Ottomans to the LoN. This means that the LoN was not duty bound by relevant international laws of that time to give anything to the arab muslims and so froze them out. They are their own worst enemies and never miss a chance to miss a chance and end up LOSERS as a result. And before you make false claims of rights they gave them up along with any claims of any lands when they refused to be party to any negotiations. So they have not had their rights taken away, they threw them away out of spite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, so many Israeli BS talking points.
Click to expand...






 How is the truth anything but the truth, are you denying that the arab muslims refused to be part of the negotiations and so lost what few rights they had in 1923 for ever ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews,
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that a Gazillion times.
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.
> 
> See my other reply regarding the arab muslims refusal to be part of the LoN mandate system and so throwing away their rights to be part of the civilised world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
Click to expand...







 How is it deflection ?   it answers your claim and proves you wrong

Getting monotonous now proving you a LIAR and a moron


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews,
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that a Gazillion times.
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.
> 
> See my other reply regarding the arab muslims refusal to be part of the LoN mandate system and so throwing away their rights to be part of the civilised world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it deflection ?   it answers your claim and proves you wrong
> 
> Getting monotonous now proving you a LIAR and a moron
Click to expand...

Changing the subject is deflection.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews,
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that a Gazillion times.
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.
> 
> See my other reply regarding the arab muslims refusal to be part of the LoN mandate system and so throwing away their rights to be part of the civilised world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it deflection ?   it answers your claim and proves you wrong
> 
> Getting monotonous now proving you a LIAR and a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the subject is deflection.
Click to expand...







 I didnt change the subject so how is it deflection, or are you losing the argument and want to get out of the hole you have dug ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews,
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that a Gazillion times.
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.
> 
> See my other reply regarding the arab muslims refusal to be part of the LoN mandate system and so throwing away their rights to be part of the civilised world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it deflection ?   it answers your claim and proves you wrong
> 
> Getting monotonous now proving you a LIAR and a moron
Click to expand...

Changing the subject is deflection.


Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that a Gazillion times.
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.
> 
> See my other reply regarding the arab muslims refusal to be part of the LoN mandate system and so throwing away their rights to be part of the civilised world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it deflection ?   it answers your claim and proves you wrong
> 
> Getting monotonous now proving you a LIAR and a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the subject is deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt change the subject so how is it deflection, or are you losing the argument and want to get out of the hole you have dug ?
Click to expand...

Phoenall said: ↑
Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews,

I've heard that a Gazillion times.

I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.

You are deflecting my post.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,

This is getting confusing...

I think this technique used by our friend "P F Tinmore" calling everything a "deflection" and "denying the matter of record" is merely a preprogrammed response to anything that the anti- Semitic and pro-Palestinian activist do not want to recognize.



P F Tinmore said:


> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> ...
> Deflection.


*(OBSERVATION)*

By a cablegram dated* May 15 1948 (S/747)* the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Government of Israel had informed the Security Council of the Proclamation of an independent State of Israel in Palestine.

I fully am cognizant that the representative of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) claimed the Jewish Agency/Provision Government of Israel had no right to address the Arab League Military Forces as the Aggressor.  The AHC Representative defended its position by stating the AHC had "invited" to maintain law and order. The AHC put forth the counter-claim that on termination of the Mandate, --- Palestine became an independent nation; --- and the Jews constituted a defiant faction and a "rebellious minority." 

The Egyptian Government claimed that it was intervening in Palestine solely to preserve law and order. Egypt also agreed that with the termination of the Mandate, Palestine had regained complete independence and sovereignty.​


P F Tinmore said:


> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, not everything that has been done, is available ob the internet.  Having said that, I would point-out that on Page 304 of the UN Yearbook 1947-1948, the account of the 16 September 1948 Reports of the United Nations Mediator (UNMed) on Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, begins.  In the Conclusions to Count Folke Bernadotte's report,  found on Page 305, are the "Seven Basic Premises."  Now the Mediator's Conclusions are quite extensive; and if you want to read them all, follow the link and page numbers.  But this "absolute nonsense" that it "Israeli say so," is so intentionally misleading.  I give you two of the Mediator's premises:

The Jewish State "
(b) A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so.

Boundary determination "
(c) The boundaries of this new State must finally be fixed either by formal agreement between the parties concerned or failing that, by the United Nations.​On Page 280 of the UN Yearbook 1947-1948, you will see an excerpt from the representative of the United States presented to the General Assembly.   The first one statement is the one we are concerned with: 

From the President of the United States and read:

"This Government has been informed that a Jewish State has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the Provisional Government thereof. The United States recognizes the Provisional Government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel."​
Now I assume it will put this non-sense and intentionally misleading comment about it being only "Israel's say so --- to rest.  Now, we can argue about whether or not the newly established state was recognized as a "Jewish State" or the "Government of Israel;" but not whether it made a declaration on the concepts of "Self-determination."

As to the matter of the "deflection," the issue is relative to UN Security Council Resolution 69, and what is considered "legal." 

03/04/1949 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 S/RES/69 (1949) S/1277 *Israel membership in the UN* - SecCo resolution
_The Security Council,_

_Having received and considered_ the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/

1. _Decides _in its judgement that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, and accordingly,

2. _Recommends_ to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

_Adopted at the 414th meeting by 9 votes to 1 (Egypt), with 1 abstention (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)._​
I think this is pretty definitive.  I don't expect it to be the answer you want, but as Count Folke Bernadotte said in 1948, "A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so."  And this has proven true since that time.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is getting confusing...
> 
> I think this technique used by our friend "P F Tinmore" calling everything a "deflection" and "denying the matter of record" is merely a preprogrammed response to anything that the anti- Semitic and pro-Palestinian activist do not want to recognize.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> ...
> Deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> By a cablegram dated* May 15 1948 (S/747)* the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Government of Israel had informed the Security Council of the Proclamation of an independent State of Israel in Palestine.
> 
> I fully am cognizant that the representative of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) claimed the Jewish Agency/Provision Government of Israel had no right to address the Arab League Military Forces as the Aggressor.  The AHC Representative defended its position by stating the AHC had "invited" to maintain law and order. The AHC put forth the counter-claim that on termination of the Mandate, --- Palestine became an independent nation; --- and the Jews constituted a defiant faction and a "rebellious minority."
> 
> The Egyptian Government claimed that it was intervening in Palestine solely to preserve law and order. Egypt also agreed that with the termination of the Mandate, Palestine had regained complete independence and sovereignty.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, not everything that has been done, is available ob the internet.  Having said that, I would point-out that on Page 304 of the UN Yearbook 1947-1948, the account of the 16 September 1948 Reports of the United Nations Mediator (UNMed) on Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, begins.  In the Conclusions to Count Folke Bernadotte's report,  found on Page 305, are the "Seven Basic Premises."  Now the Mediator's Conclusions are quite extensive; and if you want to read them all, follow the link and page numbers.  But this "absolute nonsense" that it "Israeli say so," is so intentionally misleading.  I give you two of the Mediator's premises:
> 
> The Jewish State "
> (b) A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so.
> 
> Boundary determination "
> (c) The boundaries of this new State must finally be fixed either by formal agreement between the parties concerned or failing that, by the United Nations.​On Page 280 of the UN Yearbook 1947-1948, you will see an excerpt from the representative of the United States presented to the General Assembly.   The first one statement is the one we are concerned with:
> 
> From the President of the United States and read:
> 
> "This Government has been informed that a Jewish State has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the Provisional Government thereof. The United States recognizes the Provisional Government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel."​
> Now I assume it will put this non-sense and intentionally misleading comment about it being only "Israel's say so --- to rest.  Now, we can argue about whether or not the newly established state was recognized as a "Jewish State" or the "Government of Israel;" but not whether it made a declaration on the concepts of "Self-determination."
> 
> As to the matter of the "deflection," the issue is relative to UN Security Council Resolution 69, and what is considered "legal."
> 
> 03/04/1949
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S/RES/69 (1949) S/1277 *Israel membership in the UN* - SecCo resolution
> _The Security Council,_
> 
> _Having received and considered_ the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/
> 
> 1. _Decides _in its judgement that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, and accordingly,
> 
> 2. _Recommends_ to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> 
> _Adopted at the 414th meeting by 9 votes to 1 (Egypt), with 1 abstention (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)._​
> I think this is pretty definitive.  I don't expect it to be the answer you want, but as Count Folke Bernadotte said in 1948, "A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so."  And this has proven true since that time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


But hostile, murderous Jewish terrorists assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte.  Israel is a hostile warlike state and so are its Jews.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,
> 
> This is getting confusing...
> 
> I think this technique used by our friend "P F Tinmore" calling everything a "deflection" and "denying the matter of record" is merely a preprogrammed response to anything that the anti- Semitic and pro-Palestinian activist do not want to recognize.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> ...
> Deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATION)*
> 
> By a cablegram dated* May 15 1948 (S/747)* the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Government of Israel had informed the Security Council of the Proclamation of an independent State of Israel in Palestine.
> 
> I fully am cognizant that the representative of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) claimed the Jewish Agency/Provision Government of Israel had no right to address the Arab League Military Forces as the Aggressor.  The AHC Representative defended its position by stating the AHC had "invited" to maintain law and order. The AHC put forth the counter-claim that on termination of the Mandate, --- Palestine became an independent nation; --- and the Jews constituted a defiant faction and a "rebellious minority."
> 
> The Egyptian Government claimed that it was intervening in Palestine solely to preserve law and order. Egypt also agreed that with the termination of the Mandate, Palestine had regained complete independence and sovereignty.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, not everything that has been done, is available ob the internet.  Having said that, I would point-out that on Page 304 of the UN Yearbook 1947-1948, the account of the 16 September 1948 Reports of the United Nations Mediator (UNMed) on Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, begins.  In the Conclusions to Count Folke Bernadotte's report,  found on Page 305, are the "Seven Basic Premises."  Now the Mediator's Conclusions are quite extensive; and if you want to read them all, follow the link and page numbers.  But this "absolute nonsense" that it "Israeli say so," is so intentionally misleading.  I give you two of the Mediator's premises:
> 
> The Jewish State "
> (b) A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so.
> 
> Boundary determination "
> (c) The boundaries of this new State must finally be fixed either by formal agreement between the parties concerned or failing that, by the United Nations.​On Page 280 of the UN Yearbook 1947-1948, you will see an excerpt from the representative of the United States presented to the General Assembly.   The first one statement is the one we are concerned with:
> 
> From the President of the United States and read:
> 
> "This Government has been informed that a Jewish State has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the Provisional Government thereof. The United States recognizes the Provisional Government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel."​
> Now I assume it will put this non-sense and intentionally misleading comment about it being only "Israel's say so --- to rest.  Now, we can argue about whether or not the newly established state was recognized as a "Jewish State" or the "Government of Israel;" but not whether it made a declaration on the concepts of "Self-determination."
> 
> As to the matter of the "deflection," the issue is relative to UN Security Council Resolution 69, and what is considered "legal."
> 
> 03/04/1949
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S/RES/69 (1949) S/1277 *Israel membership in the UN* - SecCo resolution
> _The Security Council,_
> 
> _Having received and considered_ the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/
> 
> 1. _Decides _in its judgement that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, and accordingly,
> 
> 2. _Recommends_ to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> 
> _Adopted at the 414th meeting by 9 votes to 1 (Egypt), with 1 abstention (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)._​
> I think this is pretty definitive.  I don't expect it to be the answer you want, but as Count Folke Bernadotte said in 1948, "A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so."  And this has proven true since that time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But hostile, murderous Jewish terrorists assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte.  Israel is a hostile warlike state and so are its Jews.
Click to expand...



One has to laugh at Monte.  Here he is on this forum from morning to night demonizing the Jews while his Muslim friends (maybe Monte is even a convert to Islam the way he carries on) are busy murdering each other in other Middle East areas (to which he closes his eyes because it is more important to demonize Israel) and has the audacity to say:

"But'. Israel is a hostile warlike state and so are its Jews>".

Meanwhile Israel has helped other unfortunates around the world and now they are helping Syrians.

Benjamin Netanyahu: Bring wounded Syrians to Israel for treatment


----------



## montelatici

Oh dear, Hoss doesn't know that hostile, murderous Jewish terrorists assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte.  Now that's funny.


----------



## Hossfly

montelatici said:


> Oh dear, Hoss doesn't know that hostile, murderous Jewish terrorists assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte.  Now that's funny.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Israel is a hostile warlike state and so are its Jews.



So much for "just the facts", monte


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.



Funny how when Israel declares independence its just "Israeli say so".  But when an Arab delegation with absolutely no actual control over territory declares independence its international law written in stone.  Hmmmm?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews,
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that a Gazillion times.
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.
> 
> See my other reply regarding the arab muslims refusal to be part of the LoN mandate system and so throwing away their rights to be part of the civilised world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it deflection ?   it answers your claim and proves you wrong
> 
> Getting monotonous now proving you a LIAR and a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the subject is deflection.
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.
> 
> See my other reply regarding the arab muslims refusal to be part of the LoN mandate system and so throwing away their rights to be part of the civilised world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it deflection ?   it answers your claim and proves you wrong
> 
> Getting monotonous now proving you a LIAR and a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the subject is deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt change the subject so how is it deflection, or are you losing the argument and want to get out of the hole you have dug ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Phoenall said: ↑
> Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews,
> 
> I've heard that a Gazillion times.
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> You are deflecting my post.
Click to expand...







 No as that was part of the thread, so no deflection

You have seen proof of it, just that you deny it because it destroys your POV.



Will a UN resolution do the trick for you, and an arab muslim source



http://nakbaeducation.com/wp-content/uploads/UN-GA-273.pdf


UNITED NATIONS  http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/ 0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC General Assembly A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949

273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations

Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/
Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,
Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/
Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
The General Assembly,
Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.







 Does two things which you will hate, it makes Israel's existence legal and it shows that the UN had accepted the Jewish declaration making the arab league one null and void.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Oh dear, Hoss doesn't know that hostile, murderous Jewish terrorists assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte.  Now that's funny.









 And how many people have the islamonazi, extremist, terrorist mass murdering palestinians assassinated over the years


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel is a hostile warlike state and so are its Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much for "just the facts", monte
Click to expand...







 He is your typical islamonazi stooge and brainwashed Catholic LIAR who still believes the Jews killed his god


----------



## there4eyeM

The only basis for the state of Israel is sympathy for the Zionist movement. Sympathy is fine and very human; nothing wrong with it. Stating the fact for the sake of clarity and honesty would be a good thing. History is no basis at all as everyone knows, since very few countries are currently held by the 'indigenous' people. For that matter, there were people in the area before the Semites arrived.
A problem facing the U.S. position is using public funds to support a religion.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how when Israel declares independence its just "Israeli say so".  But when an Arab delegation with absolutely no actual control over territory declares independence its international law written in stone.  Hmmmm?
Click to expand...

Still ducking.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,


  
Now *that *is funny.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
> The General Assembly,


The resolution of 11 December 1948 is resolution 194.

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/C758572B78D1CD0085256BCF0077E51A


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard that a Gazillion times.
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.
> 
> See my other reply regarding the arab muslims refusal to be part of the LoN mandate system and so throwing away their rights to be part of the civilised world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it deflection ?   it answers your claim and proves you wrong
> 
> Getting monotonous now proving you a LIAR and a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the subject is deflection.
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it deflection ?   it answers your claim and proves you wrong
> 
> Getting monotonous now proving you a LIAR and a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the subject is deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt change the subject so how is it deflection, or are you losing the argument and want to get out of the hole you have dug ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Phoenall said: ↑
> Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews,
> 
> I've heard that a Gazillion times.
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> You are deflecting my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No as that was part of the thread, so no deflection
> 
> You have seen proof of it, just that you deny it because it destroys your POV.
> 
> 
> 
> Will a UN resolution do the trick for you, and an arab muslim source
> 
> 
> 
> http://nakbaeducation.com/wp-content/uploads/UN-GA-273.pdf
> 
> 
> UNITED NATIONS  http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/ 0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC General Assembly A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949
> 
> 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations
> 
> Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/
> Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
> Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,
> Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/
> Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
> The General Assembly,
> Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
> 1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
> 2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does two things which you will hate, it makes Israel's existence legal and it shows that the UN had accepted the Jewish declaration making the arab league one null and void.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point.


----------



## Phoenall

there4eyeM said:


> The only basis for the state of Israel is sympathy for the Zionist movement. Sympathy is fine and very human; nothing wrong with it. Stating the fact for the sake of clarity and honesty would be a good thing. History is no basis at all as everyone knows, since very few countries are currently held by the 'indigenous' people. For that matter, there were people in the area before the Semites arrived.
> A problem facing the U.S. position is using public funds to support a religion.








 BULLSHIT   there is no sympathy at all, anti Zionism is the new anti Semitism and has been burst wide open. The only basis for the state of Israel was because the people saw what they were doing and were ashamed. They realised that they were being what they despised and so tried to make amends with the Jews and muslims by giving them national homes. But you nazi's gained power and started to wipe out the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how when Israel declares independence its just "Israeli say so".  But when an Arab delegation with absolutely no actual control over territory declares independence its international law written in stone.  Hmmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still ducking.
Click to expand...






 How is posting the truth "ducking", when you post your of topic video's that are of topic that is ducking


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now *that *is funny.
Click to expand...






 Is it, when the evidence says they are and have offered the hand of peace since 1948. Can you show otherwise from an unbiased site ?


----------



## there4eyeM

Re, post 1800; ? Doesn't go with quoted post. Nothing negative in post 1795.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
> The General Assembly,
> 
> 
> 
> The resolution of 11 December 1948 is resolution 194.
> 
> A/RES/194 (III) of 11 December 1948
Click to expand...







 And what about it, did you read the full resolution and what this applies to. Or more precisely WHO it applies to


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the UN accepting the declaration from the Jews in may 1948 is just Israeli say so.
> 
> See my other reply regarding the arab muslims refusal to be part of the LoN mandate system and so throwing away their rights to be part of the civilised world
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it deflection ?   it answers your claim and proves you wrong
> 
> Getting monotonous now proving you a LIAR and a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the subject is deflection.
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it deflection ?   it answers your claim and proves you wrong
> 
> Getting monotonous now proving you a LIAR and a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Changing the subject is deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt change the subject so how is it deflection, or are you losing the argument and want to get out of the hole you have dug ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Phoenall said: ↑
> Apart from it claimed land that was already claimed by the Jews,
> 
> I've heard that a Gazillion times.
> 
> I've never seen any proof of it. It is just Israeli say so.
> 
> You are deflecting my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No as that was part of the thread, so no deflection
> 
> You have seen proof of it, just that you deny it because it destroys your POV.
> 
> 
> 
> Will a UN resolution do the trick for you, and an arab muslim source
> 
> 
> 
> http://nakbaeducation.com/wp-content/uploads/UN-GA-273.pdf
> 
> 
> UNITED NATIONS  http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/ 0/83E8C29DB812A4E9852560E50067A5AC General Assembly A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949
> 
> 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations
> 
> Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/
> Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,
> Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,
> Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/
> Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,
> The General Assembly,
> Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
> 1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
> 2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does two things which you will hate, it makes Israel's existence legal and it shows that the UN had accepted the Jewish declaration making the arab league one null and void.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the point.
Click to expand...







 Yes it was and now you have lost the argument on two counts that you cant refute. Singling out one sentence that is out of context and lacking in syntax shows that you are desperate


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, yes ... we know. 



montelatici said:


> Oh dear, Hoss doesn't know that hostile, murderous Jewish terrorists assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte.  Now that's funny.


*(COMMENT)*

What is there to say about an unforgivable wrong.  

One of the more thought provoking people I read is a guy named:  Robert Merry, _Political Editor of - _The National Interest.  Merry once said:

"First, we’re talking about presidential decision-making,
so we should concentrate on decisions that were volitional, matters of choice and not dictated by the force of events.
Second, the result must be significantly negative for the country in historical terms."​
In contemporary times, we often associate the need for nation building with dysfunctional or unstable or failed states; with the 1988 State of Palestine as one of those States without the capacity to perform the simplest of tasks; taking such actions as to increasingly undermine the self-proclaimed state, retard the development of governmental infrastructure, embed barbarism into its declining civil society.  In short, it has squandered the economic and political opportunities under two decades protected by the Hashemite Kingdom and half century under the protection of Israel.   Since the 1920 _Nebi Musa_ riots triggered by Islamic religious leaders during the festival, the first significant wave that ignited a long rippling cycle of anti-Semitic violence, the generationally transmitted proclivity for violence has spread like a plague. 

Don't think for a moment that the wrong doings by Israel is in anyway unique; especially when compared to Arab and Islamic History.   With few exceptions the G-8 Members _(US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the UK)_ that account for half of the Globes GNP, all have blood in their past _(admittedly Canada having the least)_.  This is not a form of justification, merely a statement of fact.  What is important, is that the State of Palestine is not yet successful and have no plan to become successful or sovereign.  Its only plan is Jihad and Armed Struggle on the funding committed by the International Donors.

 YES --  the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte was a huge mistake.  An planned attempt to achieve independence and sovereignty gone unrestrained.  But the Israeli of then _(adoption of the Res 181 in 1947) _and the Israeli of today _(on the brink of 2017)_ are more evolved.  Israel is not prefect and not infallible; but, a nation that has steadily evolved in a positive direction.  The Arab Palestinians have absolutely no plan to even evolve; let alone, develop successful self-governing institutions that work towards the benefit of its citizens.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

The Arab Palestinians have been blocked from creating self-governing institutions since the British conquered Palestine, first by the British, and now by the Israelis.  Military occupation prevents civil self-governance, that's just a fact.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The Arab Palestinians have been blocked from creating self-governing institutions since the British conquered Palestine, first by the British, and now by the Israelis.  Military occupation prevents civil self-governance, that's just a fact.


Your "phacts" tend to be a bit skewed from facts. The inability of Arabs-Moslems you call "Pal'istanians" and later, competing Islamist terrorist franchises to enable stable, productive self-government falls entirely to their ineptitude. Your silly excuses, the stereotypical "I blame the British" and "I blame the Jews" is nonsensical. The Pal'istanians share the same ideology that afflicts the entirety of the Islamist Middle East which, not surprisingly, is littered with dysfunctional societies and failed mini-caliphates changing hands among a series of Islamist thugs, Arab strongmen and social misfits.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

In the Discussion Thread Topic --- *The Palestinian National Identity as it is: no lies, propaganda and hidden agendas allowed*, I posted a number of examples that question the integrity and validity of this statement.  You will find a half dozen of examples of opportunities _(all before the 1948 War) _that Arab Palestinians rejected.  Most of the time it was rejected simply because they did not get everything they wanted, the way they wanted it, when they demanded it.  See Posting #41...

I don't want to waste anyone's time or bandwidth trying to republish that which has already been said.  


 ​


montelatici said:


> The Arab Palestinians have been blocked from creating self-governing institutions since the British conquered Palestine, first by the British, and now by the Israelis.  Military occupation prevents civil self-governance, that's just a fact.


*(COMMENT)*

In the two decades that passed after the transition from the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration to the British Civil Administration, the Arab Palestinians (in various forms) --- demanding this and rejected that --- availed themselves of the integration into the government administration.  

Like a stubborn child, it was Arab Palestinian wanted it:  "my way or the highway."  You can see how well that is working for them.  Now they just whine about all the successive setbacks they have in their campaign by terror and fear.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In the two decades that passed after the transition from the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration to the British Civil Administration, the Arab Palestinians (in various forms) --- demanding this and rejected that --- availed themselves of the integration into the government administration.


Indeed, they consistently rejected the colonial project on their land.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Arab Palestinians have been blocked from creating self-governing institutions since the British conquered Palestine, first by the British, and now by the Israelis.  Military occupation prevents civil self-governance, that's just a fact.








 How do you block a people from saying we declare our intention to be a nation and to show free determination and govern ourselves. They were given this chance in 1999 in Oslo and threw it away because they prefer violence and terrorism to peace and tranquility


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the two decades that passed after the transition from the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration to the British Civil Administration, the Arab Palestinians (in various forms) --- demanding this and rejected that --- availed themselves of the integration into the government administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they consistently rejected the colonial project on their land.
Click to expand...







 So cant come back and claim they were robbed, they were offered the chance and refused so giving up the chance at a later date. They had no rights to anything in 1917 and were offered rights that they turned down, their own stupid fault they now have less than nothing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> So cant come back and claim they were robbed, they were offered the chance and refused so giving up the chance at a later date.


They were offered the chance to allow foreigners to colonize their country?

Such a deal!


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> In the Discussion Thread Topic --- *The Palestinian National Identity as it is: no lies, propaganda and hidden agendas allowed*, I posted a number of examples that question the integrity and validity of this statement.  You will find a half dozen of examples of opportunities _(all before the 1948 War) _that Arab Palestinians rejected.  Most of the time it was rejected simply because they did not get everything they wanted, the way they wanted it, when they demanded it.  See Posting #41...
> 
> I don't want to waste anyone's time or bandwidth trying to republish that which has already been said.
> 
> View attachment 103671​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have been blocked from creating self-governing institutions since the British conquered Palestine, first by the British, and now by the Israelis.  Military occupation prevents civil self-governance, that's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the two decades that passed after the transition from the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration to the British Civil Administration, the Arab Palestinians (in various forms) --- demanding this and rejected that --- availed themselves of the integration into the government administration.
> 
> Like a stubborn child, it was Arab Palestinian wanted it:  "my way or the highway."  You can see how well that is working for them.  Now they just whine about all the successive setbacks they have in their campaign by terror and fear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

If you mean that they have consistently rejected an agreement that would put them permanently under Jew sovreignty with no chance of true  independence ever, you would be right.  Israel is behaving like the bullying child.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So cant come back and claim they were robbed, they were offered the chance and refused so giving up the chance at a later date.
> 
> 
> 
> They were offered the chance to allow foreigners to colonize their country?
> 
> Such a deal!
Click to expand...

What country did foreigners colonize?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> In the Discussion Thread Topic --- *The Palestinian National Identity as it is: no lies, propaganda and hidden agendas allowed*, I posted a number of examples that question the integrity and validity of this statement.  You will find a half dozen of examples of opportunities _(all before the 1948 War) _that Arab Palestinians rejected.  Most of the time it was rejected simply because they did not get everything they wanted, the way they wanted it, when they demanded it.  See Posting #41...
> 
> I don't want to waste anyone's time or bandwidth trying to republish that which has already been said.
> 
> View attachment 103671​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have been blocked from creating self-governing institutions since the British conquered Palestine, first by the British, and now by the Israelis.  Military occupation prevents civil self-governance, that's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the two decades that passed after the transition from the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration to the British Civil Administration, the Arab Palestinians (in various forms) --- demanding this and rejected that --- availed themselves of the integration into the government administration.
> 
> Like a stubborn child, it was Arab Palestinian wanted it:  "my way or the highway."  You can see how well that is working for them.  Now they just whine about all the successive setbacks they have in their campaign by terror and fear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you mean that they have consistently rejected an agreement that would put them permanently under Jew sovreignty with no chance of true  independence ever, you would be right.  Israel is behaving like the bullying child.
Click to expand...

Of course, we know that is false as the Arabs were allotted land as were the Jews. That separation was necessary as Arabs-Moslems have a history of antagonism and hostility toward competing religions / cultures.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  montelatici, et al,

I think that is the point.  Using your words, the Arab Palestinian consistently rejected the colonial project on their land.  Yes, this is one-half of the problem.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the two decades that passed after the transition from the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration to the British Civil Administration, the Arab Palestinians (in various forms) --- demanding this and rejected that --- availed themselves of the integration into the government administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they consistently rejected the colonial project on their land.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Given the Mandate _(the Principal Allied Powers having agreed that the Mandatory should put into effect the Balfour Declaration  "originally made on November 2nd, 1917" ---  "in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people")_ the British found themselves entangled in a cultural dilemma; and an unsolvable political problem.  The paradox being that the:

•  Arab Palestinian demand the entire expanse of the territory, West of the Jordan River.  (TiTLE and Rights, Sovereignty and Independents) The Arab Palestinians reject the presence of Jewish Immigrants with political aspirations to rebuild their the Jewish National Home.
•  The Jewish Community has a political aspirations to rebuild their the Jewish National Home; necessary to protect and preserve the culture from the abuses of a majority on the minority. ​
Effectively, there was no solution that could have been implemented that could have answered all three challenges.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> the British found themselves entangled in a cultural dilemma; and an unsolvable political problem.


Unsolvable? It was their stupid program. They knew their stupid program could not work but refused to address it. It was only unsolvable because they were stupid. The solution was presented to them many times.

So they started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and ran.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> the British found themselves entangled in a cultural dilemma; and an unsolvable political problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsolvable? It was their stupid program. They knew their stupid program could not work but refused to address it. It was only unsolvable because they were stupid. The solution was presented to them many times.
> 
> So they started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and ran.
Click to expand...

"They" started no war. Arabs-Moslems are the entity perpetually at war with each other or with those who reject Arab-Moslem fascism. 

It's just a shame that you and others are unable to accept responsibility for the conditions you create.


----------



## montelatici

And, the UN knew full well that the plan was actually unworkable.  In effect, adding the Bedouins (the real Arabians)  non-Jews were a majority in the Jewish part of the partition. How could have a plan where a minority from overseas was to rule over a majority possibly work?

"The Arab State will organize the substantial majority of Arabs in Palestine into a political body containing an insignificant minority of Jews; but in the Jewish State there will be a considerable minority of Arabs. That is the demerit of the scheme. "

                                  Jews              Arabs and others                total
The Jewish State    498,000               407,000                     905,000
The Arab State         10,000               725,000                     735,000
City of Jerusalem   100,000               105,000                      205,000













In addition there will be in the Jewish State about 90,000 Bedouins..."

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So cant come back and claim they were robbed, they were offered the chance and refused so giving up the chance at a later date.
> 
> 
> 
> They were offered the chance to allow foreigners to colonize their country?
> 
> Such a deal!
Click to expand...







 When was it ever their country as the Ottomans and LoN never granted them any sovereignty. Every other part of the Ottoman empire was named as a nation by 1923, but Palestine which was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. Could this be because the LoN knew that the arab muslims were mostly foreigners to the land and so had no legal rights to any lands.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> In the Discussion Thread Topic --- *The Palestinian National Identity as it is: no lies, propaganda and hidden agendas allowed*, I posted a number of examples that question the integrity and validity of this statement.  You will find a half dozen of examples of opportunities _(all before the 1948 War) _that Arab Palestinians rejected.  Most of the time it was rejected simply because they did not get everything they wanted, the way they wanted it, when they demanded it.  See Posting #41...
> 
> I don't want to waste anyone's time or bandwidth trying to republish that which has already been said.
> 
> View attachment 103671​
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have been blocked from creating self-governing institutions since the British conquered Palestine, first by the British, and now by the Israelis.  Military occupation prevents civil self-governance, that's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the two decades that passed after the transition from the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration to the British Civil Administration, the Arab Palestinians (in various forms) --- demanding this and rejected that --- availed themselves of the integration into the government administration.
> 
> Like a stubborn child, it was Arab Palestinian wanted it:  "my way or the highway."  You can see how well that is working for them.  Now they just whine about all the successive setbacks they have in their campaign by terror and fear.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you mean that they have consistently rejected an agreement that would put them permanently under Jew sovreignty with no chance of true  independence ever, you would be right.  Israel is behaving like the bullying child.
Click to expand...








 LIAR    it is the arab muslims doing this because they have lost everything through their own stupidity. They could have had a major role in the making of Jordan and instead decided they wanted it all. Same with Lebanon and Egypt  when they tried to take those lands from their legal owners.

Would you like to be under hamas or fatah sovereignty in light of what you know from the evidence available, because no sane person would. Only an islamonazi propaganda stooge would keep going of topic and using South Africa on this board to silence the truth


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> the British found themselves entangled in a cultural dilemma; and an unsolvable political problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsolvable? It was their stupid program. They knew their stupid program could not work but refused to address it. It was only unsolvable because they were stupid. The solution was presented to them many times.
> 
> So they started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and ran.
Click to expand...








 And only an insane person would accept the whole of the M.E. becoming an Islamic caliphate and being ran by mad mullah's and extremist muslims like Daesh. It was the extremist muslims that started the war before the British even set foot in Palestine, and you are scared to admit it because it means you are supporting the losing side.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> And, the UN knew full well that the plan was actually unworkable.  In effect, adding the Bedouins (the real Arabians)  non-Jews were a majority in the Jewish part of the partition. How could have a plan where a minority from overseas was to rule over a majority possibly work?
> 
> "The Arab State will organize the substantial majority of Arabs in Palestine into a political body containing an insignificant minority of Jews; but in the Jewish State there will be a considerable minority of Arabs. That is the demerit of the scheme. "
> 
> Jews              Arabs and others                total
> The Jewish State    498,000               407,000                     905,000
> The Arab State         10,000               725,000                     735,000
> City of Jerusalem   100,000               105,000                      205,000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In addition there will be in the Jewish State about 90,000 Bedouins..."
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947









 Because the arab muslims that were granted trans Jordan came up with the solution. No Jews in the arab partition and no arab's in the Jewish partition. A payment plan was worked out that gave the arab muslims a medium sized sum of money to buy new lands and to build a home with. The Jews left trans Jordan and set up home in the Jewish national home, the arab muslims flooded into the Jewish national home as well contrary to the amendment they had made to international law.




 Still touting this as the Anglo-American commission when it is clearly UNSCOP, once again showing that you are a proven LIAR and should be given a last warning


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think this is a set of views held by many Pro-Palestinians; but not actually true.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> the British found themselves entangled in a cultural dilemma; and an unsolvable political problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsolvable? It was their stupid program. They knew their stupid program could not work but refused to address it. It was only unsolvable because they were stupid. The solution was presented to them many times.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

There is NO SOLUTION presented that whereby:


•  The Enemy Arab Palestinian Population are given a sovereignty over all the territory west of the Jordan River.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- AND --------------------------------------------------------------------------
•  The Jewish People are given a territory in the ancient homeland of protection and security then -- and  --- into the future.​
In hindsight (the Monday Morning Quarterback temptation), there were probably ways to avoid the discontent and still protect and preserve the culture.  But the solutions can be applied once the window of opportunity closes.



P F Tinmore said:


> So they started a hundred year (and counting) war then cut and ran.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, there were multiple contributing factors and the assignment of blame cannot rest on anyone's particular shoulder.  BUT, surely the preponderance of the turmoil rests with the Arab Palestinians who demanded something for nothing is where the weight should lay.

The Arab Palestinians of today, would be in a much more influential, economically prosperous and developmentally beneficial position if they had NOT been so confrontational at the turn of the century.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Well, there were multiple contributing factors and the assignment of blame cannot rest on anyone's particular shoulder.


Oh really. Without Britain's stupid policy there would be no war. Period.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians of today, would be in a much more influential, economically prosperous and developmentally beneficial position if they had NOT been so confrontational at the turn of the century.


And every Palestinian in the world would be a refugee.

I don't see that as a benefit.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were multiple contributing factors and the assignment of blame cannot rest on anyone's particular shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really. Without Britain's stupid policy there would be no war. Period.
Click to expand...

There was nothing stupid about a Jewish homeland in an area with thousands of years of Jewish heritage. You could call it naive to expect Arab-Moslem accommodation given Islamist ideology and its insensate Jew hatreds but the world doesn't operate on placating the demands of Islamic fascists.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of today, would be in a much more influential, economically prosperous and developmentally beneficial position if they had NOT been so confrontational at the turn of the century.
> 
> 
> 
> And every Palestinian in the world would be a refugee.
> 
> I don't see that as a benefit.
Click to expand...

That's just nonsense. It was Arab-Moslem intransigence and politico-religious fascism that got in the way of their making decisions that would have allowed them the opportunity for self-governance and sovereignty. 

But, as we know, self-governance and fulfillment of stable societies are not attributes that define Islamism.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were multiple contributing factors and the assignment of blame cannot rest on anyone's particular shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really. Without Britain's stupid policy there would be no war. Period.
Click to expand...







WRONG as the war had been raging for 1400 years prior to this


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of today, would be in a much more influential, economically prosperous and developmentally beneficial position if they had NOT been so confrontational at the turn of the century.
> 
> 
> 
> And every Palestinian in the world would be a refugee.
> 
> I don't see that as a benefit.
Click to expand...







 INCLUDING THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS THAT LIVED THERE BEFORE THE MAJORITY OF ARAB MUSLIMS INVADED AFTER 1917 ?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again, it depends on the clarity of vision one has on causal effects and ramifications.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were multiple contributing factors and the assignment of blame cannot rest on anyone's particular shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really. Without Britain's stupid policy there would be no war. Period.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish Community (World-Wide) came to understand that they would not be safe anywhere but in a domain to which they were not the minority --- and --- being totally dependent on the rule of the majority to which there was no justice.  The Dreyfus Affair (1894) made it absolutely clear that the mob mentality of anti-Semitism ruled and Jews were expendable.  And while the educated elite did not want to recognize it and agree, they knew deep down it was true.  Both the non-Jewish Ruling Elite (to their shame) and the Jewish People came to realize that Jewish People (everywhere) would not be safe from arbitrary antisemitism under the color of law, unless the Jewish People had their own country.  While the French government, with the shame of the Dreyfus Affair still fresh, even with a 1906 civilian court that overturned the conviction, the French Army did not renounce the conviction until 1995 --- a century later.  This, coincidentally, was about the time of the Oslo Accords.

When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - surrendered, it was to the Allied Powers...

•  *The Armistice of Mudros*, which was concluded on 30 October 1918; Clause 16 --- Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.
•  *The Treaty of Sevres*, which was concluded on 10 August 1920; Article 132 --- Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
•  *The Treaty of Lausanne*, which was concluded 24 July 1924 _(into force between the High Contracting Parties who have thus ratified it)_, Article I6 --- Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
IT WAS NOT BRITAN's MISTAKE ALONE.  If indeed there was a mistake made.

There is no mistake.  The intention was replicated three times, in three different instruments.  Britain's Policy not withstanding, the *San Remo Agreement* between post-World War I Allied Powers was adopted on April 25, 1920 during the San Remo Conference. The Mandate for Palestine was based on this resolution; it incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the Covenant of the League of Nation's Article 22. Britain was charged with establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine (territorial boundaries were not decided until four years after).

The emphasis is on the fact that the ALLIED POWERS agreed, as a collectively body, that it was in the best interest of the world community and humanity that some portion of the captured territory be allotted to the establishment of the Jewish National Home; under the legal authority of the Allied Powers as exercising customary law for territory that the Allied Powers have the Title and Right.

With all Muslim and Christian countries in the world, who would begrudge the Jewish People a sliver of territory to establish their enclave?  (RHETORICAL)  Only the Arabs.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were multiple contributing factors and the assignment of blame cannot rest on anyone's particular shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really. Without Britain's stupid policy there would be no war. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was nothing stupid about a Jewish homeland in an area with thousands of years of Jewish heritage. You could call it naive to expect Arab-Moslem accommodation given Islamist ideology and its insensate Jew hatreds but the world doesn't operate on placating the demands of Islamic fascists.
Click to expand...


Israel has already placated far too many Palestinian demands.  Look what Israel got for a thank you for granting the Palestinian demand for a Jew free Gaza. Enough of this damn Zionist agenda of placating Palestinian demands.  Treat them like their own Arab brothers do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, this is really a tear jerker!  I'm tearing up with sympathy.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of today, would be in a much more influential, economically prosperous and developmentally beneficial position if they had NOT been so confrontational at the turn of the century.
> 
> 
> 
> And every Palestinian in the world would be a refugee.
> 
> I don't see that as a benefit.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians love to use that word "refugee."  As if they understand what a real refugee is.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So cant come back and claim they were robbed, they were offered the chance and refused so giving up the chance at a later date.
> 
> 
> 
> They were offered the chance to allow foreigners to colonize their country?
> 
> Such a deal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever their country as the Ottomans and LoN never granted them any sovereignty. Every other part of the Ottoman empire was named as a nation by 1923, but Palestine which was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. Could this be because the LoN knew that the arab muslims were mostly foreigners to the land and so had no legal rights to any lands.
Click to expand...

I need these for your post.


----------



## montelatici

The British wrote the Balfour Declaration, which ipso facto doomed the native Muslims and Christians of Palestine.  The framers intended to transfer a large number of Europeans to Palestine who were to rule over the native people in a colonial project.  The framers had no intention of safeguarding the civil rights of the native people, regardless of what was stated.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, this is really a tear jerker!  I'm tearing up with sympathy.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of today, would be in a much more influential, economically prosperous and developmentally beneficial position if they had NOT been so confrontational at the turn of the century.
> 
> 
> 
> And every Palestinian in the world would be a refugee.
> 
> I don't see that as a benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians love to use that word "refugee."  As if they understand what a real refugee is.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Rocco loves to spout bullshit.  What is a refugee Rocco?  Why are Palestinians not refugees?  The UN established the criteria for Palestinian refugees as a result of the UN's complicity in facilitating the eviction and dispossession of the native Muslims and Christians of Palestine.  Everyone involved in the crime knew they were screwing the native people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again, it depends on the clarity of vision one has on causal effects and ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were multiple contributing factors and the assignment of blame cannot rest on anyone's particular shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really. Without Britain's stupid policy there would be no war. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish Community (World-Wide) came to understand that they would not be safe anywhere but in a domain to which they were not the minority --- and --- being totally dependent on the rule of the majority to which there was no justice.  The Dreyfus Affair (1894) made it absolutely clear that the mob mentality of anti-Semitism ruled and Jews were expendable.  And while the educated elite did not want to recognize it and agree, they knew deep down it was true.  Both the non-Jewish Ruling Elite (to their shame) and the Jewish People came to realize that Jewish People (everywhere) would not be safe from arbitrary antisemitism under the color of law, unless the Jewish People had their own country.  While the French government, with the shame of the Dreyfus Affair still fresh, even with a 1906 civilian court that overturned the conviction, the French Army did not renounce the conviction until 1995 --- a century later.  This, coincidentally, was about the time of the Oslo Accords.
> 
> When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - surrendered, it was to the Allied Powers...
> 
> •  *The Armistice of Mudros*, which was concluded on 30 October 1918; Clause 16 --- Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.
> •  *The Treaty of Sevres*, which was concluded on 10 August 1920; Article 132 --- Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
> •  *The Treaty of Lausanne*, which was concluded 24 July 1924 _(into force between the High Contracting Parties who have thus ratified it)_, Article I6 --- Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> IT WAS NOT BRITAN's MISTAKE ALONE.  If indeed there was a mistake made.
> 
> There is no mistake.  The intention was replicated three times, in three different instruments.  Britain's Policy not withstanding, the *San Remo Agreement* between post-World War I Allied Powers was adopted on April 25, 1920 during the San Remo Conference. The Mandate for Palestine was based on this resolution; it incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the Covenant of the League of Nation's Article 22. Britain was charged with establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine (territorial boundaries were not decided until four years after).
> 
> The emphasis is on the fact that the ALLIED POWERS agreed, as a collectively body, that it was in the best interest of the world community and humanity that some portion of the captured territory be allotted to the establishment of the Jewish National Home; under the legal authority of the Allied Powers as exercising customary law for territory that the Allied Powers have the Title and Right.
> 
> With all Muslim and Christian countries in the world, who would begrudge the Jewish People a sliver of territory to establish their enclave?  (RHETORICAL)  Only the Arabs.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.

Without that there would not be war.


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> The British wrote the Balfour Declaration, which ipso facto doomed the native Muslims and Christians of Palestine.  The framers intended to transfer a large number of Europeans to Palestine who were to rule over the native people in a colonial project.  The framers had no intention of safeguarding the civil rights of the native people, regardless of what was stated.


Indeed, the British had never given a rat's ass about any of the native it had been screwing over the last few centuries.

It was just SOP.


----------



## Hossfly

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, this is really a tear jerker!  I'm tearing up with sympathy.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of today, would be in a much more influential, economically prosperous and developmentally beneficial position if they had NOT been so confrontational at the turn of the century.
> 
> 
> 
> And every Palestinian in the world would be a refugee.
> 
> I don't see that as a benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians love to use that word "refugee."  As if they understand what a real refugee is.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Do you think, Rocco, that any Arab has ever given thought to the millions of European refugees as a result of World War II.  If it ever comes into their minds, I wonder if they think of the children and grandchildren of these people as being refugees too.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So cant come back and claim they were robbed, they were offered the chance and refused so giving up the chance at a later date.
> 
> 
> 
> They were offered the chance to allow foreigners to colonize their country?
> 
> Such a deal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever their country as the Ottomans and LoN never granted them any sovereignty. Every other part of the Ottoman empire was named as a nation by 1923, but Palestine which was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. Could this be because the LoN knew that the arab muslims were mostly foreigners to the land and so had no legal rights to any lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need these for your post.
Click to expand...









 Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The British wrote the Balfour Declaration, which ipso facto doomed the native Muslims and Christians of Palestine.  The framers intended to transfer a large number of Europeans to Palestine who were to rule over the native people in a colonial project.  The framers had no intention of safeguarding the civil rights of the native people, regardless of what was stated.








 The descendants of the same Jews that you Catholics transferred to Europe all those years ago. Then you turned on them and evicted them from your lands because they refused to convert. Now what civil rights did the illegal immigrants have, as the evidence proves that they were illegal immigrants, as shown by your link A/36a. They had only one hope and that was the Jewish national home in palestine, so they left Europe and traveled to the M.E.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, this is really a tear jerker!  I'm tearing up with sympathy.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of today, would be in a much more influential, economically prosperous and developmentally beneficial position if they had NOT been so confrontational at the turn of the century.
> 
> 
> 
> And every Palestinian in the world would be a refugee.
> 
> I don't see that as a benefit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians love to use that word "refugee."  As if they understand what a real refugee is.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rocco loves to spout bullshit.  What is a refugee Rocco?  Why are Palestinians not refugees?  The UN established the criteria for Palestinian refugees as a result of the UN's complicity in facilitating the eviction and dispossession of the native Muslims and Christians of Palestine.  Everyone involved in the crime knew they were screwing the native people.
Click to expand...







 And there is your answer, the UN had to make special criteria for the arab league deserters as they did not meet with the criteria already laid down for refugee's.

 The only crime was when you Catholics stole the Jews as your slaves and forcibly detained them in Europe


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again, it depends on the clarity of vision one has on causal effects and ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were multiple contributing factors and the assignment of blame cannot rest on anyone's particular shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really. Without Britain's stupid policy there would be no war. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish Community (World-Wide) came to understand that they would not be safe anywhere but in a domain to which they were not the minority --- and --- being totally dependent on the rule of the majority to which there was no justice.  The Dreyfus Affair (1894) made it absolutely clear that the mob mentality of anti-Semitism ruled and Jews were expendable.  And while the educated elite did not want to recognize it and agree, they knew deep down it was true.  Both the non-Jewish Ruling Elite (to their shame) and the Jewish People came to realize that Jewish People (everywhere) would not be safe from arbitrary antisemitism under the color of law, unless the Jewish People had their own country.  While the French government, with the shame of the Dreyfus Affair still fresh, even with a 1906 civilian court that overturned the conviction, the French Army did not renounce the conviction until 1995 --- a century later.  This, coincidentally, was about the time of the Oslo Accords.
> 
> When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - surrendered, it was to the Allied Powers...
> 
> •  *The Armistice of Mudros*, which was concluded on 30 October 1918; Clause 16 --- Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.
> •  *The Treaty of Sevres*, which was concluded on 10 August 1920; Article 132 --- Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
> •  *The Treaty of Lausanne*, which was concluded 24 July 1924 _(into force between the High Contracting Parties who have thus ratified it)_, Article I6 --- Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> IT WAS NOT BRITAN's MISTAKE ALONE.  If indeed there was a mistake made.
> 
> There is no mistake.  The intention was replicated three times, in three different instruments.  Britain's Policy not withstanding, the *San Remo Agreement* between post-World War I Allied Powers was adopted on April 25, 1920 during the San Remo Conference. The Mandate for Palestine was based on this resolution; it incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the Covenant of the League of Nation's Article 22. Britain was charged with establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine (territorial boundaries were not decided until four years after).
> 
> The emphasis is on the fact that the ALLIED POWERS agreed, as a collectively body, that it was in the best interest of the world community and humanity that some portion of the captured territory be allotted to the establishment of the Jewish National Home; under the legal authority of the Allied Powers as exercising customary law for territory that the Allied Powers have the Title and Right.
> 
> With all Muslim and Christian countries in the world, who would begrudge the Jewish People a sliver of territory to establish their enclave?  (RHETORICAL)  Only the Arabs.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.
> 
> Without that there would not be war.
Click to expand...








 And once again you spout this LIE that you have no evidence for, only islamonazi propaganda and lies


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British wrote the Balfour Declaration, which ipso facto doomed the native Muslims and Christians of Palestine.  The framers intended to transfer a large number of Europeans to Palestine who were to rule over the native people in a colonial project.  The framers had no intention of safeguarding the civil rights of the native people, regardless of what was stated.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the British had never given a rat's ass about any of the native it had been screwing over the last few centuries.
> 
> It was just SOP.
Click to expand...







 Maybe you can explain to monte that they had no rights back in 1917, so could not claim the land being illegal immigrants


----------



## peach174

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So cant come back and claim they were robbed, they were offered the chance and refused so giving up the chance at a later date.
> 
> 
> 
> They were offered the chance to allow foreigners to colonize their country?
> 
> Such a deal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever their country as the Ottomans and LoN never granted them any sovereignty. Every other part of the Ottoman empire was named as a nation by 1923, but Palestine which was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. Could this be because the LoN knew that the arab muslims were mostly foreigners to the land and so had no legal rights to any lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need these for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
Click to expand...



It was?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers


----------



## Phoenall

peach174 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So cant come back and claim they were robbed, they were offered the chance and refused so giving up the chance at a later date.
> 
> 
> 
> They were offered the chance to allow foreigners to colonize their country?
> 
> Such a deal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever their country as the Ottomans and LoN never granted them any sovereignty. Every other part of the Ottoman empire was named as a nation by 1923, but Palestine which was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. Could this be because the LoN knew that the arab muslims were mostly foreigners to the land and so had no legal rights to any lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need these for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers
Click to expand...







 Hardly a valid source of information as a child of 10 can answer the questions posed.


----------



## MJB12741

peach174 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So cant come back and claim they were robbed, they were offered the chance and refused so giving up the chance at a later date.
> 
> 
> 
> They were offered the chance to allow foreigners to colonize their country?
> 
> Such a deal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever their country as the Ottomans and LoN never granted them any sovereignty. Every other part of the Ottoman empire was named as a nation by 1923, but Palestine which was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. Could this be because the LoN knew that the arab muslims were mostly foreigners to the land and so had no legal rights to any lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need these for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers
Click to expand...


History is written by everyone.  Each of us in our own way.  And we all have a combined effect on world history.  However, very few of us ever have ours published.


----------



## peach174

Phoenall said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were offered the chance to allow foreigners to colonize their country?
> 
> Such a deal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever their country as the Ottomans and LoN never granted them any sovereignty. Every other part of the Ottoman empire was named as a nation by 1923, but Palestine which was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. Could this be because the LoN knew that the arab muslims were mostly foreigners to the land and so had no legal rights to any lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need these for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a valid source of information as a child of 10 can answer the questions posed.
Click to expand...



Your the one who quoted the myth.


----------



## MJB12741

peach174 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever their country as the Ottomans and LoN never granted them any sovereignty. Every other part of the Ottoman empire was named as a nation by 1923, but Palestine which was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. Could this be because the LoN knew that the arab muslims were mostly foreigners to the land and so had no legal rights to any lands.
> 
> 
> 
> I need these for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a valid source of information as a child of 10 can answer the questions posed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your the one who quoted the myth.
Click to expand...


All history evolves from ancient history.  Today's world would not be what it is without it.


----------



## peach174

MJB12741 said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were offered the chance to allow foreigners to colonize their country?
> 
> Such a deal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever their country as the Ottomans and LoN never granted them any sovereignty. Every other part of the Ottoman empire was named as a nation by 1923, but Palestine which was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. Could this be because the LoN knew that the arab muslims were mostly foreigners to the land and so had no legal rights to any lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I need these for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History is written by everyone.  Each of us in our own way.  And we all have a combined effect on world history.  However, very few of us ever have ours published.
Click to expand...



What have you written that has been published?


----------



## Phoenall

peach174 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever their country as the Ottomans and LoN never granted them any sovereignty. Every other part of the Ottoman empire was named as a nation by 1923, but Palestine which was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. Could this be because the LoN knew that the arab muslims were mostly foreigners to the land and so had no legal rights to any lands.
> 
> 
> 
> I need these for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a valid source of information as a child of 10 can answer the questions posed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your the one who quoted the myth.
Click to expand...





What myth is that then ?


----------



## Phoenall

peach174 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever their country as the Ottomans and LoN never granted them any sovereignty. Every other part of the Ottoman empire was named as a nation by 1923, but Palestine which was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. Could this be because the LoN knew that the arab muslims were mostly foreigners to the land and so had no legal rights to any lands.
> 
> 
> 
> I need these for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History is written by everyone.  Each of us in our own way.  And we all have a combined effect on world history.  However, very few of us ever have ours published.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What have you written that has been published?
Click to expand...







 Quite a lot, but not to be seen outside of specialised circles


----------



## MJB12741

peach174 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was it ever their country as the Ottomans and LoN never granted them any sovereignty. Every other part of the Ottoman empire was named as a nation by 1923, but Palestine which was partitioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish national home. Could this be because the LoN knew that the arab muslims were mostly foreigners to the land and so had no legal rights to any lands.
> 
> 
> 
> I need these for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History is written by everyone.  Each of us in our own way.  And we all have a combined effect on world history.  However, very few of us ever have ours published.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What have you written that has been published?
Click to expand...


I said we are all a part of history.  Even though hardly any of us has our role in history published.  And I sad that history would not be what it is today without evolving since antiquity.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again, it depends on the clarity of vision one has on causal effects and ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were multiple contributing factors and the assignment of blame cannot rest on anyone's particular shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really. Without Britain's stupid policy there would be no war. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish Community (World-Wide) came to understand that they would not be safe anywhere but in a domain to which they were not the minority --- and --- being totally dependent on the rule of the majority to which there was no justice.  The Dreyfus Affair (1894) made it absolutely clear that the mob mentality of anti-Semitism ruled and Jews were expendable.  And while the educated elite did not want to recognize it and agree, they knew deep down it was true.  Both the non-Jewish Ruling Elite (to their shame) and the Jewish People came to realize that Jewish People (everywhere) would not be safe from arbitrary antisemitism under the color of law, unless the Jewish People had their own country.  While the French government, with the shame of the Dreyfus Affair still fresh, even with a 1906 civilian court that overturned the conviction, the French Army did not renounce the conviction until 1995 --- a century later.  This, coincidentally, was about the time of the Oslo Accords.
> 
> When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - surrendered, it was to the Allied Powers...
> 
> •  *The Armistice of Mudros*, which was concluded on 30 October 1918; Clause 16 --- Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.
> •  *The Treaty of Sevres*, which was concluded on 10 August 1920; Article 132 --- Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
> •  *The Treaty of Lausanne*, which was concluded 24 July 1924 _(into force between the High Contracting Parties who have thus ratified it)_, Article I6 --- Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> IT WAS NOT BRITAN's MISTAKE ALONE.  If indeed there was a mistake made.
> 
> There is no mistake.  The intention was replicated three times, in three different instruments.  Britain's Policy not withstanding, the *San Remo Agreement* between post-World War I Allied Powers was adopted on April 25, 1920 during the San Remo Conference. The Mandate for Palestine was based on this resolution; it incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the Covenant of the League of Nation's Article 22. Britain was charged with establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine (territorial boundaries were not decided until four years after).
> 
> The emphasis is on the fact that the ALLIED POWERS agreed, as a collectively body, that it was in the best interest of the world community and humanity that some portion of the captured territory be allotted to the establishment of the Jewish National Home; under the legal authority of the Allied Powers as exercising customary law for territory that the Allied Powers have the Title and Right.
> 
> With all Muslim and Christian countries in the world, who would begrudge the Jewish People a sliver of territory to establish their enclave?  (RHETORICAL)  Only the Arabs.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.
> 
> Without that there would not be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you spout this LIE that you have no evidence for, only islamonazi propaganda and lies
Click to expand...


----------



## peach174

Phoenall said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need these for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a valid source of information as a child of 10 can answer the questions posed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your the one who quoted the myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What myth is that then ?
Click to expand...

 

So you didn't read the link.


----------



## peach174

Phoenall said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need these for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History is written by everyone.  Each of us in our own way.  And we all have a combined effect on world history.  However, very few of us ever have ours published.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What have you written that has been published?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a lot, but not to be seen outside of specialised circles
Click to expand...



Ah- The inner circle of the academia world. 
I got away from that ruthless dog, eat dog ,world over 35 years ago.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again, it depends on the clarity of vision one has on causal effects and ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were multiple contributing factors and the assignment of blame cannot rest on anyone's particular shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really. Without Britain's stupid policy there would be no war. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish Community (World-Wide) came to understand that they would not be safe anywhere but in a domain to which they were not the minority --- and --- being totally dependent on the rule of the majority to which there was no justice.  The Dreyfus Affair (1894) made it absolutely clear that the mob mentality of anti-Semitism ruled and Jews were expendable.  And while the educated elite did not want to recognize it and agree, they knew deep down it was true.  Both the non-Jewish Ruling Elite (to their shame) and the Jewish People came to realize that Jewish People (everywhere) would not be safe from arbitrary antisemitism under the color of law, unless the Jewish People had their own country.  While the French government, with the shame of the Dreyfus Affair still fresh, even with a 1906 civilian court that overturned the conviction, the French Army did not renounce the conviction until 1995 --- a century later.  This, coincidentally, was about the time of the Oslo Accords.
> 
> When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - surrendered, it was to the Allied Powers...
> 
> •  *The Armistice of Mudros*, which was concluded on 30 October 1918; Clause 16 --- Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.
> •  *The Treaty of Sevres*, which was concluded on 10 August 1920; Article 132 --- Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
> •  *The Treaty of Lausanne*, which was concluded 24 July 1924 _(into force between the High Contracting Parties who have thus ratified it)_, Article I6 --- Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> IT WAS NOT BRITAN's MISTAKE ALONE.  If indeed there was a mistake made.
> 
> There is no mistake.  The intention was replicated three times, in three different instruments.  Britain's Policy not withstanding, the *San Remo Agreement* between post-World War I Allied Powers was adopted on April 25, 1920 during the San Remo Conference. The Mandate for Palestine was based on this resolution; it incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the Covenant of the League of Nation's Article 22. Britain was charged with establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine (territorial boundaries were not decided until four years after).
> 
> The emphasis is on the fact that the ALLIED POWERS agreed, as a collectively body, that it was in the best interest of the world community and humanity that some portion of the captured territory be allotted to the establishment of the Jewish National Home; under the legal authority of the Allied Powers as exercising customary law for territory that the Allied Powers have the Title and Right.
> 
> With all Muslim and Christian countries in the world, who would begrudge the Jewish People a sliver of territory to establish their enclave?  (RHETORICAL)  Only the Arabs.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.
> 
> Without that there would not be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you spout this LIE that you have no evidence for, only islamonazi propaganda and lies
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...







 Just your usual islamonazi talking points and palestinian propaganda from a palestinian no less


----------



## Phoenall

peach174 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly a valid source of information as a child of 10 can answer the questions posed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your the one who quoted the myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What myth is that then ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you didn't read the link.
Click to expand...






 As I said anyone can post an answer there, making them meaningless


----------



## Phoenall

peach174 said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why has the truth caused a slight accident and you have no clean trousers left. Dont forget that history was not written by the haters, it was written by the victors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was?
> https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-historical-examples-of-history-being-written-by-the-losers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History is written by everyone.  Each of us in our own way.  And we all have a combined effect on world history.  However, very few of us ever have ours published.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What have you written that has been published?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a lot, but not to be seen outside of specialised circles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah- The inner circle of the academia world.
> I got away from that ruthless dog, eat dog ,world over 35 years ago.
Click to expand...






 Actually nowhere near, I am talking laypeople of a certain discipline that invent new methods all the time that are taken up by industry. Many defence contractors use our findings to make the last link between concept and reality


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again, it depends on the clarity of vision one has on causal effects and ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there were multiple contributing factors and the assignment of blame cannot rest on anyone's particular shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really. Without Britain's stupid policy there would be no war. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish Community (World-Wide) came to understand that they would not be safe anywhere but in a domain to which they were not the minority --- and --- being totally dependent on the rule of the majority to which there was no justice.  The Dreyfus Affair (1894) made it absolutely clear that the mob mentality of anti-Semitism ruled and Jews were expendable.  And while the educated elite did not want to recognize it and agree, they knew deep down it was true.  Both the non-Jewish Ruling Elite (to their shame) and the Jewish People came to realize that Jewish People (everywhere) would not be safe from arbitrary antisemitism under the color of law, unless the Jewish People had their own country.  While the French government, with the shame of the Dreyfus Affair still fresh, even with a 1906 civilian court that overturned the conviction, the French Army did not renounce the conviction until 1995 --- a century later.  This, coincidentally, was about the time of the Oslo Accords.
> 
> When the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic - surrendered, it was to the Allied Powers...
> 
> •  *The Armistice of Mudros*, which was concluded on 30 October 1918; Clause 16 --- Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.
> •  *The Treaty of Sevres*, which was concluded on 10 August 1920; Article 132 --- Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
> •  *The Treaty of Lausanne*, which was concluded 24 July 1924 _(into force between the High Contracting Parties who have thus ratified it)_, Article I6 --- Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​
> IT WAS NOT BRITAN's MISTAKE ALONE.  If indeed there was a mistake made.
> 
> There is no mistake.  The intention was replicated three times, in three different instruments.  Britain's Policy not withstanding, the *San Remo Agreement* between post-World War I Allied Powers was adopted on April 25, 1920 during the San Remo Conference. The Mandate for Palestine was based on this resolution; it incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the Covenant of the League of Nation's Article 22. Britain was charged with establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine (territorial boundaries were not decided until four years after).
> 
> The emphasis is on the fact that the ALLIED POWERS agreed, as a collectively body, that it was in the best interest of the world community and humanity that some portion of the captured territory be allotted to the establishment of the Jewish National Home; under the legal authority of the Allied Powers as exercising customary law for territory that the Allied Powers have the Title and Right.
> 
> With all Muslim and Christian countries in the world, who would begrudge the Jewish People a sliver of territory to establish their enclave?  (RHETORICAL)  Only the Arabs.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.
> 
> Without that there would not be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you spout this LIE that you have no evidence for, only islamonazi propaganda and lies
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time _(like the very 50 min video)_ presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed _(among others)_ niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on.   The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

*(QUESTION)*

How else should the world portray them?  It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other _(non-violent)_ heroes.   There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut.   While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America.  Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.


​*(COMMENT)*

Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with  --- is that the 100 Years War _(all works of fiction must have a catchy title)_ and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration.  In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine.  That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history.  That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions _(we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians)_.  

The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood.  The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians ---  killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.

But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.

This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.   
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time _(like the very 50 min video)_ presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed _(among others)_ niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on.   The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> How else should the world portray them?  It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other _(non-violent)_ heroes.   There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut.   While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America.  Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with  --- is that the 100 Years War _(all works of fiction must have a catchy title)_ and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration.  In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine.  That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history.  That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions _(we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood.  The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians ---  killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.
> 
> But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.
> 
> This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Your usual slime the Palestinians bullshit.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time _(like the very 50 min video)_ presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed _(among others)_ niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on.   The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> How else should the world portray them?  It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other _(non-violent)_ heroes.   There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut.   While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America.  Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with  --- is that the 100 Years War _(all works of fiction must have a catchy title)_ and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration.  In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine.  That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history.  That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions _(we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood.  The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians ---  killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.
> 
> But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.
> 
> This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Of course you ducked my post.

Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time _(like the very 50 min video)_ presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed _(among others)_ niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on.   The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> How else should the world portray them?  It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other _(non-violent)_ heroes.   There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut.   While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America.  Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with  --- is that the 100 Years War _(all works of fiction must have a catchy title)_ and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration.  In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine.  That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history.  That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions _(we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood.  The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians ---  killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.
> 
> But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.
> 
> This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you ducked my post.
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​
Click to expand...

Ah. Retreat to a conspiracy theory.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time _(like the very 50 min video)_ presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed _(among others)_ niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on.   The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> How else should the world portray them?  It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other _(non-violent)_ heroes.   There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut.   While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America.  Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with  --- is that the 100 Years War _(all works of fiction must have a catchy title)_ and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration.  In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine.  That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history.  That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions _(we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood.  The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians ---  killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.
> 
> But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.
> 
> This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


1.  Why aren't the Palestinians regarded the same way the the Irish freedom fighters like the Fenians, the Clan and the Skirmishers between the 1860s and 1900, who bombed and killed the British civilians  in Ireland and in Britain?  They were after all, funded by Americans and received much of their training in the U.S. The tactics of the Irish republicans were exactly the same as those of the Palestinians, in fact, they were probably more brutal.

2. The Balfour Declaration was a declaration of war against the native inhabitants of Palestine.  It envisioned the transfer of European colonial settlers to Palestine, under the protection of the British to establish Jewish minority rule over the native inhabitants until enough Jews could be flooded into the country to establish a Jewish majority.  That is a declaration of war.

3.  Every attempt at establishing self-government by the native muslim and Christian Palestinians was blocked by the British.  This was admitted to in A/364 the "partition resolution"

"...opinion of Mr. Churchill, while addressing the House of Commons on 23 May 1939, that the intention of the 1922 White Paper was "to make it clear that the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine was to be subordinated to the paramount pledge and obligation of establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine..."

A/364 of 3 September 1947

By subordinating the establishment of self-governing institutions for the native inhabitants to those of the Jews, made it impossible for the Muslims and Christians to establish self-governing institutions.  The British only allowed the Jews to establish such institutions.  This is just fact, Riocco, not your propaganda and lies.

4.  To this end, the colonial power, Britain, with their superior military might, crushed the Palestinian attempts at achieving independence through violent insurrection killing 105 of the Muslim and Christian population during 1936-1939 revolt.  This was all done on behalf of the Jews.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

To have ducked the question on "heist" _(as accused)_, it presupposes that a crime was committed.  That somehow, by someone, the wrongful taking of something _(implied territory)_ had occurred.



P F Tinmore said:


> Of course you ducked my post.
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​


*(COMMENT)*

This is a conspiracy theory of sorts.  It theorizes that the British Administration and Jewish Immigrants had conspired to take the territory from the Arab Palestinians.  

However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory. The previous Sovereign Power renounced the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinians, inhabitance, or natives of the territory.  The Allied Powers acquired the Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- and in turn --- the Jewish Immigrants acquired the territory from the Allied Powers.  _[(Just as the Hashemite Princes acquired their territory from the Allied Powers (Jordan and Iraq), and (the Lebanese and Syrian independence was acquired)]_.

More important implication is the supposition that without the theft --- or ---  "Without that there would not be war."  So the allegation made here of a theft, is an attempt by the Arab Palestinians to justify the "war."  But there was no theft; at least no theft that evolves the Jewish Immigrants as the perpetrator and the Arab Palestinian as a victim.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory.


There you go with the typical colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> To have ducked the question on "heist" _(as accused)_, it presupposes that a crime was committed.  That somehow, by someone, the wrongful taking of something _(implied territory)_ had occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you ducked my post.
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a conspiracy theory of sorts.  It theorizes that the British Administration and Jewish Immigrants had conspired to take the territory from the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory. The previous Sovereign Power renounced the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinians, inhabitance, or natives of the territory.  The Allied Powers acquired the Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- and in turn --- the Jewish Immigrants acquired the territory from the Allied Powers.  _[(Just as the Hashemite Princes acquired their territory from the Allied Powers (Jordan and Iraq), and (the Lebanese and Syrian independence was acquired)]_.
> 
> More important implication is the supposition that without the theft --- or ---  "Without that there would not be war."  So the allegation made here of a theft, is an attempt by the Arab Palestinians to justify the "war."  But there was no theft; at least no theft that evolves the Jewish Immigrants as the perpetrator and the Arab Palestinian as a victim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Of course they had complete right and title, as the inhabitants as per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Who else? 

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

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


----------



## toomuchtime_

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> To have ducked the question on "heist" _(as accused)_, it presupposes that a crime was committed.  That somehow, by someone, the wrongful taking of something _(implied territory)_ had occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you ducked my post.
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a conspiracy theory of sorts.  It theorizes that the British Administration and Jewish Immigrants had conspired to take the territory from the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory. The previous Sovereign Power renounced the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinians, inhabitance, or natives of the territory.  The Allied Powers acquired the Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- and in turn --- the Jewish Immigrants acquired the territory from the Allied Powers.  _[(Just as the Hashemite Princes acquired their territory from the Allied Powers (Jordan and Iraq), and (the Lebanese and Syrian independence was acquired)]_.
> 
> More important implication is the supposition that without the theft --- or ---  "Without that there would not be war."  So the allegation made here of a theft, is an attempt by the Arab Palestinians to justify the "war."  But there was no theft; at least no theft that evolves the Jewish Immigrants as the perpetrator and the Arab Palestinian as a victim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they had complete right and title, as the inhabitants as per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Who else?
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
Click to expand...

lol  Not a good reader?  This is an argument in support of colonizing the area.


----------



## montelatici

No, you have a reading comprehension problem. You seem to not understand the definition of the word "inhabitant' and the term "sacred trust". LOL


----------



## toomuchtime_

montelatici said:


> No, you have a reading comprehension problem. You seem to not understand the definition of the word "inhabitant' and the term "sacred trust". LOL


lol  A colony.  The article says the people there are too primitive to manage their own affairs and need to be governed by a more advanced power.  This is also the document that promised to create a Jewish homeland in the Mandate.  There simply is no basis in history, logic or law for claiming Israel is illegitimate or that only Arabs or Muslims have rights there.


----------



## montelatici

You confuse the word "tutelage" with "governing".  

The native inhabitants had all the rights in Palestine.  Not European invaders.  The new resolution has complete basis in history, logic and law.  You haven't a clue about what you are talking about. None of your Hasbara propaganda changes fact.  Go away dummy.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> You confuse the word "tutelage" with "governing".
> 
> The native inhabitants had all the rights in Palestine.  Not European invaders.  The new resolution has complete basis in history, logic and law.  You haven't a clue about what you are talking about. None of your Hasbara propaganda changes fact.  Go away dummy.


You remain confused as a function of your own befuddlement. 

I find no historical (or in your case, hysterical), evidence of a European invasion of some imaginary "country" you call Pal'istan.

It's just remarkable how far removed historical facts are from your invention of events.


----------



## toomuchtime_

montelatici said:


> You confuse the word "tutelage" with "governing".
> 
> The native inhabitants had all the rights in Palestine.  Not European invaders.  The new resolution has complete basis in history, logic and law.  You haven't a clue about what you are talking about. None of your Hasbara propaganda changes fact.  Go away dummy.


Your confusion is so deep and profound, I despair of ever getting you to see how wrong you are.  This is the argument that was used to create the Mandate, effectively a British colony in Palestine.  Unwittingly, you are arguing in favor of an article that says the Palestinians are unfit to govern themselves and need to be governed by an advanced nation, in this case, Britain.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time _(like the very 50 min video)_ presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed _(among others)_ niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on.   The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> How else should the world portray them?  It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other _(non-violent)_ heroes.   There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut.   While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America.  Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with  --- is that the 100 Years War _(all works of fiction must have a catchy title)_ and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration.  In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine.  That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history.  That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions _(we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood.  The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians ---  killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.
> 
> But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.
> 
> This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual slime the Palestinians bullshit.
Click to expand...









 No the usual telling the truth about tee palestinians reality that you cant deny. So you come out with your usual inept phrase that means nothing.


How about some input from you to disprove all that is written above ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time _(like the very 50 min video)_ presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed _(among others)_ niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on.   The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> How else should the world portray them?  It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other _(non-violent)_ heroes.   There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut.   While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America.  Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with  --- is that the 100 Years War _(all works of fiction must have a catchy title)_ and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration.  In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine.  That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history.  That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions _(we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood.  The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians ---  killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.
> 
> But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.
> 
> This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you ducked my post.
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​
Click to expand...







 And you have failed to produce any evidence of your claim that can stand on its own feet. So you use islamonazi propaganda pieces as that is all you have


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Here we have an example of where the presenter stresses the view that the Arab Palestinians don't get media air time _(like the very 50 min video)_ presented here, or that the Arab Palestinians are always portrayed as Villains, Jihadist, Terrorist or other such dangerous elements; and that there is something wrong with portraying the Arab Palestinians in roles that are representative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigade, the Palestinians at the Olympics in Munich, the many hijackings, the Palestinians the rolled the Leon Klinghoffer in a wheelchair off the sea, to the Palestinians that attacked the Beach resorts and killed _(among others)_ niece of then U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and it goes on and on.   The reality is, that Arab Palestinians ARE conducting or supporting Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> How else should the world portray them?  It would be hard to portray them as a Nobel Laureate in Science, or an Astronaut, or other _(non-violent)_ heroes.   There is no such thing as a Palestinian Nobel Laureate in Science, or a Palestinian Astronaut.   While not impossible, it is really hard to do; especially hear in America.  Are there successful Arab Palestinians, hell yes.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now one of the great openers this presenter starts with  --- is that the 100 Years War _(all works of fiction must have a catchy title)_ and its initiator, the Balfour Declaration.  In fact, from his presentation, you get the impression that the national rights focused on the Jews, that the Balfour Declaration was a Declaration of War, and it was essentially a Colonial Proclamation. In fact, he points out that the Arab Palestinians were not mentioned in the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate for Palestine.  That this was a cloaking device of sorts and an attempt to write them out of history.  That they were not given an opportunity to engage in self-governing institutions _(we've already discussed this and I submitted a half-dozen examples of offers that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians)_.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian seems to think that, like this presenter, that the poor Arab Palestinian is really a humble people that is so misunderstood.  The presenter goes out of the way to empress upon the view that the Colonial Power (talking about the Allied Powers that won the war) use their superior military might to "CRUSH" the Arab Revolt and Uprising (1936-39) that eliminated 10% of the Arab Palestinians ---  killed, wounded, captured - deported/imprisoned.
> 
> But the recurring theme here is that the misunderstood Hostile Arab Palestinian that has taken to good faith steps to negotiate a peaceful settlement, is not properly portrayed across the media outlets and forms.
> 
> This is another one of those videos that you want to have a box of Kleenex nearby, because its a tearjerker.
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.  Why aren't the Palestinians regarded the same way the the Irish freedom fighters like the Fenians, the Clan and the Skirmishers between the 1860s and 1900, who bombed and killed the British civilians  in Ireland and in Britain?  They were after all, funded by Americans and received much of their training in the U.S. The tactics of the Irish republicans were exactly the same as those of the Palestinians, in fact, they were probably more brutal.
> 
> 2. The Balfour Declaration was a declaration of war against the native inhabitants of Palestine.  It envisioned the transfer of European colonial settlers to Palestine, under the protection of the British to establish Jewish minority rule over the native inhabitants until enough Jews could be flooded into the country to establish a Jewish majority.  That is a declaration of war.
> 
> 3.  Every attempt at establishing self-government by the native muslim and Christian Palestinians was blocked by the British.  This was admitted to in A/364 the "partition resolution"
> 
> "...opinion of Mr. Churchill, while addressing the House of Commons on 23 May 1939, that the intention of the 1922 White Paper was "to make it clear that the establishment of self-governing institutions in Palestine was to be subordinated to the paramount pledge and obligation of establishing a Jewish National Home in Palestine..."
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> By subordinating the establishment of self-governing institutions for the native inhabitants to those of the Jews, made it impossible for the Muslims and Christians to establish self-governing institutions.  The British only allowed the Jews to establish such institutions.  This is just fact, Riocco, not your propaganda and lies.
> 
> 4.  To this end, the colonial power, Britain, with their superior military might, crushed the Palestinian attempts at achieving independence through violent insurrection killing 105 of the Muslim and Christian population during 1936-1939 revolt.  This was all done on behalf of the Jews.
Click to expand...








 Your last cut and paste must be one of your "made up ones" as there is no mention like that in the link you provided.

 The LoN invited the arab muslims to take an active part in the partition of the land too which they constantly refused. The only outcome that would have made sense then as now would have been to go with the original partition enforced by a UN military force stationed on the border of the Jewish national home. Then just keep pounding away at the arab muslim terrorists until they are wiped out


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with the typical colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.
Click to expand...








 Then why dont you produce these rights that they had in 1917, and see what you come up with. Dont forget to give the date of the implementation of these rights, as "rights" are empowered by international and national laws


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> To have ducked the question on "heist" _(as accused)_, it presupposes that a crime was committed.  That somehow, by someone, the wrongful taking of something _(implied territory)_ had occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you ducked my post.
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a conspiracy theory of sorts.  It theorizes that the British Administration and Jewish Immigrants had conspired to take the territory from the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory. The previous Sovereign Power renounced the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinians, inhabitance, or natives of the territory.  The Allied Powers acquired the Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- and in turn --- the Jewish Immigrants acquired the territory from the Allied Powers.  _[(Just as the Hashemite Princes acquired their territory from the Allied Powers (Jordan and Iraq), and (the Lebanese and Syrian independence was acquired)]_.
> 
> More important implication is the supposition that without the theft --- or ---  "Without that there would not be war."  So the allegation made here of a theft, is an attempt by the Arab Palestinians to justify the "war."  But there was no theft; at least no theft that evolves the Jewish Immigrants as the perpetrator and the Arab Palestinian as a victim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they had complete right and title, as the inhabitants as per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Who else?
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
Click to expand...








 So why did the arab muslims infesting the mandate of palestine refuse to take part in this procedure. That is why they had no rights as they had forfeited them. Remember that little fact freddy and you will stop coming out wit stupid references that dont apply.



 And why do you cut short the articles you cut and paste, is it because the parts missed will change your context and prove you wrong. As in here with the next part of article 22 

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

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


This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> No, you have a reading comprehension problem. You seem to not understand the definition of the word "inhabitant' and the term "sacred trust". LOL








 And you dont understand what article 22 says about the arab muslims invading the mandate of palestine. They were devoid of any rights due to their invasion and refusal to take part in any nation building. You cant force them to accept tutelage or to accept sacred trust if they dont want to, but you can tell them that they will lose everything if they dont which is what has happened.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> You confuse the word "tutelage" with "governing".
> 
> The native inhabitants had all the rights in Palestine.  Not European invaders.  The new resolution has complete basis in history, logic and law.  You haven't a clue about what you are talking about. None of your Hasbara propaganda changes fact.  Go away dummy.








 What rights are those then, and dont forget to give the date of implementation so we can pull you up over any LIES


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.


That is not how it works. The rulers (The people with the right to sovereignty.) were the people who became the citizens under international law after the Treaty of Lausanne. Those would be the people who were citizens of the Turkish Empire.

The division of territory between Palestine and Tranjordan does not matter. When the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine and Transjordan were two separate successor states. The people who normally lived in Transjordan became citizens of Transjordan. Those who normally lived in Palestine became citizens of Palestine. There is no connection between the two. They are two separate states.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> And you dont understand what article 22 says about the arab muslims invading the mandate of palestine. They were devoid of any rights due to their invasion and refusal to take part in any nation building.


Do you have some links to all that shit?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how it works. The rulers (The people with the right to sovereignty.) were the people who became the citizens under international law after the Treaty of Lausanne. Those would be the people who were citizens of the Turkish Empire.
> 
> The division of territory between Palestine and Tranjordan does not matter. When the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine and Transjordan were two separate successor states. The people who normally lived in Transjordan became citizens of Transjordan. Those who normally lived in Palestine became citizens of Palestine. There is no connection between the two. They are two separate states.
Click to expand...






WRONG as you are using international laws retroactively to support your POV.

As is your usual case you ignore and deny the Jews rights to free determination. The Turkish citizens would not include the free loaders and illegal immigrants flooding in from the surrounding areas. The division of palestine does matter as it delineates what lands were allo0cated to which people, and the arab muslims were to get 78% of the best farmland while the Jews were to get swamp and desert. The people who lived in trans Jordan were evicted if they were Jews and sent west over the river, but there was no traffic coming out of the Jeish national home into Trans Jordan as the palestinians demanded. They did not become two separate states until 1948 when they were signed of by the British/UN.


Did you forget about your own link that stated all the above and you used as evidence against the Jews ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you dont understand what article 22 says about the arab muslims invading the mandate of palestine. They were devoid of any rights due to their invasion and refusal to take part in any nation building.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have some links to all that shit?
Click to expand...







 Article 22 of course, or do you have a problem with understanding it in English ?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

And this is an example of an intentional misinterpretation of the meaning and context.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with the typical colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

There is a huge difference between what I said and what you recount.

*(QUESTION)*

What title and rights to what territory _(prior to 1948)_ are the Arab Palestinians holding?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

And this is just another falsehood the Arab Palestinians spread.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> To have ducked the question on "heist" _(as accused)_, it presupposes that a crime was committed.  That somehow, by someone, the wrongful taking of something _(implied territory)_ had occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you ducked my post.
> 
> Indeed, Britain and the Zionists worked together to pull off this heist.Without that there would not be war.​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a conspiracy theory of sorts.  It theorizes that the British Administration and Jewish Immigrants had conspired to take the territory from the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> However, the Arab Palestinians had no rights and title to this territory. The previous Sovereign Power renounced the Title and Rights to the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinians, inhabitance, or natives of the territory.  The Allied Powers acquired the Title and Rights from the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic --- and in turn --- the Jewish Immigrants acquired the territory from the Allied Powers.  _[(Just as the Hashemite Princes acquired their territory from the Allied Powers (Jordan and Iraq), and (the Lebanese and Syrian independence was acquired)]_.
> 
> More important implication is the supposition that without the theft --- or ---  "Without that there would not be war."  So the allegation made here of a theft, is an attempt by the Arab Palestinians to justify the "war."  But there was no theft; at least no theft that evolves the Jewish Immigrants as the perpetrator and the Arab Palestinian as a victim.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they had complete right and title, as the inhabitants as per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Who else?
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

There is a couple things wrong here.

•  The League of Nations Covenant did not promise or grant anything to the Palestinians.  In fact, the Palestinians were not a signatory to the Covenant. 

•  The Arab Palestinians refused the "rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory." 

•  The Covenant stipulated that the "practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples."   The Arab Palestinians rejected participation three times in the period 1920 - 1923.​
The criteria outlined in Article 22 describes the Arab Palestinians as a people "not yet able to stand by themselves."  In the century since the Balfour Declaration, the Arab Palestinians have not exhibited behavior of a nation able to stand alone; not in 1916 and not in 2016.

No, there is nothing in Article 22 that supports this argument by our friend "montelatici."  It is exactly the opposite.   It is an argument for the denial of statehood, sovereignty and independence.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, this is a comprehension problem alright...



montelatici said:


> No, you have a reading comprehension problem. You seem to not understand the definition of the word "inhabitant' and the term "sacred trust". LOL


*(COMMENT)*

Absolutely nothing was promised to the Arab Palestinians.  The Article 22 provision you cite is an agreement between members of the Covenant --- and not the Arab Palestinians.

Yes, "there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation."  What defines the "sacred trust of civilization?"   

•  In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?

•  In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?​
It can be argued that in 1919, the phrase "the well-being and development of such peoples" meant that the Allied Powers.

Nothing in Article 22 confers sovereignty and independence. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how it works. The rulers (The people with the right to sovereignty.) were the people who became the citizens under international law after the Treaty of Lausanne. Those would be the people who were citizens of the Turkish Empire.
> 
> The division of territory between Palestine and Tranjordan does not matter. When the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine and Transjordan were two separate successor states. The people who normally lived in Transjordan became citizens of Transjordan. Those who normally lived in Palestine became citizens of Palestine. There is no connection between the two. They are two separate states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as you are using international laws retroactively to support your POV.
> 
> As is your usual case you ignore and deny the Jews rights to free determination. The Turkish citizens would not include the free loaders and illegal immigrants flooding in from the surrounding areas. The division of palestine does matter as it delineates what lands were allo0cated to which people, and the arab muslims were to get 78% of the best farmland while the Jews were to get swamp and desert. The people who lived in trans Jordan were evicted if they were Jews and sent west over the river, but there was no traffic coming out of the Jeish national home into Trans Jordan as the palestinians demanded. They did not become two separate states until 1948 when they were signed of by the British/UN.
> 
> 
> Did you forget about your own link that stated all the above and you used as evidence against the Jews ?
Click to expand...

Do you have links to all that shit?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> • In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?
> 
> • In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?


Well, colonialism surely wasn't it.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.

*(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*

•    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

•   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly



montelatici said:


> What is a refugee Rocco?


*(COMMENT)*

As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services. 
Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).



montelatici said:


> Why are Palestinians not refugees?


*(COMMENT)*

This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_


			
				Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
			
		

> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _



Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OK let's agree for the moment that these two concepts have this undefinable quality to them.  How do you know it was not delivered?  



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?
> 
> • In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, colonialism surely wasn't it.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Well, don't worry...   It was not the place of the Arab Palestine to even make such a determination; was it ?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."

Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*

In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.

So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how it works. The rulers (The people with the right to sovereignty.) were the people who became the citizens under international law after the Treaty of Lausanne. Those would be the people who were citizens of the Turkish Empire.
> 
> The division of territory between Palestine and Tranjordan does not matter. When the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine and Transjordan were two separate successor states. The people who normally lived in Transjordan became citizens of Transjordan. Those who normally lived in Palestine became citizens of Palestine. There is no connection between the two. They are two separate states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as you are using international laws retroactively to support your POV.
> 
> As is your usual case you ignore and deny the Jews rights to free determination. The Turkish citizens would not include the free loaders and illegal immigrants flooding in from the surrounding areas. The division of palestine does matter as it delineates what lands were allo0cated to which people, and the arab muslims were to get 78% of the best farmland while the Jews were to get swamp and desert. The people who lived in trans Jordan were evicted if they were Jews and sent west over the river, but there was no traffic coming out of the Jeish national home into Trans Jordan as the palestinians demanded. They did not become two separate states until 1948 when they were signed of by the British/UN.
> 
> 
> Did you forget about your own link that stated all the above and you used as evidence against the Jews ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have links to all that shit?
Click to expand...







 WHY DIDNT YOU READ THEM THE LAST 100 TIMES THEY WERE GIVEN.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's agree for the moment that these two concepts have this undefinable quality to them.  How do you know it was not delivered?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?
> 
> • In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, colonialism surely wasn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, don't worry...   It was not the place of the Arab Palestine to even make such a determination; was it ?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

There you go back to the standard colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how it works. The rulers (The people with the right to sovereignty.) were the people who became the citizens under international law after the Treaty of Lausanne. Those would be the people who were citizens of the Turkish Empire.
> 
> The division of territory between Palestine and Tranjordan does not matter. When the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine and Transjordan were two separate successor states. The people who normally lived in Transjordan became citizens of Transjordan. Those who normally lived in Palestine became citizens of Palestine. There is no connection between the two. They are two separate states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as you are using international laws retroactively to support your POV.
> 
> As is your usual case you ignore and deny the Jews rights to free determination. The Turkish citizens would not include the free loaders and illegal immigrants flooding in from the surrounding areas. The division of palestine does matter as it delineates what lands were allo0cated to which people, and the arab muslims were to get 78% of the best farmland while the Jews were to get swamp and desert. The people who lived in trans Jordan were evicted if they were Jews and sent west over the river, but there was no traffic coming out of the Jeish national home into Trans Jordan as the palestinians demanded. They did not become two separate states until 1948 when they were signed of by the British/UN.
> 
> 
> Did you forget about your own link that stated all the above and you used as evidence against the Jews ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have links to all that shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY DIDNT YOU READ THEM THE LAST 100 TIMES THEY WERE GIVEN.
Click to expand...

What was posted that says what you say they said?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

You did not read very well...



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Important safety tip for those of you at home!

Well, there is often a mix-up between the two words:  dependent _(a matter of support)_ and descendent _(which is a matter of ancestry)_.  The general term is a use is the "Principle Applicant;"  Which our friend "montelatici" correctly uses.  It is also important that in terms of the UNHSR there is a difference between "Refugee Status" and that of a Derivative Refugee Status.  ​While I did say this was "a whole other topic,"  I was very careful not step to out the snapshot in time and discuss a specific criteria.  I am very familiar with both the "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) under UNHCR's Mandate" --- and --- Revised Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees.  I give you these links so that you understand what a *Principle Applicant* is and what a *Derivative Applicant* is.  The Derivative Applicant, is based on the eligibility of the Principle.  A family member that derived refugee status, but never lived in the area from which the family was displaced (born after displacement).  After that, the RSD is based on the interview by UNHCR personnel.  In other words, you Derivative Applicant cannot pass-on refugee status unless it falls into a special case.  Like I said, it is complicated.

What I can say is that UNRWA Palestinians eligible under UNHCR Refugee Procedures if they have

•  Committed a crimes international crimes (against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity)  
•  Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; 
•  Been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. ​
What does this mean...  All those families of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters are out of luck.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
Click to expand...

An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's agree for the moment that these two concepts have this undefinable quality to them.  How do you know it was not delivered?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?
> 
> • In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, colonialism surely wasn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, don't worry...   It was not the place of the Arab Palestine to even make such a determination; was it ?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go back to the standard colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.
Click to expand...







 Ok  then why dont you show what rights they had in 1919 when all this took place.

 They had the right to take part in talks and that was it


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> This last means that the Jews were seen as the natural rulers of that 22% of palestine and the arab muslims that did not want to live under the Jews could move to the 78% of palestine granted to them.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how it works. The rulers (The people with the right to sovereignty.) were the people who became the citizens under international law after the Treaty of Lausanne. Those would be the people who were citizens of the Turkish Empire.
> 
> The division of territory between Palestine and Tranjordan does not matter. When the Treaty of Lausanne was signed Palestine and Transjordan were two separate successor states. The people who normally lived in Transjordan became citizens of Transjordan. Those who normally lived in Palestine became citizens of Palestine. There is no connection between the two. They are two separate states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG as you are using international laws retroactively to support your POV.
> 
> As is your usual case you ignore and deny the Jews rights to free determination. The Turkish citizens would not include the free loaders and illegal immigrants flooding in from the surrounding areas. The division of palestine does matter as it delineates what lands were allo0cated to which people, and the arab muslims were to get 78% of the best farmland while the Jews were to get swamp and desert. The people who lived in trans Jordan were evicted if they were Jews and sent west over the river, but there was no traffic coming out of the Jeish national home into Trans Jordan as the palestinians demanded. They did not become two separate states until 1948 when they were signed of by the British/UN.
> 
> 
> Did you forget about your own link that stated all the above and you used as evidence against the Jews ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have links to all that shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY DIDNT YOU READ THEM THE LAST 100 TIMES THEY WERE GIVEN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was posted that says what you say they said?
Click to expand...







 The mandate of palestine and treaties that gave the lands to the LoN as reparations for war. 

 Have you forgotten your own link that stated the same things, or do you want to ignore that now ?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You did not read very well...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Important safety tip for those of you at home!
> 
> Well, there is often a mix-up between the two words:  dependent _(a matter of support)_ and descendent _(which is a matter of ancestry)_.  The general term is a use is the "Principle Applicant;"  Which our friend "montelatici" correctly uses.  It is also important that in terms of the UNHSR there is a difference between "Refugee Status" and that of a Derivative Refugee Status. ​While I did say this was "a whole other topic,"  I was very careful not step to out the snapshot in time and discuss a specific criteria.  I am very familiar with both the "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) under UNHCR's Mandate" --- and --- Revised Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees.  I give you these links so that you understand what a *Principle Applicant* is and what a *Derivative Applicant* is.  The Derivative Applicant, is based on the eligibility of the Principle.  A family member that derived refugee status, but never lived in the area from which the family was displaced (born after displacement).  After that, the RSD is based on the interview by UNHCR personnel.  In other words, you Derivative Applicant cannot pass-on refugee status unless it falls into a special case.  Like I said, it is complicated.
> 
> What I can say is that UNRWA Palestinians eligible under UNHCR Refugee Procedures if they have
> 
> •  Committed a crimes international crimes (against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity)
> •  Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
> •  Been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​
> What does this mean...  All those families of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters are out of luck.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Wrong again.  This is getting boring.

1. Freedom fighting is not a crime, it is a duty of the occupied people to resist occupation.  The people in German occupied Europe that fought the occupation were granted refugee status, Jews included.

2. It's not complicated at all. Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight. In the absence of and until there is a just solution, it stands to reason that their status as refugees remains.

Your questioning the passing of refugee status through generations stems from your inability to understand the international protection system. This sort of questioning, by ignorant Zionist racists, only  distracts from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely Israel's intransigence with respect to right of return of the refugees and ending the occupation, as required by various UNSC resolutions.

But to top it off, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status states in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependents are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.
Click to expand...







 And there is no such beast as the arab states vetoed the law when they saw they would be giving up Mecca and Medina to the Jews. And still you claim it is law when you have been shown it isnt, proving that you dont accept the Jews have any rights and that international laws never work in their favour.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's agree for the moment that these two concepts have this undefinable quality to them.  How do you know it was not delivered?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?
> 
> • In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, colonialism surely wasn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, don't worry...   It was not the place of the Arab Palestine to even make such a determination; was it ?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go back to the standard colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok  then why dont you show what rights they had in 1919 when all this took place.
> 
> They had the right to take part in talks and that was it
Click to expand...

1907 Hague convention.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no such beast as the arab states vetoed the law when they saw they would be giving up Mecca and Medina to the Jews. And still you claim it is law when you have been shown it isnt, proving that you dont accept the Jews have any rights and that international laws never work in their favour.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> And there is no such beast as the arab states vetoed the law when they saw they would be giving up Mecca and Medina to the Jews.


Link?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You did not read very well...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Important safety tip for those of you at home!
> 
> Well, there is often a mix-up between the two words:  dependent _(a matter of support)_ and descendent _(which is a matter of ancestry)_.  The general term is a use is the "Principle Applicant;"  Which our friend "montelatici" correctly uses.  It is also important that in terms of the UNHSR there is a difference between "Refugee Status" and that of a Derivative Refugee Status.​While I did say this was "a whole other topic,"  I was very careful not step to out the snapshot in time and discuss a specific criteria.  I am very familiar with both the "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) under UNHCR's Mandate" --- and --- Revised Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees.  I give you these links so that you understand what a *Principle Applicant* is and what a *Derivative Applicant* is.  The Derivative Applicant, is based on the eligibility of the Principle.  A family member that derived refugee status, but never lived in the area from which the family was displaced (born after displacement).  After that, the RSD is based on the interview by UNHCR personnel.  In other words, you Derivative Applicant cannot pass-on refugee status unless it falls into a special case.  Like I said, it is complicated.
> 
> What I can say is that UNRWA Palestinians eligible under UNHCR Refugee Procedures if they have
> 
> •  Committed a crimes international crimes (against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity)
> •  Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
> •  Been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​
> What does this mean...  All those families of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters are out of luck.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  This is getting boring.
> 
> 1. Freedom fighting is not a crime, it is a duty of the occupied people to resist occupation.  The people in German occupied Europe that fought the occupation were granted refugee status, Jews included.
> 
> 2. It's not complicated at all. Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight. In the absence of and until there is a just solution, it stands to reason that their status as refugees remains.
> 
> Your questioning the passing of refugee status through generations stems from your inability to understand the international protection system. This sort of questioning, by ignorant Zionist racists, only  distracts from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely Israel's intransigence with respect to right of return of the refugees and ending the occupation, as required by various UNSC resolutions.
> 
> But to top it off, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status states in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependents are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."
Click to expand...

Flailing your Pom Poms as a reward for acts of islamic terrorism is regrettable. You should acquaint yourself with the Hamas Charter. There is no suggestion of freedom fighting in that document. In fact, the Hamas Charter speaks to offensive gee-had and precepts such as insensate Jew hatred that are enshrined in the Islamic hate and war manual otherwise called the Koran.

The imposition of islamist fascism in no way can be described as promoting freedom for anyone.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.
Click to expand...



Why is it that no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them any right of return?


----------



## Mindful

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them any right of return?
Click to expand...


Good question. 

Palestinians who have been languishing in Syrian refugee camps for years, have never been granted citizenship.

There were 6 million displaced persons in Europe following the end of WW2. What happened to those people? They must have been absorbed into different countries. Certainly no sign of camps, the  present migrant situation notwithstanding.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them any right of return?
Click to expand...

Because they are not from those countries.


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You did not read very well...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Important safety tip for those of you at home!
> 
> Well, there is often a mix-up between the two words:  dependent _(a matter of support)_ and descendent _(which is a matter of ancestry)_.  The general term is a use is the "Principle Applicant;"  Which our friend "montelatici" correctly uses.  It is also important that in terms of the UNHSR there is a difference between "Refugee Status" and that of a Derivative Refugee Status.​While I did say this was "a whole other topic,"  I was very careful not step to out the snapshot in time and discuss a specific criteria.  I am very familiar with both the "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) under UNHCR's Mandate" --- and --- Revised Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees.  I give you these links so that you understand what a *Principle Applicant* is and what a *Derivative Applicant* is.  The Derivative Applicant, is based on the eligibility of the Principle.  A family member that derived refugee status, but never lived in the area from which the family was displaced (born after displacement).  After that, the RSD is based on the interview by UNHCR personnel.  In other words, you Derivative Applicant cannot pass-on refugee status unless it falls into a special case.  Like I said, it is complicated.
> 
> What I can say is that UNRWA Palestinians eligible under UNHCR Refugee Procedures if they have
> 
> •  Committed a crimes international crimes (against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity)
> •  Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
> •  Been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​
> What does this mean...  All those families of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters are out of luck.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  This is getting boring.
> 
> 1. Freedom fighting is not a crime, it is a duty of the occupied people to resist occupation.  The people in German occupied Europe that fought the occupation were granted refugee status, Jews included.
> 
> 2. It's not complicated at all. Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight. In the absence of and until there is a just solution, it stands to reason that their status as refugees remains.
> 
> Your questioning the passing of refugee status through generations stems from your inability to understand the international protection system. This sort of questioning, by ignorant Zionist racists, only  distracts from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely Israel's intransigence with respect to right of return of the refugees and ending the occupation, as required by various UNSC resolutions.
> 
> But to top it off, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status states in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependents are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."
Click to expand...


Non countries can't be occupied.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  MJB12741, et al,

Well this is not really honesty.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Because they are not from those countries.


*(COMMENT)*

All across Europe, from the UK to the Middle Eastern Coast, and all the neighboring states have had to deal with Islamic Immigrant and Refugees have been accepted.  (Not an invasion.)

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You did not read very well...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Important safety tip for those of you at home!
> 
> Well, there is often a mix-up between the two words:  dependent _(a matter of support)_ and descendent _(which is a matter of ancestry)_.  The general term is a use is the "Principle Applicant;"  Which our friend "montelatici" correctly uses.  It is also important that in terms of the UNHSR there is a difference between "Refugee Status" and that of a Derivative Refugee Status.​While I did say this was "a whole other topic,"  I was very careful not step to out the snapshot in time and discuss a specific criteria.  I am very familiar with both the "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) under UNHCR's Mandate" --- and --- Revised Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees.  I give you these links so that you understand what a *Principle Applicant* is and what a *Derivative Applicant* is.  The Derivative Applicant, is based on the eligibility of the Principle.  A family member that derived refugee status, but never lived in the area from which the family was displaced (born after displacement).  After that, the RSD is based on the interview by UNHCR personnel.  In other words, you Derivative Applicant cannot pass-on refugee status unless it falls into a special case.  Like I said, it is complicated.
> 
> What I can say is that UNRWA Palestinians eligible under UNHCR Refugee Procedures if they have
> 
> •  Committed a crimes international crimes (against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity)
> •  Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
> •  Been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​
> What does this mean...  All those families of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters are out of luck.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  This is getting boring.
> 
> 1. Freedom fighting is not a crime, it is a duty of the occupied people to resist occupation.  The people in German occupied Europe that fought the occupation were granted refugee status, Jews included.
> 
> 2. It's not complicated at all. Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight. In the absence of and until there is a just solution, it stands to reason that their status as refugees remains.
> 
> Your questioning the passing of refugee status through generations stems from your inability to understand the international protection system. This sort of questioning, by ignorant Zionist racists, only  distracts from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely Israel's intransigence with respect to right of return of the refugees and ending the occupation, as required by various UNSC resolutions.
> 
> But to top it off, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status states in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependents are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non countries can't be occupied.
Click to expand...

OK? So, how were the West Bank and Gaza occupied from 1949 to 1967 by Jordan and Egypt.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  MJB12741, et al,
> 
> Well this is not really honesty.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are not from those countries.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All across Europe, from the UK to the Middle Eastern Coast, and all the neighboring states have had to deal with Islamic Immigrant and Refugees have been accepted.  (Not an invasion.)
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You did not read very well...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Important safety tip for those of you at home!
> 
> Well, there is often a mix-up between the two words:  dependent _(a matter of support)_ and descendent _(which is a matter of ancestry)_.  The general term is a use is the "Principle Applicant;"  Which our friend "montelatici" correctly uses.  It is also important that in terms of the UNHSR there is a difference between "Refugee Status" and that of a Derivative Refugee Status.​While I did say this was "a whole other topic,"  I was very careful not step to out the snapshot in time and discuss a specific criteria.  I am very familiar with both the "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) under UNHCR's Mandate" --- and --- Revised Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees.  I give you these links so that you understand what a *Principle Applicant* is and what a *Derivative Applicant* is.  The Derivative Applicant, is based on the eligibility of the Principle.  A family member that derived refugee status, but never lived in the area from which the family was displaced (born after displacement).  After that, the RSD is based on the interview by UNHCR personnel.  In other words, you Derivative Applicant cannot pass-on refugee status unless it falls into a special case.  Like I said, it is complicated.
> 
> What I can say is that UNRWA Palestinians eligible under UNHCR Refugee Procedures if they have
> 
> •  Committed a crimes international crimes (against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity)
> •  Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
> •  Been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​
> What does this mean...  All those families of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters are out of luck.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  This is getting boring.
> 
> 1. Freedom fighting is not a crime, it is a duty of the occupied people to resist occupation.  The people in German occupied Europe that fought the occupation were granted refugee status, Jews included.
> 
> 2. It's not complicated at all. Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight. In the absence of and until there is a just solution, it stands to reason that their status as refugees remains.
> 
> Your questioning the passing of refugee status through generations stems from your inability to understand the international protection system. This sort of questioning, by ignorant Zionist racists, only  distracts from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely Israel's intransigence with respect to right of return of the refugees and ending the occupation, as required by various UNSC resolutions.
> 
> But to top it off, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status states in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependents are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non countries can't be occupied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK? So, how were the West Bank and Gaza occupied from 1949 to 1967 by Jordan and Egypt.
Click to expand...


Annexed you mean.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You did not read very well...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Important safety tip for those of you at home!
> 
> Well, there is often a mix-up between the two words:  dependent _(a matter of support)_ and descendent _(which is a matter of ancestry)_.  The general term is a use is the "Principle Applicant;"  Which our friend "montelatici" correctly uses.  It is also important that in terms of the UNHSR there is a difference between "Refugee Status" and that of a Derivative Refugee Status.​While I did say this was "a whole other topic,"  I was very careful not step to out the snapshot in time and discuss a specific criteria.  I am very familiar with both the "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) under UNHCR's Mandate" --- and --- Revised Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees.  I give you these links so that you understand what a *Principle Applicant* is and what a *Derivative Applicant* is.  The Derivative Applicant, is based on the eligibility of the Principle.  A family member that derived refugee status, but never lived in the area from which the family was displaced (born after displacement).  After that, the RSD is based on the interview by UNHCR personnel.  In other words, you Derivative Applicant cannot pass-on refugee status unless it falls into a special case.  Like I said, it is complicated.
> 
> What I can say is that UNRWA Palestinians eligible under UNHCR Refugee Procedures if they have
> 
> •  Committed a crimes international crimes (against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity)
> •  Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
> •  Been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​
> What does this mean...  All those families of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters are out of luck.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  This is getting boring.
> 
> 1. Freedom fighting is not a crime, it is a duty of the occupied people to resist occupation.  The people in German occupied Europe that fought the occupation were granted refugee status, Jews included.
> 
> 2. It's not complicated at all. Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight. In the absence of and until there is a just solution, it stands to reason that their status as refugees remains.
> 
> Your questioning the passing of refugee status through generations stems from your inability to understand the international protection system. This sort of questioning, by ignorant Zionist racists, only  distracts from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely Israel's intransigence with respect to right of return of the refugees and ending the occupation, as required by various UNSC resolutions.
> 
> But to top it off, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status states in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependents are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non countries can't be occupied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK? So, how were the West Bank and Gaza occupied from 1949 to 1967 by Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Annexed you mean.
Click to expand...

Not so. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank, but annexing occupied territory is illegal. The world never recognized that attempted annexation.

Egypt never attempted to annex Gaza.


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You did not read very well...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Important safety tip for those of you at home!
> 
> Well, there is often a mix-up between the two words:  dependent _(a matter of support)_ and descendent _(which is a matter of ancestry)_.  The general term is a use is the "Principle Applicant;"  Which our friend "montelatici" correctly uses.  It is also important that in terms of the UNHSR there is a difference between "Refugee Status" and that of a Derivative Refugee Status.​While I did say this was "a whole other topic,"  I was very careful not step to out the snapshot in time and discuss a specific criteria.  I am very familiar with both the "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) under UNHCR's Mandate" --- and --- Revised Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees.  I give you these links so that you understand what a *Principle Applicant* is and what a *Derivative Applicant* is.  The Derivative Applicant, is based on the eligibility of the Principle.  A family member that derived refugee status, but never lived in the area from which the family was displaced (born after displacement).  After that, the RSD is based on the interview by UNHCR personnel.  In other words, you Derivative Applicant cannot pass-on refugee status unless it falls into a special case.  Like I said, it is complicated.
> 
> What I can say is that UNRWA Palestinians eligible under UNHCR Refugee Procedures if they have
> 
> •  Committed a crimes international crimes (against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity)
> •  Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
> •  Been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​
> What does this mean...  All those families of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters are out of luck.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  This is getting boring.
> 
> 1. Freedom fighting is not a crime, it is a duty of the occupied people to resist occupation.  The people in German occupied Europe that fought the occupation were granted refugee status, Jews included.
> 
> 2. It's not complicated at all. Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight. In the absence of and until there is a just solution, it stands to reason that their status as refugees remains.
> 
> Your questioning the passing of refugee status through generations stems from your inability to understand the international protection system. This sort of questioning, by ignorant Zionist racists, only  distracts from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely Israel's intransigence with respect to right of return of the refugees and ending the occupation, as required by various UNSC resolutions.
> 
> But to top it off, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status states in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependents are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non countries can't be occupied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK? So, how were the West Bank and Gaza occupied from 1949 to 1967 by Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Annexed you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank, but annexing occupied territory is illegal. The world never recognized that attempted annexation.
> 
> Egypt never attempted to annex Gaza.
Click to expand...


More blah blah.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  This is getting boring.
> 
> 1. Freedom fighting is not a crime, it is a duty of the occupied people to resist occupation.  The people in German occupied Europe that fought the occupation were granted refugee status, Jews included.
> 
> 2. It's not complicated at all. Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight. In the absence of and until there is a just solution, it stands to reason that their status as refugees remains.
> 
> Your questioning the passing of refugee status through generations stems from your inability to understand the international protection system. This sort of questioning, by ignorant Zionist racists, only  distracts from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely Israel's intransigence with respect to right of return of the refugees and ending the occupation, as required by various UNSC resolutions.
> 
> But to top it off, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status states in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependents are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non countries can't be occupied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK? So, how were the West Bank and Gaza occupied from 1949 to 1967 by Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Annexed you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank, but annexing occupied territory is illegal. The world never recognized that attempted annexation.
> 
> Egypt never attempted to annex Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More blah blah.
Click to expand...

True. Look it up.


----------



## Mindful

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non countries can't be occupied.
> 
> 
> 
> OK? So, how were the West Bank and Gaza occupied from 1949 to 1967 by Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Annexed you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank, but annexing occupied territory is illegal. The world never recognized that attempted annexation.
> 
> Egypt never attempted to annex Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More blah blah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True. Look it up.
Click to expand...


Not to feed your sick obsession.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, you got part of this correct; I give you a D+.



P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You did not read very well...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Important safety tip for those of you at home!
> 
> Well, there is often a mix-up between the two words:  dependent _(a matter of support)_ and descendent _(which is a matter of ancestry)_.  The general term is a use is the "Principle Applicant;"  Which our friend "montelatici" correctly uses.  It is also important that in terms of the UNHSR there is a difference between "Refugee Status" and that of a Derivative Refugee Status.​While I did say this was "a whole other topic,"  I was very careful not step to out the snapshot in time and discuss a specific criteria.  I am very familiar with both the "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) under UNHCR's Mandate" --- and --- Revised Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees.  I give you these links so that you understand what a *Principle Applicant* is and what a *Derivative Applicant* is.  The Derivative Applicant, is based on the eligibility of the Principle.  A family member that derived refugee status, but never lived in the area from which the family was displaced (born after displacement).  After that, the RSD is based on the interview by UNHCR personnel.  In other words, you Derivative Applicant cannot pass-on refugee status unless it falls into a special case.  Like I said, it is complicated.
> 
> What I can say is that UNRWA Palestinians eligible under UNHCR Refugee Procedures if they have
> 
> •  Committed a crimes international crimes (against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity)
> •  Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
> •  Been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​
> What does this mean...  All those families of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters are out of luck.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  This is getting boring.
> 
> 1. Freedom fighting is not a crime, it is a duty of the occupied people to resist occupation.  The people in German occupied Europe that fought the occupation were granted refugee status, Jews included.
> 
> 2. It's not complicated at all. Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight. In the absence of and until there is a just solution, it stands to reason that their status as refugees remains.
> 
> Your questioning the passing of refugee status through generations stems from your inability to understand the international protection system. This sort of questioning, by ignorant Zionist racists, only  distracts from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely Israel's intransigence with respect to right of return of the refugees and ending the occupation, as required by various UNSC resolutions.
> 
> But to top it off, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status states in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependents are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Non countries can't be occupied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK? So, how were the West Bank and Gaza occupied from 1949 to 1967 by Jordan and Egypt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Annexed you mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so. Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank, but annexing occupied territory is illegal. The world never recognized that attempted annexation.
> 
> Egypt never attempted to annex Gaza.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

•  On 1 December 1948 some three thousand delegates attended a Palestinian Congress in Jericho, just north of the Dead Sea, and passed a resolution calling for the unification of Jordan and Palestine under Abdullah.  A Palestinian conference in Ramallah personally attended by King Abdullah on 26 December 1948 declared its support for the Jericho Conference resolution, as did a subsequent Nablus conference, calling for unification of the two banks of the Jordan under the Hashemite crown.

•  Out of the six resolutions the Arab Palestinians adopted, one of them was --- the desire for unity between Transjordan and Arab Palestine and therefore make known their wish that Arab Palestine be annexed immediately to Jordan; and further the Arab Palestinians supported the motion to recognize Abdullah as their King and request him proclaim himself King of new territory.

•  "On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River (see A/AC.25/SR.148  28 April 1950 - Summary Record), constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion."   The annexation went virtually unopposed.

•  Without regard to what the UN/International Community had to say, this is part of the Arab Palestinian "Self-Determination."  Further, the recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.  (Article 6, Montevideo Conference 1933)

•  Similarly the Gaza Strip was overtly administered (SEP 48) by the All Palestine Government (APG) to 1959.  "The Gaza Strip was under Egyptian military rule from 1949 to 1956 and again from 1957 to 1967. From the beginning, the area’s chief economic and social problem was the presence of large numbers of Palestinian Arab refugees living in extreme poverty in squalid camps. The Egyptian government did not consider the area part of Egypt and did not allow the refugees to become Egyptian citizens or to migrate to Egypt or to other Arab countries where they might be integrated into the population. The APG was the first failed attempt to establish a Palestinian State.  And while various sources describe it inception 
differently (some say self-determination, some say on the authority of the Egyptian military, and still others say Egypt was the power behind the APG, they all universally accept that it was under Egyptian Authority that, in 1959, transferred the Administration of the APG to the Egyptian Military Governorship.

In both cases, by the time the 1967 Six-Day War was initiated, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip had two entirely different types of government exercising authority.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Mindful

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You did not read very well...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Important safety tip for those of you at home!
> 
> Well, there is often a mix-up between the two words:  dependent _(a matter of support)_ and descendent _(which is a matter of ancestry)_.  The general term is a use is the "Principle Applicant;"  Which our friend "montelatici" correctly uses.  It is also important that in terms of the UNHSR there is a difference between "Refugee Status" and that of a Derivative Refugee Status.​While I did say this was "a whole other topic,"  I was very careful not step to out the snapshot in time and discuss a specific criteria.  I am very familiar with both the "Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination (RSD) under UNHCR's Mandate" --- and --- Revised Note on the Applicability of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to Palestinian Refugees.  I give you these links so that you understand what a *Principle Applicant* is and what a *Derivative Applicant* is.  The Derivative Applicant, is based on the eligibility of the Principle.  A family member that derived refugee status, but never lived in the area from which the family was displaced (born after displacement).  After that, the RSD is based on the interview by UNHCR personnel.  In other words, you Derivative Applicant cannot pass-on refugee status unless it falls into a special case.  Like I said, it is complicated.
> 
> What I can say is that UNRWA Palestinians eligible under UNHCR Refugee Procedures if they have
> 
> •  Committed a crimes international crimes (against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity)
> •  Committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
> •  Been found guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.​
> What does this mean...  All those families of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters are out of luck.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again.  This is getting boring.
> 
> 1. Freedom fighting is not a crime, it is a duty of the occupied people to resist occupation.  The people in German occupied Europe that fought the occupation were granted refugee status, Jews included.
> 
> 2. It's not complicated at all. Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight. In the absence of and until there is a just solution, it stands to reason that their status as refugees remains.
> 
> Your questioning the passing of refugee status through generations stems from your inability to understand the international protection system. This sort of questioning, by ignorant Zionist racists, only  distracts from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely Israel's intransigence with respect to right of return of the refugees and ending the occupation, as required by various UNSC resolutions.
> 
> But to top it off, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for determining Refugee Status states in paragraph 184: "If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, [for refugee status] his dependents are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity."
Click to expand...


Boring? You can say that again.


----------



## MJB12741

Mindful said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them any right of return?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> Palestinians who have been languishing in Syrian refugee camps for years, have never been granted citizenship.
> 
> There were 6 million displaced persons in Europe following the end of WW2. What happened to those people? They must have been absorbed into different countries. Certainly no sign of camps, the  present migrant situation notwithstanding.
Click to expand...


And then those Zionists in Israel have the audacity to fuel the endless conflict by actually making peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede land to them only to be thanked with rocket missiles.  When will those Zionists ever learn to treat the Palestinians like the surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them any right of return?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> Palestinians who have been languishing in Syrian refugee camps for years, have never been granted citizenship.
> 
> There were 6 million displaced persons in Europe following the end of WW2. What happened to those people? They must have been absorbed into different countries. Certainly no sign of camps, the  present migrant situation notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then those Zionists in Israel have the audacity to fuel the endless conflict by actually making peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede land to them only to be thanked with rocket missiles.  When will those Zionists ever learn to treat the Palestinians like the surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY?
Click to expand...


You mean wanting a peaceful occupied native population after taking their land?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them any right of return?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> Palestinians who have been languishing in Syrian refugee camps for years, have never been granted citizenship.
> 
> There were 6 million displaced persons in Europe following the end of WW2. What happened to those people? They must have been absorbed into different countries. Certainly no sign of camps, the  present migrant situation notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then those Zionists in Israel have the audacity to fuel the endless conflict by actually making peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede land to them only to be thanked with rocket missiles.  When will those Zionists ever learn to treat the Palestinians like the surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean wanting a peaceful occupied native population after taking their land?
Click to expand...


Sounds like we both agree that Israel's damn Zionist agenda treatment of the Palestinians has to end for any prospect of a lasting peace. What better than Israel treating the Palestinians with the same love, justice & respect the surrounding Arab countries have for the Palestinians?  
LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## montelatici

What do surrounding countries have to do with Israel's treatment of Palestinians?  The Palestinians are the native inhabitants of Palestine, not the surrounding countries.  What would the mistreatment of German Jews in France have to do with the mistreatment of German Jews in Germany?  You are rambling.


----------



## Mindful

If anything, the name "Palestine" was associated with Jews. In the years leading up to the rebirth of Israel in 1948, those who spoke of "Palestinians" were nearly always referring to the region's Jewish residents. In fact, Arab leaders rejected the notion of a unique "Palestinian Arab" identity, insisting that Palestine was merely a part of "Greater Syria."


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> What do surrounding countries have to do with Israel's treatment of Palestinians?  The Palestinians are the native inhabitants of Palestine, not the surrounding countries.  What would the mistreatment of German Jews in France have to do with the mistreatment of German Jews in Germany?  You are rambling.



Funny, funny, funny.  Here we go again.  "The Palestinians are the native inhabitants of Palestine, not the surrounding countries."  And here I actually believed it was Hebrews who built Solomon's Temple that were the native inhabitants of Palestine.  Amazing what we can learn from the wisdom of Monte.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do surrounding countries have to do with Israel's treatment of Palestinians?  The Palestinians are the native inhabitants of Palestine, not the surrounding countries.  What would the mistreatment of German Jews in France have to do with the mistreatment of German Jews in Germany?  You are rambling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, funny, funny.  Here we go again.  "The Palestinians are the native inhabitants of Palestine, not the surrounding countries."  And here I actually believed it was Hebrews who built Solomon's Temple that were the native inhabitants of Palestine.  Amazing what we can learn from the wisdom of Monte.
Click to expand...


They were, and many, if not most of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians today are their descendants.  Changing religions doesn't change who your ancestors were.  The Zionists were Europeans, not natives to Palestine.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them any right of return?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good question.
> 
> Palestinians who have been languishing in Syrian refugee camps for years, have never been granted citizenship.
> 
> There were 6 million displaced persons in Europe following the end of WW2. What happened to those people? They must have been absorbed into different countries. Certainly no sign of camps, the  present migrant situation notwithstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then those Zionists in Israel have the audacity to fuel the endless conflict by actually making peace offerings to Palestinians, build a security fence & concede land to them only to be thanked with rocket missiles.  When will those Zionists ever learn to treat the Palestinians like the surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean wanting a peaceful occupied native population after taking their land?
Click to expand...

History has it that the Ottoman conquerers relinquished all rights and title to the land they controlled to the mandatory. When did that territory suddenly become "their" land; the geographic area occupied by Arab-Moslem squatters? 

You are ignorant of the fact that absentee land owners in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon owned much of the land you have falsely and ignorantly assigned as a part of your invented "country of Pal'istan".


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Changing religions doesn't change who your ancestors were.  The Zionists were Europeans, not natives to Palestine.



Changing your place of residence also doesn't change who your ancestors were.


----------



## Mindful

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing religions doesn't change who your ancestors were.  The Zionists were Europeans, not natives to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changing your place of residence also doesn't change who your ancestors were.
Click to expand...


I don't think there should be the statement 'Israel's legal right to exist'. Or even 'right to exist'.


----------



## montelatici

Mindful said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing religions doesn't change who your ancestors were.  The Zionists were Europeans, not natives to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changing your place of residence also doesn't change who your ancestors were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there should be the statement 'Israel's legal right to exist'. Or even 'right to exist'.
Click to expand...


But the ancestors of the European Jews are Europeans, they are not from Palestine.  Their ancestors are overwhelmingly European converts to Judaism. The ancestors of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly natives of Palestine.

"The finding establishes that the women who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Europe were not from the Near East, as previously supposed...."

Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree


*"Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"*

Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European


"The majority of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from prehistoric European women, according to study published today (October 8) in _Nature Communications_."

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...21/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing religions doesn't change who your ancestors were.  The Zionists were Europeans, not natives to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changing your place of residence also doesn't change who your ancestors were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there should be the statement 'Israel's legal right to exist'. Or even 'right to exist'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the ancestors of the European Jews are Europeans, they are not from Palestine.  Their ancestors are overwhelmingly European converts to Judaism. The ancestors of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly natives of Palestine.
> 
> "The finding establishes that the women who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Europe were not from the Near East, as previously supposed...."
> 
> Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree
> 
> 
> *"Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"*
> 
> Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> 
> "The majority of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from prehistoric European women, according to study published today (October 8) in _Nature Communications_."
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...21/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/
Click to expand...


FACT!  Jews are Jews & Israel is their homeland.  Accept it & move on before you wind up on the funny farm.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Changing religions doesn't change who your ancestors were.  The Zionists were Europeans, not natives to Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Changing your place of residence also doesn't change who your ancestors were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think there should be the statement 'Israel's legal right to exist'. Or even 'right to exist'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the ancestors of the European Jews are Europeans, they are not from Palestine.  Their ancestors are overwhelmingly European converts to Judaism. The ancestors of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly natives of Palestine.
> 
> "The finding establishes that the women who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Europe were not from the Near East, as previously supposed...."
> 
> Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree
> 
> 
> *"Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"*
> 
> Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European
> 
> 
> "The majority of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from prehistoric European women, according to study published today (October 8) in _Nature Communications_."
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...21/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/
Click to expand...


What's interesting is that the Arab-Moslem squatters that Monty believes are native Pal'istanians from his invented "country of Pal'istan" are nothing of the kind. Arabs-Moslems are simply more recent invaders / colonists to that geographic area which saw many invasions including the Crusading Romans / Christians.


----------



## MJB12741

My favorite Monte is Israel's goal is "ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians."

Fact:  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are only just over 6 million of them left.  YEP, it's a GENOCIDE.  And if you don't believe it, just ask Monte.

Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> My favorite Monte is Israel's goal is "ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians."
> 
> Fact:  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are only just over 6 million of them left.  YEP, it's a GENOCIDE.  And if you don't believe it, just ask Monte.
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org



So MJ denies that Muslims and Christians were ethnically cleansed in 1948. LOL


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite Monte is Israel's goal is "ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians."
> 
> Fact:  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are only just over 6 million of them left.  YEP, it's a GENOCIDE.  And if you don't believe it, just ask Monte.
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So MJ denies that Muslims and Christians were ethnically cleansed in 1948. LOL
Click to expand...

They were, by the Crusading Arab-Moslem invaders. LOL.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite Monte is Israel's goal is "ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians."
> 
> Fact:  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are only just over 6 million of them left.  YEP, it's a GENOCIDE.  And if you don't believe it, just ask Monte.
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So MJ denies that Muslims and Christians were ethnically cleansed in 1948. LOL
Click to expand...


No Muslim or Christian Palestinians left, eh Monte?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite Monte is Israel's goal is "ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians."
> 
> Fact:  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are only just over 6 million of them left.  YEP, it's a GENOCIDE.  And if you don't believe it, just ask Monte.
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So MJ denies that Muslims and Christians were ethnically cleansed in 1948. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Muslim or Christian Palestinians left, eh Monte?
Click to expand...


Of course, the Jews were not as efficient as they wanted to be at expelling all non-Jews from Palestine.  They only expelled most of them from the Jew partition.


----------



## Contumacious

MJB12741 said:


> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks




Listen you stupid fuck

How can Israel have a right to exist when it was created by force and terrorism? When 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs were thrown under the bus by one scumbag named Harry S. Truman. Overnight those unfortunate people became foreigners in their own land.


.


----------



## MJB12741

Contumacious said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you stupid fuck
> 
> How can Israel have a right to exist when it was created by force and terrorism? When 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs were thrown under the bus by one scumbag named Harry S. Truman. Overnight those unfortunate people became foreigners in their own land.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


OMG.  He called me a "stupid fuck."  Guess I must have pissed him off.  Good news, there are courses to help you in anger management.  Good luck & keep us posted on your progress.  'Atta boy.


----------



## Contumacious

MJB12741 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you stupid fuck
> 
> How can Israel have a right to exist when it was created by force and terrorism? When 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs were thrown under the bus by one scumbag named Harry S. Truman. Overnight those unfortunate people became foreigners in their own land.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  He called me a "stupid fuck."  Guess I must have pissed him off.  Good news, there are courses to help you in anger management.  Good luck & keep us posted on your progress.  'Atta boy.
Click to expand...




Yep, you royally pissed me off when you forget that those 1.5 million individuals are HUMAN BEINGS.


.


----------



## MJB12741

Contumacious said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you stupid fuck
> 
> How can Israel have a right to exist when it was created by force and terrorism? When 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs were thrown under the bus by one scumbag named Harry S. Truman. Overnight those unfortunate people became foreigners in their own land.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  He called me a "stupid fuck."  Guess I must have pissed him off.  Good news, there are courses to help you in anger management.  Good luck & keep us posted on your progress.  'Atta boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you royally pissed me off when you forget that those 1.5 million individuals are HUMAN BEINGS.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Your comment shows you have a Palestinian mentality.  The Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Then Israel retaliates & the Pali's & their supporters like you bitch about how many more dead Pali's there are than Israeli's.


----------



## Hollie

MJB12741 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you stupid fuck
> 
> How can Israel have a right to exist when it was created by force and terrorism? When 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs were thrown under the bus by one scumbag named Harry S. Truman. Overnight those unfortunate people became foreigners in their own land.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  He called me a "stupid fuck."  Guess I must have pissed him off.  Good news, there are courses to help you in anger management.  Good luck & keep us posted on your progress.  'Atta boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you royally pissed me off when you forget that those 1.5 million individuals are HUMAN BEINGS.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comment shows you have a Palestinian mentality.  The Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Then Israel retaliates & the Pali's & their supporters like you bitch about how many more dead Pali's there are than Israeli's.
Click to expand...


It's hard to miss the urging for conflict done by the Pali Pom Pom flailers from behind the safety of their keyboards.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you stupid fuck
> 
> How can Israel have a right to exist when it was created by force and terrorism? When 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs were thrown under the bus by one scumbag named Harry S. Truman. Overnight those unfortunate people became foreigners in their own land.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  He called me a "stupid fuck."  Guess I must have pissed him off.  Good news, there are courses to help you in anger management.  Good luck & keep us posted on your progress.  'Atta boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you royally pissed me off when you forget that those 1.5 million individuals are HUMAN BEINGS.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comment shows you have a Palestinian mentality.  The Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Then Israel retaliates & the Pali's & their supporters like you bitch about how many more dead Pali's there are than Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to miss the urging for conflict done by the Pali Pom Pom flailers from behind the safety of their keyboards.
Click to expand...


They sure do get pissed off with documented facts.


----------



## Contumacious

MJB12741 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you stupid fuck
> 
> How can Israel have a right to exist when it was created by force and terrorism? When 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs were thrown under the bus by one scumbag named Harry S. Truman. Overnight those unfortunate people became foreigners in their own land.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  He called me a "stupid fuck."  Guess I must have pissed him off.  Good news, there are courses to help you in anger management.  Good luck & keep us posted on your progress.  'Atta boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you royally pissed me off when you forget that those 1.5 million individuals are HUMAN BEINGS.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comment shows you have a Palestinian mentality.  The Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Then Israel retaliates & the Pali's & their supporters like you bitch about how many more dead Pali's there are than Israeli's.
Click to expand...



You comment shows that you have a Hitler mentality.

THE ZIONISTS INVADED THEIR LAND AND THEN  PROCEEDED TO MURDER THEM.

THE PALESTINIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO STAND THEIR GROUND AND DEFEND THEMSELVES.


----------



## Contumacious

MJB12741 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you stupid fuck
> 
> How can Israel have a right to exist when it was created by force and terrorism? When 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs were thrown under the bus by one scumbag named Harry S. Truman. Overnight those unfortunate people became foreigners in their own land.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  He called me a "stupid fuck."  Guess I must have pissed him off.  Good news, there are courses to help you in anger management.  Good luck & keep us posted on your progress.  'Atta boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you royally pissed me off when you forget that those 1.5 million individuals are HUMAN BEINGS.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comment shows you have a Palestinian mentality.  The Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Then Israel retaliates & the Pali's & their supporters like you bitch about how many more dead Pali's there are than Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to miss the urging for conflict done by the Pali Pom Pom flailers from behind the safety of their keyboards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They sure do get pissed off with documented facts.
Click to expand...



YES INDEED "THEY" DO.

FACTS  DOCUMENTING GENOCIDE.

.


----------



## MJB12741

OUTSTANDING POINT.  Yes indeed, what about Israel's GENOCIDE of the Palestinians?  It's about time those Zionists know the documented facts.  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are only just over 6 million of them left.  

Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen you stupid fuck
> 
> How can Israel have a right to exist when it was created by force and terrorism? When 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs were thrown under the bus by one scumbag named Harry S. Truman. Overnight those unfortunate people became foreigners in their own land.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  He called me a "stupid fuck."  Guess I must have pissed him off.  Good news, there are courses to help you in anger management.  Good luck & keep us posted on your progress.  'Atta boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you royally pissed me off when you forget that those 1.5 million individuals are HUMAN BEINGS.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your comment shows you have a Palestinian mentality.  The Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Then Israel retaliates & the Pali's & their supporters like you bitch about how many more dead Pali's there are than Israeli's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's hard to miss the urging for conflict done by the Pali Pom Pom flailers from behind the safety of their keyboards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They sure do get pissed off with documented facts.
Click to expand...


You have never posted a documented fact.  You rely exclusively on propaganda.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> OUTSTANDING POINT.  Yes indeed, what about Israel's GENOCIDE of the Palestinians?  It's about time those Zionists know the documented facts.  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are only just over 6 million of them left.
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org



Using MJ's unusual way to define genocide, it would appear that since there are now 13 million or so Armenians in the world and only about 3 million when the Turks killed about half of them, there was no Armenian genocide.  The guy is truly a piece of work.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OUTSTANDING POINT.  Yes indeed, what about Israel's GENOCIDE of the Palestinians?  It's about time those Zionists know the documented facts.  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are only just over 6 million of them left.
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using MJ's unusual way to define genocide, it would appear that since there are now 13 million or so Armenians in the world and only about 3 million when the Turks killed about half of them, there was no Armenian genocide.  The guy is truly a piece of work.
Click to expand...

Obviously, different circumstances. 

It remarkable how your comments and facts have so little connection to one-another.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## MJB12741

These illegal Palestinian settlements & occupation have to end for any hope of a lasting peace.

The Real Illegal Settlements


----------



## Mindful

MJB12741 said:


> These illegal Palestinian settlements & occupation have to end for any hope of a lasting peace.
> 
> The Real Illegal Settlements



From your link.

Illegal Palestinian settlement.


----------



## Hollie

MJB12741 said:


> These illegal Palestinian settlements & occupation have to end for any hope of a lasting peace.
> 
> The Real Illegal Settlements


From the link:

"...Only a handful of steps separate some of the buildings, and most lack proper sewage systems."


I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the Islamic terrorists are given a free hand to divert their welfare fraud checks to pay for arms, ammunition and infrastructure to wage gee-had but basic services - well, not so much. 

Hey, why be bothered with such annoyances as indoor plumbing, the potential for water / ground water pollution and disease from lack of proper sanitation when the Muhammeds need weapons for gee-had.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These illegal Palestinian settlements & occupation have to end for any hope of a lasting peace.
> 
> The Real Illegal Settlements
> 
> 
> 
> From the link:
> 
> "...Only a handful of steps separate some of the buildings, and most lack proper sewage systems."
> 
> 
> I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the Islamic terrorists are given a free hand to divert their welfare fraud checks to pay for arms, ammunition and infrastructure to wage gee-had but basic services - well, not so much.
> 
> Hey, why be bothered with such annoyances as indoor plumbing, the potential for water / ground water pollution and disease from lack of proper sanitation when the Muhammeds need weapons for gee-had.
Click to expand...


Why should the Pali's do anything for themselves when they have Israel to do it for them?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> These illegal Palestinian settlements & occupation have to end for any hope of a lasting peace.
> 
> The Real Illegal Settlements



Frigging hell, now he links to the Gatestone Institute whose chairman is John Bolton.  You really do only read propaganda from Zionist propaganda sites.  How can anyone take you seriously?


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These illegal Palestinian settlements & occupation have to end for any hope of a lasting peace.
> 
> The Real Illegal Settlements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frigging hell, now he links to the Gatestone Institute whose chairman is John Bolton.  You really do only read propaganda from Zionist propaganda sites.  How can anyone take you seriously?
Click to expand...

OMG!!! Zionist Propaganda vs Muslim Propaganda...


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These illegal Palestinian settlements & occupation have to end for any hope of a lasting peace.
> 
> The Real Illegal Settlements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frigging hell, now he links to the Gatestone Institute whose chairman is John Bolton.  You really do only read propaganda from Zionist propaganda sites.  How can anyone take you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG!!! Zionist Propaganda vs Muslim Propaganda...
Click to expand...


What Muslim propaganda. The source documents I link to are either almost exclusively UN or LON documents from the UN or academic archives, not propaganda sites.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These illegal Palestinian settlements & occupation have to end for any hope of a lasting peace.
> 
> The Real Illegal Settlements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frigging hell, now he links to the Gatestone Institute whose chairman is John Bolton.  You really do only read propaganda from Zionist propaganda sites.  How can anyone take you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG!!! Zionist Propaganda vs Muslim Propaganda...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Muslim propaganda. The source documents I link to are either almost exclusively UN or LON documents from the UN or academic archives, not propaganda sites.
Click to expand...

Islamic Bullshit 1,000,000 times over.


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These illegal Palestinian settlements & occupation have to end for any hope of a lasting peace.
> 
> The Real Illegal Settlements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frigging hell, now he links to the Gatestone Institute whose chairman is John Bolton.  You really do only read propaganda from Zionist propaganda sites.  How can anyone take you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG!!! Zionist Propaganda vs Muslim Propaganda...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Muslim propaganda. The source documents I link to are either almost exclusively UN or LON documents from the UN or academic archives, not propaganda sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Islamic Bullshit 1,000,000 times over.
Click to expand...


Just facts from source documentation, nothing Muslim about it.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These illegal Palestinian settlements & occupation have to end for any hope of a lasting peace.
> 
> The Real Illegal Settlements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frigging hell, now he links to the Gatestone Institute whose chairman is John Bolton.  You really do only read propaganda from Zionist propaganda sites.  How can anyone take you seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG!!! Zionist Propaganda vs Muslim Propaganda...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Muslim propaganda. The source documents I link to are either almost exclusively UN or LON documents from the UN or academic archives, not propaganda sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Islamic Bullshit 1,000,000 times over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just facts from source documentation, nothing Muslim about it.
Click to expand...

Sure, snowflake, sure...
The Jews all converted to Catholicism and Islam and then decided to be oppressed and murdered again and converted back to Judaism.
Do you EVER realize how stupid you sound?


----------



## Contumacious

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frigging hell, now he links to the Gatestone Institute whose chairman is John Bolton.  You really do only read propaganda from Zionist propaganda sites.  How can anyone take you seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!! Zionist Propaganda vs Muslim Propaganda...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Muslim propaganda. The source documents I link to are either almost exclusively UN or LON documents from the UN or academic archives, not propaganda sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Islamic Bullshit 1,000,000 times over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just facts from source documentation, nothing Muslim about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, snowflake, sure...
> The Jews all converted to Catholicism and Islam and then decided to be oppressed and murdered again and converted back to Judaism.
> Do you EVER realize how stupid you sound?
Click to expand...



Pay attention dingleberry

By the time the state of Israel was declared on 14th May 1948, 400,000 Palestinians and 250 villages and towns had already been ethnically cleansed by the Zionist forces

source

*Under the Cover of War: The Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians 1st Edition*
by Rosemarie M. Esber  (Author)

.


----------



## montelatici

Indeependent said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frigging hell, now he links to the Gatestone Institute whose chairman is John Bolton.  You really do only read propaganda from Zionist propaganda sites.  How can anyone take you seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!! Zionist Propaganda vs Muslim Propaganda...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What Muslim propaganda. The source documents I link to are either almost exclusively UN or LON documents from the UN or academic archives, not propaganda sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Islamic Bullshit 1,000,000 times over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just facts from source documentation, nothing Muslim about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, snowflake, sure...
> The Jews all converted to Catholicism and Islam and then decided to be oppressed and murdered again and converted back to Judaism.
> Do you EVER realize how stupid you sound?
Click to expand...


No, but you make it clear you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  It is historical fact.  Of course the inhabitants of Palestine converted to Christianity when  Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.  It was the law, and they had to be Christians to reside in Palestine. Many inhabitants of Palestine were already closet Christians having converted to Christianity subsequent to the birth of Christ. 

I take it you don't quite understand that the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.


----------



## Indeependent

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!! Zionist Propaganda vs Muslim Propaganda...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Muslim propaganda. The source documents I link to are either almost exclusively UN or LON documents from the UN or academic archives, not propaganda sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Islamic Bullshit 1,000,000 times over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just facts from source documentation, nothing Muslim about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, snowflake, sure...
> The Jews all converted to Catholicism and Islam and then decided to be oppressed and murdered again and converted back to Judaism.
> Do you EVER realize how stupid you sound?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you make it clear you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  It is historical fact.  Of course the inhabitants of Palestine converted to Christianity when  Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.  It was the law, and they had to be Christians to reside in Palestine. Many inhabitants of Palestine were already closet Christians having converted to Christianity subsequent to the birth of Christ.
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.
Click to expand...

Of course they came from where they were exiled to.
There's no way in Hell a few million goyim converted to the most oppressed religion in Europe.
Were these the Christian Masochists?.


----------



## Contumacious

montelatici said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!! Zionist Propaganda vs Muslim Propaganda...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Muslim propaganda. The source documents I link to are either almost exclusively UN or LON documents from the UN or academic archives, not propaganda sites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Islamic Bullshit 1,000,000 times over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just facts from source documentation, nothing Muslim about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, snowflake, sure...
> The Jews all converted to Catholicism and Islam and then decided to be oppressed and murdered again and converted back to Judaism.
> Do you EVER realize how stupid you sound?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you make it clear you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  It is historical fact.  Of course the inhabitants of Palestine converted to Christianity when  Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.  It was the law, and they had to be Christians to reside in Palestine. Many inhabitants of Palestine were already closet Christians having converted to Christianity subsequent to the birth of Christ.
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.
Click to expand...




> I take it you don't quite understand that *the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.*




Exactly. Which means that the present Israelites are NOT semites.


.


----------



## Eloy

Contumacious said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Muslim propaganda. The source documents I link to are either almost exclusively UN or LON documents from the UN or academic archives, not propaganda sites.
> 
> 
> 
> Islamic Bullshit 1,000,000 times over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just facts from source documentation, nothing Muslim about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, snowflake, sure...
> The Jews all converted to Catholicism and Islam and then decided to be oppressed and murdered again and converted back to Judaism.
> Do you EVER realize how stupid you sound?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you make it clear you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  It is historical fact.  Of course the inhabitants of Palestine converted to Christianity when  Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.  It was the law, and they had to be Christians to reside in Palestine. Many inhabitants of Palestine were already closet Christians having converted to Christianity subsequent to the birth of Christ.
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that *the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Which means that the present Israelites are NOT semites.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Israelis are clearly not Semites. So many had such little Middle Eastern blood that they could pass for ordinary Germans during the Third Reich, so much so that they were required to wear a yellow star.






An ordinary German family snapped by their husband and father -- the salt of the earth


----------



## Contumacious

Eloy said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Islamic Bullshit 1,000,000 times over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just facts from source documentation, nothing Muslim about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, snowflake, sure...
> The Jews all converted to Catholicism and Islam and then decided to be oppressed and murdered again and converted back to Judaism.
> Do you EVER realize how stupid you sound?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you make it clear you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  It is historical fact.  Of course the inhabitants of Palestine converted to Christianity when  Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.  It was the law, and they had to be Christians to reside in Palestine. Many inhabitants of Palestine were already closet Christians having converted to Christianity subsequent to the birth of Christ.
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that *the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Which means that the present Israelites are NOT semites.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israelis are clearly not Semites. So many had such little Middle Eastern blood that they could pass for ordinary Germans during the Third Reich, so much so that they were required to wear a yellow star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ordinary German family snapped by their husband and father -- the salt of the earth
Click to expand...



But they love to play the "anti-semite" card whenever anyone exposes their fraud.


.


----------



## Eloy

Contumacious said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just facts from source documentation, nothing Muslim about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, snowflake, sure...
> The Jews all converted to Catholicism and Islam and then decided to be oppressed and murdered again and converted back to Judaism.
> Do you EVER realize how stupid you sound?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but you make it clear you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  It is historical fact.  Of course the inhabitants of Palestine converted to Christianity when  Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.  It was the law, and they had to be Christians to reside in Palestine. Many inhabitants of Palestine were already closet Christians having converted to Christianity subsequent to the birth of Christ.
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that *the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Which means that the present Israelites are NOT semites.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israelis are clearly not Semites. So many had such little Middle Eastern blood that they could pass for ordinary Germans during the Third Reich, so much so that they were required to wear a yellow star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ordinary German family snapped by their husband and father -- the salt of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But they love to play the "anti-semite" card whenever anyone exposes their fraud.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Indeed, and the irony is that they are hate-filled toward the indigenous Arab Semites. They will not last once the West Bank is made part of Israel. They are more than half-way there.


----------



## Indeependent

Eloy said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, snowflake, sure...
> The Jews all converted to Catholicism and Islam and then decided to be oppressed and murdered again and converted back to Judaism.
> Do you EVER realize how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you make it clear you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  It is historical fact.  Of course the inhabitants of Palestine converted to Christianity when  Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.  It was the law, and they had to be Christians to reside in Palestine. Many inhabitants of Palestine were already closet Christians having converted to Christianity subsequent to the birth of Christ.
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that *the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Which means that the present Israelites are NOT semites.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israelis are clearly not Semites. So many had such little Middle Eastern blood that they could pass for ordinary Germans during the Third Reich, so much so that they were required to wear a yellow star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ordinary German family snapped by their husband and father -- the salt of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But they love to play the "anti-semite" card whenever anyone exposes their fraud.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and the irony is that they are hate-filled toward the indigenous Arab Semites. They will not last once the West Bank is made part of Israel. They are more than half-way there.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.
I believe people have been predicting the demise of the Jews for 2,000 years and the State of Israel for 60 years.
Neither is going to happen.


----------



## Hollie

Eloy said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, snowflake, sure...
> The Jews all converted to Catholicism and Islam and then decided to be oppressed and murdered again and converted back to Judaism.
> Do you EVER realize how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you make it clear you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  It is historical fact.  Of course the inhabitants of Palestine converted to Christianity when  Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.  It was the law, and they had to be Christians to reside in Palestine. Many inhabitants of Palestine were already closet Christians having converted to Christianity subsequent to the birth of Christ.
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that *the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Which means that the present Israelites are NOT semites.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israelis are clearly not Semites. So many had such little Middle Eastern blood that they could pass for ordinary Germans during the Third Reich, so much so that they were required to wear a yellow star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ordinary German family snapped by their husband and father -- the salt of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But they love to play the "anti-semite" card whenever anyone exposes their fraud.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and the irony is that they are hate-filled toward the indigenous Arab Semites. They will not last once the West Bank is made part of Israel. They are more than half-way there.
Click to expand...


Indeed, but what happens when the ordinary Arab semites begin to shun the non-ordinary Arab semites. Will they try to pass as ordinary Arabs?


----------



## Contumacious

Eloy said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, snowflake, sure...
> The Jews all converted to Catholicism and Islam and then decided to be oppressed and murdered again and converted back to Judaism.
> Do you EVER realize how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you make it clear you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  It is historical fact.  Of course the inhabitants of Palestine converted to Christianity when  Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.  It was the law, and they had to be Christians to reside in Palestine. Many inhabitants of Palestine were already closet Christians having converted to Christianity subsequent to the birth of Christ.
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that *the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Which means that the present Israelites are NOT semites.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israelis are clearly not Semites. So many had such little Middle Eastern blood that they could pass for ordinary Germans during the Third Reich, so much so that they were required to wear a yellow star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ordinary German family snapped by their husband and father -- the salt of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But they love to play the "anti-semite" card whenever anyone exposes their fraud.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and the irony is that they are hate-filled toward the indigenous Arab Semites. They will not last once the West Bank is made part of Israel. They are more than half-way there.
Click to expand...



Correct.

So , if the US forces the "two-state" issue Israel will control both states. 

Similar to what Putin did in Crimea, the 80% ethnic Russians voted to annex Crimea.

.


----------



## Contumacious

Indeependent said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you make it clear you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  It is historical fact.  Of course the inhabitants of Palestine converted to Christianity when  Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.  It was the law, and they had to be Christians to reside in Palestine. Many inhabitants of Palestine were already closet Christians having converted to Christianity subsequent to the birth of Christ.
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that *the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Which means that the present Israelites are NOT semites.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israelis are clearly not Semites. So many had such little Middle Eastern blood that they could pass for ordinary Germans during the Third Reich, so much so that they were required to wear a yellow star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ordinary German family snapped by their husband and father -- the salt of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But they love to play the "anti-semite" card whenever anyone exposes their fraud.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and the irony is that they are hate-filled toward the indigenous Arab Semites. They will not last once the West Bank is made part of Israel. They are more than half-way there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh.
> I believe people have been predicting the demise of the Jews for 2,000 years and the State of Israel for 60 years.
> Neither is going to happen.
Click to expand...



People also predicted that neither North Korea nor Iran would acquire nuclear power.

You also forget that thanks to Reagan , Ben Laden was a multimillionaire.

Thanks to Obama al-Baghdadi is a multimillionaire.

How much does a rustic atomic bomb goes for nowadays?

If they drop one in TelAviv, will they hear the sound in Haifa?


/


----------



## Eloy

Contumacious said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you make it clear you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  It is historical fact.  Of course the inhabitants of Palestine converted to Christianity when  Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire.  It was the law, and they had to be Christians to reside in Palestine. Many inhabitants of Palestine were already closet Christians having converted to Christianity subsequent to the birth of Christ.
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you don't quite understand that *the ancestors of the current Jewish Israelis came from Europe and elsewhere outside of Palestine. But you are right, most of them are descendants of European converts to Judaism.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Which means that the present Israelites are NOT semites.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israelis are clearly not Semites. So many had such little Middle Eastern blood that they could pass for ordinary Germans during the Third Reich, so much so that they were required to wear a yellow star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ordinary German family snapped by their husband and father -- the salt of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But they love to play the "anti-semite" card whenever anyone exposes their fraud.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and the irony is that they are hate-filled toward the indigenous Arab Semites. They will not last once the West Bank is made part of Israel. They are more than half-way there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> So , if the US forces the "two-state" issue Israel will control both states.
> 
> Similar to what Putin did in Crimea, the 80% ethnic Russians voted to annex Crimea.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The Occupied Territories are _de facto_ part of Apartheid Israel. Its days are numbered.


----------



## Contumacious

Eloy said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Which means that the present Israelites are NOT semites.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Israelis are clearly not Semites. So many had such little Middle Eastern blood that they could pass for ordinary Germans during the Third Reich, so much so that they were required to wear a yellow star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ordinary German family snapped by their husband and father -- the salt of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But they love to play the "anti-semite" card whenever anyone exposes their fraud.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and the irony is that they are hate-filled toward the indigenous Arab Semites. They will not last once the West Bank is made part of Israel. They are more than half-way there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> So , if the US forces the "two-state" issue Israel will control both states.
> 
> Similar to what Putin did in Crimea, the 80% ethnic Russians voted to annex Crimea.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Occupied Territories are _de facto_ part of Apartheid Israel. Its days are numbered.
Click to expand...



Yep.

Obama has been trying to annex the Golan Heights to Israel.

Don't let the UN abstention vote fool you.

Bibi and AIPAC own Obama lock, stock, and barrel.

.


----------



## Hollie

Eloy said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Which means that the present Israelites are NOT semites.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Israelis are clearly not Semites. So many had such little Middle Eastern blood that they could pass for ordinary Germans during the Third Reich, so much so that they were required to wear a yellow star.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ordinary German family snapped by their husband and father -- the salt of the earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But they love to play the "anti-semite" card whenever anyone exposes their fraud.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and the irony is that they are hate-filled toward the indigenous Arab Semites. They will not last once the West Bank is made part of Israel. They are more than half-way there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> So , if the US forces the "two-state" issue Israel will control both states.
> 
> Similar to what Putin did in Crimea, the 80% ethnic Russians voted to annex Crimea.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Occupied Territories are _de facto_ part of Apartheid Israel. Its days are numbered.
Click to expand...

Cheap threats from a keyboard gee-hadist


----------



## Hossfly

Shusha said:


> My posts #1582 and 1583 show, in black and white, that not all land in Palestine was privately owned by Arab residents.  You are just wrong.  Shockingly, outer space worthy wrong.



This would be Zionist propaganda to the anti-Semitic parrot even though it was written by a Muslim.  As you can see, the parrot doesn't have a life of its own.  It thinks if it says Zionist propaganda, Polly wants a cracker all day long, the readers will star believing his nonsense.  The majority of readers are too smart for that.

A Muslim in a Jewish Land


----------



## montelatici

Clown dancing and posting fiction does not change the facts. The UN stated clearly who owned the land just prior to partition in the partition plan itself an they even provided a map based on the land survey.  Why would you think that new fictional tales would change the facts?


"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."


----------



## P F Tinmore

The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians, the UN, and other countries in the world.

Nothing legal can be derived from illegal activities.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, _et al,_

You hold onto this chart as if it contained the sole determining factors; instead of --- just one consideration out of many.



montelatici said:


> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."


*(COMMENT)*

You keep entangling real estate ownership with sovereign control; two completely different notions.  The principle objective is putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, and the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.  That was part of the Mandate. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, _et al,_
> 
> You hold onto this chart as if it contained the sole determining factors; instead of --- just one consideration out of many.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You keep entangling real estate ownership with sovereign control; two completely different notions.  The principle objective is putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, and the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.  That was part of the Mandate.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.


----------



## montelatici

No, just repeating what the UN stated unequivocally just prior to the partition, the UN stated that the Muslims and Christians owned 85% of the land. I haven't claimed anything about sovereignty.

The creation of this Jewish home was prima facie in contravention of article 22 of the LON Covenant, which stated that the Mandatory's duties were to provide tutelage and hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants.  The Jews were in Europe, so were not the inhabitants of Palestine. The Muslims and Christians were 95% or more of the population.  The Mandate held that the Jewish home be established  but that added that "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" .  So, the British not only contravened the Covenant article 22, but contravened the mandate itself, by taking actions that clearly prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities. 

Even in the partition plan it was clear that the Jewish National Home ran counter to the principle of self-determination. The British, the U.S. and the UN conspired to commit a major crime against the native inhabitants people of Palestine.

"With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. *Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."
*


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Well, there is a window in this theory.

The original source of the law is Article 2(4): 

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​


P F Tinmore said:


> Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.


*(COMMENT)*

While this is the common layman interpretation, in reality, this is NOT Contemporary Law.  Name a territory in the last century when this worked.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, P F Tinmore, _et al,_

Pro-Palestinians keep harping on these century old decisions and outcomes that they are disappointed with.

What is your Ideal solution that will:

•  Appease the Palestinians,
•  Will insure the sovereign integrity of Israel, self-determination.
•  Will prevent the Arab League from presenting a threat to the Jewish National Home.
•  Will allow Jews unrestricted access to the Holy Sites in Jerusalem


Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Well, there is a window in this theory.
> 
> The original source of the law is Article 2(4):
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While this is the common layman interpretation, in reality, this is NOT Contemporary Law.  Name a territory in the last century when this worked.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Name an occupation in the last century that acquired sovereignty.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Several different scenarios.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Well, there is a window in this theory.
> 
> The original source of the law is Article 2(4):
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While this is the common layman interpretation, in reality, this is NOT Contemporary Law.  Name a territory in the last century when this worked.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name an occupation in the last century that acquired sovereignty.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

•  Don’t forget about Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea and then: Annexation.
•  Chinese Invasion and Occupation then Annexation of Tibet.
•  Cuba
•  Puerto Rico
•  Guam
•  Phillipines

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> No, just repeating what the UN stated unequivocally just prior to the partition, the UN stated that the Muslims and Christians owned 85% of the land. I haven't claimed anything about sovereignty.
> 
> The creation of this Jewish home was prima facie in contravention of article 22 of the LON Covenant, which stated that the Mandatory's duties were to provide tutelage and hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants.  The Jews were in Europe, so were not the inhabitants of Palestine. The Muslims and Christians were 95% or more of the population.  The Mandate held that the Jewish home be established  but that added that "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" .  So, the British not only contravened the Covenant article 22, but contravened the mandate itself, by taking actions that clearly prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.
> 
> Even in the partition plan it was clear that the Jewish National Home ran counter to the principle of self-determination. The British, the U.S. and the UN conspired to commit a major crime against the native inhabitants people of Palestine.
> 
> "With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. *Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."*


Of course, we know from the Ottoman lab for records that your invented Pal'istanians in your invented "country of Pal'istan" did not own 85% of the land.

While you are hostile to and ignorant of facts, read and learn.

Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority

Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land. Some of this land was later sold or transferred to pre-state Jewish institutions. Other portions belonged to the Muslim waqf (religious trust), and these, according to Islamic law, cannot be sold. However, there was no orderly registration process; ownership was determined primarily using records such as tax payments.

Even before 1917, Jewish and Zionist institutions had purchased large tracts of land in Palestine from absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon. These landlords had previously leased their property to local farmers, but were happy to sell it for the right price, without giving a thought to their tenant farmers. Nevertheless, Palestinians view these sales as more legitimate than those that took place during the British occupation that began in 1917.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


So the Zionists roll their military across Palestine attacking civilians and running them off their land.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> So the Zionists roll their military across Palestine attacking civilians and running them off their land.
Click to expand...

Not one of your more entertaining conspiracy theories.


----------



## Contumacious

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just repeating what the UN stated unequivocally just prior to the partition, the UN stated that the Muslims and Christians owned 85% of the land. I haven't claimed anything about sovereignty.
> 
> The creation of this Jewish home was prima facie in contravention of article 22 of the LON Covenant, which stated that the Mandatory's duties were to provide tutelage and hold the territory in trust for the inhabitants.  The Jews were in Europe, so were not the inhabitants of Palestine. The Muslims and Christians were 95% or more of the population.  The Mandate held that the Jewish home be established  but that added that "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" .  So, the British not only contravened the Covenant article 22, but contravened the mandate itself, by taking actions that clearly prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.
> 
> Even in the partition plan it was clear that the Jewish National Home ran counter to the principle of self-determination. The British, the U.S. and the UN conspired to commit a major crime against the native inhabitants people of Palestine.
> 
> "With regard to the principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First World War and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. *Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."*
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, we know from the Ottoman lab for records that your invented Pal'istanians in your invented "country of Pal'istan" did not own 85% of the land.
> 
> While you are hostile to and ignorant of facts, read and learn.
> 
> Turkey transfers Ottoman land records to Palestinian Authority
> 
> Under Ottoman rule, a substantial portion of the land in Palestine was registered as state land. Some of this land was later sold or transferred to pre-state Jewish institutions. Other portions belonged to the Muslim waqf (religious trust), and these, according to Islamic law, cannot be sold. However, there was no orderly registration process; ownership was determined primarily using records such as tax payments.
> 
> Even before 1917, Jewish and Zionist institutions had purchased large tracts of land in Palestine from absentee landlords, who lived mainly in Syria and Lebanon. These landlords had previously leased their property to local farmers, but were happy to sell it for the right price, without giving a thought to their tenant farmers. Nevertheless, Palestinians view these sales as more legitimate than those that took place during the British occupation that began in 1917.
Click to expand...



LINK TO NON-ZIONIST WEBSITES

.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK let's agree for the moment that these two concepts have this undefinable quality to them.  How do you know it was not delivered?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • In 1919, what was the "well-being" of such people?
> 
> • In 1919, what was the "development" of such people?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, colonialism surely wasn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, don't worry...   It was not the place of the Arab Palestine to even make such a determination; was it ?
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go back to the standard colonialist canard that the natives have no rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok  then why dont you show what rights they had in 1919 when all this took place.
> 
> They had the right to take part in talks and that was it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1907 Hague convention.
Click to expand...









 That was not a right it was a meeting, try again


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no such beast as the arab states vetoed the law when they saw they would be giving up Mecca and Medina to the Jews. And still you claim it is law when you have been shown it isnt, proving that you dont accept the Jews have any rights and that international laws never work in their favour.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...








 Do the research and see for yourself, if we post links you just ignore them


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no such beast as the arab states vetoed the law when they saw they would be giving up Mecca and Medina to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...






Right of return - Wikipedia



The *right of return* is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.

*The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (read together with its 1967 Protocol) does not give refugees a right to return,* but rather prohibits return (refoulment) to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom.[1] The Convention binds the many countries which have ratified it.[2]

*By contrast, the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.[3]*


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is an dilemma here, you just might not recognize it.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS & REFERENCES)*
> 
> •    Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) 2006 --- UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)
> 
> •   1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Text of the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Resolution 2198 (XXI) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a refugee Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As "ubiquitous” as CERI is, it is not law; instruction for the eligibility and criteria for services.
> Article 1A of the 1951 Convention sets out the detailed criteria for assessing whether an individual should be granted refugee status.  This is true for all refugees, world-wide, except for Palestinians receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance (the UNRWA).
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Palestinians not refugees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is what is called and "engineered dilemma" in which a "refugee" is defined by the UNHRC, but the UNHCR does not apply to Palestinians because they receive services from the UNRWA.  However, it should be noticed that if the UNRWA were to disband, the UNHRC picks-up the responsibility.  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> 
> 
> Jalal Al Husseini and Riccardo Bocco The Status of the Palestinian Refugees in the Near East pgs 265-266 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _By 1991, the Arab League had seemingly abandoned its efforts to guarantee minimal legal protection to the Palestinian refugees in the Arab States. Its resolution 5093 (1991) conditioned the treatment of the Palestinians to the rules and laws in force in each state. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although there is a strong perception that everyone registered with the UNRWA is a "refugee" --- the term "refugee" is really not applicable to the Palestinians.  They were marginalized by the UNRWA which has the _de facto_ guardians of the "Right of Return."  _(Which is a whole other topic.)_
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are again, incorrect. If the Palestinians were to be transferred from the auspices of UNRWA to UNHCR, nothing would change.   Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the UNHCR's Procedural Standards for Refugee Status Determination, 5.1.2 states "the categories of persons who should be considered to be eligible for derivative status under the right to family unity include:" "all unmarried children of the Principal Applicant who are under 18 years."
> 
> Furthermore Chapter 5.1.1 makes it clear that this status is retained after the age of 18. It states "individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, *or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority."*
> 
> In addition, UNHCR cites the Palestinian refugee population number in their "State of the World‘s Refugees"  This makes clear that the practice of registering descendants of refugees is not disputed by UNHCR.
> 
> So, back to the drawing board Rocco, you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An interesting talk by a professor of international law and active lawyer of refugee and immigrant issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that no surrounding Arab country, who know the Palestinians best, will grant them any right of return?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are not from those countries.
Click to expand...







 Not what their elected leaders say is it


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, _et al,_
> 
> You hold onto this chart as if it contained the sole determining factors; instead of --- just one consideration out of many.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> "164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land."
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You keep entangling real estate ownership with sovereign control; two completely different notions.  The principle objective is putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, and the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.  That was part of the Mandate.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.
Click to expand...








 They do if it was granted by international law before they took back what is their's


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> Well, there is a window in this theory.
> 
> The original source of the law is Article 2(4):
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupying powers do not acquire sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While this is the common layman interpretation, in reality, this is NOT Contemporary Law.  Name a territory in the last century when this worked.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name an occupation in the last century that acquired sovereignty.
Click to expand...








Former Yugoslavia,   Pakistan,    Somalia     and many more islamic states that have been created in the last century or so


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> So the Zionists roll their military across Palestine attacking civilians and running them off their land.
Click to expand...








 An old worn out tractor and a single barrelled shotgun


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> • Don’t forget about Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea and then: Annexation.
> • Chinese Invasion and Occupation then Annexation of Tibet.
> • Cuba
> • Puerto Rico
> • Guam
> • Phillipines



You are joking, right? 

Crimea is quite complex as you have arguments for Russia re-acquiring sovereignty over a former territory along with the self-determination of the Crimeans themselves; most of the world doesn't recognise Russia's annexation, Crimea is considered occupied territory. Similarly China's annexation of Tibet is contested by the Tibetan government in exile and many consider Tibet illegally occupied. In both cases sovereignty is disputed. Cuba? See Teller Ammendment. Puerto Rico, Guam and the Phillipines were formal transfers of sovereignty by cession, so are irrelevant.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is no such beast as the arab states vetoed the law when they saw they would be giving up Mecca and Medina to the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right of return - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> The *right of return* is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.
> 
> *The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (read together with its 1967 Protocol) does not give refugees a right to return,* but rather prohibits return (refoulment) to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom.[1] The Convention binds the many countries which have ratified it.[2]
> 
> *By contrast, the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.[3]*
Click to expand...


No Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  They are quite content on keeping them in Israel for Israel to deal with,


----------



## montelatici

A Palestinian, Muslim or Jewish can only return to Palestine.  Other countries are not Palestine.  A large part of Palestine was invaded by the European Zionists so they are prevented from returning by said Europeans.


----------



## RoccoR

Challenger,  et al,

Well, I'm not sure what kind of example you are looking for.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • Don’t forget about Russia’s invasion and occupation of Crimea and then: Annexation.
> • Chinese Invasion and Occupation then Annexation of Tibet.
> • Cuba
> • Puerto Rico
> • Guam
> • Phillipines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are joking, right?
> 
> Crimea is quite complex as you have arguments for Russia re-acquiring sovereignty over a former territory along with the self-determination of the Crimeans themselves; most of the world doesn't recognise Russia's annexation, Crimea is considered occupied territory. Similarly China's annexation of Tibet is contested by the Tibetan government in exile and many consider Tibet illegally occupied. In both cases sovereignty is disputed. Cuba? See Teller Ammendment. Puerto Rico, Guam and the Phillipines were formal transfers of sovereignty by cession, so are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Hawaii, for example, were originally a series of settlements, annexed in 1900.  I think the monarchy was overthrown twice.  The President interceded and reinstalled the Queen and Hawaii Sovereignty.  The Queen was once arrested for treason and in order to gain her freedom Queen Lili'uokalani had to abdicate the throne to the Americans.

Hawaii was taken from the Hawaiians and the Monarchy.   The US won and signed the protocol that provided for Cuban independence and the cession of Puerto Rico and the Marianis Island Group; to include Guam.  As one of the outcomes of the Spanish-American War.  The Factbook says:  "the native Chamorro name for the island "Guahan" (meaning "we have" or "ours") was changed to Guam in the 1898 Treaty of Paris whereby Spain relinquished Guam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines to the US.  Guam and Puerto Rico are still organized, unincorporated territory of the US with policy relations between Guam and the US under the jurisdiction of the Office of Insular Affairs, US Department of the Interior." 

*(COMMENT)*
.
There is one point that really need stressed, I think.  The concepts of the International Community taking the stance that a territorial change "Is NOT Recognized" is absolute nonsense.  It is political showmanship, but not representative of reality.

Whether or not the International Community recognizes, or not, the changes of the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Jerusalem or the Gaza Strip, the changes are in place and and being enforced. 

Golan Heights (9/2014):  The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) shot down a Syrian Sukhoi SU-30 fighter after it crossed into the Air Defense Zone and flew over the Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.  The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) effectively observes the new territorial status.

The West Bank was occupied then annexed by Jordan (4/1950); as a result of it invasion in 1948.  In 1967, Israel established effective control over all of the West Bank after Jordan's failure to provide for an adequate defense.  In June 1988 Jordan cuts all ties with the West Bank, abandoning the territory  _(Terra Nullis)_ to the hands of the Israelis.

Jerusalem is what is.  The reality is:


​
After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was an unincorporated dependent territory of Egypt; under the guise of the Center of Palestinian Control by the All Palestine Government (APG).  In 1959 the Egyptian Government dissolved the APG and the Gaza Strip became an open Military Governorship the same - unincorporated dependent territory of Egypt.  In 1967, Israel established effective control over the Gaza Strip, filling-in Government as the Egyptian forces were being pursued.​No matter what the political lip-service says --- placed on the concept of recognition, the fact that the International Community recognizes the changes in Laws in crossing from one jurisdiction to another, makes it sound rather child like.

*(JOKING)*

No, for sure not joking.  The Crimea will never be released by the Russians, China will never release Tibet, and US will never give Hawaii back the the Hawaiian Monarchy, and it is highly unlikely that Puerto Rico will ever revert back to Spain.

So it is:  -----

The more the International Community play these ridiculous games with the Arab Palestinians, the more that we give them false hope in accomplishing there goals.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...


The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

As usual, it is ever characteristic for the ArabPalestinians to be the victim of some egregious allegation. _ (There were 8 million victims in the naked Palestine.  This is one of their stories.)_



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.  The Armistice Line were a negotiated outcome based on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA).  The principle parties to the conflict were Israel and the Arab League nations with adjacent boundaries.  The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.

The armistice agreements were intended to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties.  The Armistice Commission intended the agreements to serve only for an interim period.  The Agreements would be dissolved IF and WHEN the peace treaties were established. 

Most respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.


It is true that the Armistice Agreements did not mention occupation but none of the forces were withdrawn. They stayed and occupied their respective territories.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.


Indeed, they botched that too. The UN was just one flop after another.


----------



## Contumacious

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> As usual, it is ever characteristic for the ArabPalestinians to be the victim of some egregious allegation. _ (There were 8 million victims in the naked Palestine.  This is one of their stories.)_
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.  The Armistice Line were a negotiated outcome based on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA).  The principle parties to the conflict were Israel and the Arab League nations with adjacent boundaries.  The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.
> 
> The armistice agreements were intended to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties.  The Armistice Commission intended the agreements to serve only for an interim period.  The Agreements would be dissolved IF and WHEN the peace treaties were established.
> 
> Most respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



Israel has no right to exist in Palestine.

None.

Over and out.

.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> A Palestinian, Muslim or Jewish can only return to Palestine.  Other countries are not Palestine.  A large part of Palestine was invaded by the European Zionists so they are prevented from returning by said Europeans.










 Like the Catholics cant return to their origins because their originating nation does not want them


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they botched that too. The UN was just one flop after another.
Click to expand...







Yet still you want them to exceed their authority and impose unfair borders on Israel


----------



## Phoenall

Contumacious said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> As usual, it is ever characteristic for the ArabPalestinians to be the victim of some egregious allegation. _ (There were 8 million victims in the naked Palestine.  This is one of their stories.)_
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.  The Armistice Line were a negotiated outcome based on the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA).  The principle parties to the conflict were Israel and the Arab League nations with adjacent boundaries.  The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.
> 
> The armistice agreements were intended to serve only as interim agreements until replaced by permanent peace treaties.  The Armistice Commission intended the agreements to serve only for an interim period.  The Agreements would be dissolved IF and WHEN the peace treaties were established.
> 
> Most respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Israel has no right to exist in Palestine.
> 
> None.
> 
> Over and out.
> 
> .
Click to expand...








 International law of 1922 says you are clueless


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.
Click to expand...








 How when they dont have the power to do this ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the Armistice Agreements did not mention occupation but none of the forces were withdrawn. They stayed and occupied their respective territories.
Click to expand...





But on their side of the armistice line. And how do you occupy what is yours by law ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they botched that too. The UN was just one flop after another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet still you want them to exceed their authority and impose unfair borders on Israel
Click to expand...

I have never said that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How when they dont have the power to do this ?
Click to expand...

That has been my question too.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the Armistice Agreements did not mention occupation but none of the forces were withdrawn. They stayed and occupied their respective territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But on their side of the armistice line. And how do you occupy what is yours by law ?
Click to expand...

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. The lines cut through Palestine without defining any countries.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they botched that too. The UN was just one flop after another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet still you want them to exceed their authority and impose unfair borders on Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never said that.
Click to expand...






 LIAR you accepted the latest UN resolution that says just this, but it means that the arab muslims will also have to be told what their lands are


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How when they dont have the power to do this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has been my question too.
Click to expand...







 Proving that you are a consummate LIAR every time you say this same thing. There were not 3 areas of occupation as the arab muslims only ever occupied 1, ISRAEL


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the Armistice Agreements did not mention occupation but none of the forces were withdrawn. They stayed and occupied their respective territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But on their side of the armistice line. And how do you occupy what is yours by law ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries. The lines cut through Palestine without defining any countries.
Click to expand...






 Until the treaties were made that turned them into actual mutually acceptable international borders between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they botched that too. The UN was just one flop after another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet still you want them to exceed their authority and impose unfair borders on Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR you accepted the latest UN resolution that says just this, but it means that the arab muslims will also have to be told what their lands are
Click to expand...

Which one was that and what did I say about it?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How when they dont have the power to do this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has been my question too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that you are a consummate LIAR every time you say this same thing. There were not 3 areas of occupation as the arab muslims only ever occupied 1, ISRAEL
Click to expand...

Look in the Armistice Agreements and point out where I am wrong.


----------



## MJB12741

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the Armistice Agreements did not mention occupation but none of the forces were withdrawn. They stayed and occupied their respective territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But on their side of the armistice line. And how do you occupy what is yours by law ?
Click to expand...


The Palestinian squatters are occupying Israel's land.


P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How when they dont have the power to do this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has been my question too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that you are a consummate LIAR every time you say this same thing. There were not 3 areas of occupation as the arab muslims only ever occupied 1, ISRAEL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look in the Armistice Agreements and point out where I am wrong.
Click to expand...


The Palestinian squatters are occupying Israel's land.  Time for Israel to stop placating their endless demands & start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The UN was not a party to the conflict, and therefore had no real objective other than security the peace.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they botched that too. The UN was just one flop after another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet still you want them to exceed their authority and impose unfair borders on Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR you accepted the latest UN resolution that says just this, but it means that the arab muslims will also have to be told what their lands are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which one was that and what did I say about it?
Click to expand...






The one that has its own thread on here from December 23rd


----------



## montelatici

The Jews came from Europe and elsewhere to steal the land from the native people of Palestine and are now squatting.  Do you really believe the Zionists were living in the Middle East?  Are you that stupid, oh wait.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> The Jews came from Europe and elsewhere to steal the land from the native people of Palestine and are now squatting.  Do you really believe the Zionists were living in the Middle East?  Are you that stupid, oh wait.



How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed the Jews were the native people of Palestine.  Very cleaver those Zionists stealing their  own land, eh Monte?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the 1949 Armistice, the Gaza Strip was, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice Agreements cut Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How when they dont have the power to do this ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has been my question too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that you are a consummate LIAR every time you say this same thing. There were not 3 areas of occupation as the arab muslims only ever occupied 1, ISRAEL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look in the Armistice Agreements and point out where I am wrong.
Click to expand...







I just did as the arab muslims occupy Israeli lands illegally. As much as you would like the land to be palestine it never has been and never will be


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> Hawaii, for example, were originally a series of settlements, annexed in 1900. I think the monarchy was overthrown twice. The President interceded and reinstalled the Queen and Hawaii Sovereignty. The Queen was once arrested for treason and in order to gain her freedom Queen Lili'uokalani had to abdicate the throne to the Americans.
> 
> Hawaii was taken from the Hawaiians and the Monarchy.



Hawaii was an independant internationally recognised state that was "colonised" by American settlers, much like the Zionist colonial enterprise in Palestine. When the settlers grew strong enough in mumbers they tried to sieze the islands overthrowing the legitimate native government. Had a "League of Nations" or a "UN" organisation existed in those days, the settler and subsequent American actions would have been condemned as illegal. It's interesting to note that Britain, France and Japan almost went to war against America to prevent this cynical American land grab.



RoccoR said:


> The US won and signed the protocol that provided for Cuban independence and the cession of Puerto Rico and the Marianis Island Group; to include Guam. As one of the outcomes of the Spanish-American War.



Exactly, sovereignty was transferred by treaty, which is nothing to do with the point you were trying to make, as far as I can tell.



RoccoR said:


> Whether or not the International Community recognizes, or not, the changes of the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Jerusalem or the Gaza Strip, the changes are in place and and being enforced.



Illegally. Syria disputes sovereignty and the UN agrees with Syria.



RoccoR said:


> In June 1988 Jordan cuts all ties with the West Bank, abandoning the territory _(Terra Nullis)_ to the hands of the Israelis.



Rubbish. The west bank was handed over to the PLO as sole legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people so that they could pursue their right of self determination. At no point was the West Bank ever considered Terra Nullius (it's spelt "Nullius" not "Nullis", BTW) by anyone except the Zionist regime. 



RoccoR said:


> In 1967, Israel established effective control over the Gaza Strip, filling-in Government as the Egyptian forces were being pursued.



It's called invasion or belligerent occupation.



RoccoR said:


> No, for sure not joking. The Crimea will never be released by the Russians, China will never release Tibet, and US will never give Hawaii back the the Hawaiian Monarchy, and it is highly unlikely that Puerto Rico will ever revert back to Spain.



Anyone ever tell you it's stupid to say "never" when talking about sovereignty?


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Jews came from Europe and elsewhere to steal the land from the native people of Palestine and are now squatting.  Do you really believe the Zionists were living in the Middle East?  Are you that stupid, oh wait.






And the native people just so happen to be the Jews, it cant be the arabs as they come from arabia to the south


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> And here I actually believed the Jews were the native people of Palestine.



Judeans were native to the region, certainly, whatever religion they followed, be it Paganism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam.  The Zionist colonists were descendants of European religious converts with no real link to Palestine who pursued their twisted and perverted idiology to disposess or exterminate the native inhabitants and steal their lands.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here I actually believed the Jews were the native people of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judeans were native to the region, certainly, whatever religion they followed, be it Paganism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam.  The Zionist colonists were descendants of European religious converts with no real link to Palestine who pursued their twisted and perverted idiology to disposess or exterminate the native inhabitants and steal their lands.
Click to expand...


The Zionists exterminated the Jews???  I didn't know that.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews came from Europe and elsewhere to steal the land from the native people of Palestine and are now squatting.  Do you really believe the Zionists were living in the Middle East?  Are you that stupid, oh wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed the Jews were the native people of Palestine.  Very cleaver those Zionists stealing their  own land, eh Monte?
Click to expand...



The Hebrews came from elsewhere and conquered Canaan according to the old testament, so they technically cannot be indigenous.  The descendants of the Jews and those of other faiths in Palestine began converting to Christianity after the cruxifiction of Jesus Christ and ultimately all non-Christians in Palestine converted to Christianity when Christianity became the state religion of Rome around 300 AD.  As we know, most converted to Islam after the Arab conquest of Christian Palestine.

The Zionists were European, they are indigenous to Europe, not the Middle East.


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here I actually believed the Jews were the native people of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judeans were native to the region, certainly, whatever religion they followed, be it Paganism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam.  The Zionist colonists were descendants of European religious converts with no real link to Palestine who pursued their twisted and perverted idiology to disposess or exterminate the native inhabitants and steal their lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists exterminated the Jews???  I didn't know that.
Click to expand...


You don't know very much at all, that's obvious from your posts.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews came from Europe and elsewhere to steal the land from the native people of Palestine and are now squatting.  Do you really believe the Zionists were living in the Middle East?  Are you that stupid, oh wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed the Jews were the native people of Palestine.  Very cleaver those Zionists stealing their  own land, eh Monte?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Hebrews came from elsewhere and conquered Canaan according to the old testament, so they technically cannot be indigenous.  The descendants of the Jews and those of other faiths in Palestine began converting to Christianity after the cruxifiction of Jesus Christ and ultimately all non-Christians in Palestine converted to Christianity when Christianity became the state religion of Rome around 300 AD.  As we know, most converted to Islam after the Arab conquest of Christian Palestine.
> 
> The Zionists were European, they are indigenous to Europe, not the Middle East.
Click to expand...


Arguing who is & who is not indigenous to the  land has gotten nobody anywhere. Here we are now with Israeli's & Palestinians living on the same land in endless conflict.  So how do we solve it when the Palestinians refuse to even recognize Israel's existence & the Israeli's keep agitating the Palestinians with Zionist peace offerings, security fence & land concessions?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The Jews came from Europe and elsewhere to steal the land from the native people of Palestine and are now squatting.  Do you really believe the Zionists were living in the Middle East?  Are you that stupid, oh wait.


The Jews came to the geographic area under the control of the Mandatory to re-establish their National Home. You continue your silly fraud of claiming some "native people" had something stolen. 
As we know, the Ottoman's relinquished all rights and title to the geographic area you ignorantly believe to be some mythical "country of Pal'istan". We also know from the official Ottoman land records that large swaths of the territory were held as an islamist waqf and that absentee landowners in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon also held large tracts of land sold to Jewish buyers.

Your ignorant propaganda and invented versions of history (your _hysterical_ versions of history) are easily refuted.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here I actually believed the Jews were the native people of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judeans were native to the region, certainly, whatever religion they followed, be it Paganism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam.  The Zionist colonists were descendants of European religious converts with no real link to Palestine who pursued their twisted and perverted idiology to disposess or exterminate the native inhabitants and steal their lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists exterminated the Jews???  I didn't know that.
Click to expand...


The native inhabitants had long since stopped practicing Judaism, so they were no longer Jews.  Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity you idiot.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here I actually believed the Jews were the native people of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judeans were native to the region, certainly, whatever religion they followed, be it Paganism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam.  The Zionist colonists were descendants of European religious converts with no real link to Palestine who pursued their twisted and perverted idiology to disposess or exterminate the native inhabitants and steal their lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists exterminated the Jews???  I didn't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The native inhabitants had long since stopped practicing Judaism, so they were no longer Jews.  Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity you idiot.
Click to expand...


So now I said Judaism is an ethnicity???  Where do you come up with this stuff boy?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews came from Europe and elsewhere to steal the land from the native people of Palestine and are now squatting.  Do you really believe the Zionists were living in the Middle East?  Are you that stupid, oh wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do ya like that?  And here I actually believed the Jews were the native people of Palestine.  Very cleaver those Zionists stealing their  own land, eh Monte?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Hebrews came from elsewhere and conquered Canaan according to the old testament, so they technically cannot be indigenous.  The descendants of the Jews and those of other faiths in Palestine began converting to Christianity after the cruxifiction of Jesus Christ and ultimately all non-Christians in Palestine converted to Christianity when Christianity became the state religion of Rome around 300 AD.  As we know, most converted to Islam after the Arab conquest of Christian Palestine.
> 
> The Zionists were European, they are indigenous to Europe, not the Middle East.
Click to expand...


Considering that the Mongols, xtian Crusaders, Arab invaders and others invaded and colonized the geographic area of your invented, mythical "country of Pal'istan', it's obvious your invented Pal'istanians came from elsewhere.

The Jewish people were successful in achieving self-determination and a successful, first world society / economy.

The slovenly Moslems succeeded only in retrogression and failure such as those attributes define the majority of the Middle East under the bootheel of Islamism.


----------



## MJB12741

I mostly blame the Zionists in Israel for this endless conflict.  Why can't they just treat the Palestinians with the same love, justice & respect their own Arab brothers treat the Palestinians with in the surrounding Arab countries.  Has anyone heard any Palestinian or Palestinian supporter complaints about that?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> I mostly blame the Zionists in Israel for this endless conflict.  Why can't they just treat the Palestinians with the same love, justice & respect their own Arab brothers treat the Palestinians with in the surrounding Arab countries.  Has anyone heard any Palestinian or Palestinian supporter complaints about that?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY.



"I mostly blame the Zionists in Israel for this endless conflict."

Very good, you are absolutely right.  If the European Zionists had not invaded Palestine, we would not be having this discussion.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here I actually believed the Jews were the native people of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judeans were native to the region, certainly, whatever religion they followed, be it Paganism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam.  The Zionist colonists were descendants of European religious converts with no real link to Palestine who pursued their twisted and perverted idiology to disposess or exterminate the native inhabitants and steal their lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists exterminated the Jews???  I didn't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The native inhabitants had long since stopped practicing Judaism, so they were no longer Jews.  Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now I said Judaism is an ethnicity???  Where do you come up with this stuff boy?
Click to expand...


Then how can ethnic Europeans whose ancestors converted to Judaism have any right, as you claim, to expel the native and indigenous inhabitants of Palestine? The native and indigenous Inhabitants whose ancestors converted, for convenience, by force and/or by law,  to Christianity (and subsequently Islam).


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here I actually believed the Jews were the native people of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judeans were native to the region, certainly, whatever religion they followed, be it Paganism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam.  The Zionist colonists were descendants of European religious converts with no real link to Palestine who pursued their twisted and perverted idiology to disposess or exterminate the native inhabitants and steal their lands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists exterminated the Jews???  I didn't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The native inhabitants had long since stopped practicing Judaism, so they were no longer Jews.  Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now I said Judaism is an ethnicity???  Where do you come up with this stuff boy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how can ethnic Europeans whose ancestors converted to Judaism have any right, as you claim, to expel the native and indigenous inhabitants of Palestine? The native and indigenous Inhabitants whose ancestors converted, for convenience, by force and/or by law,  to Christianity (and subsequently Islam).
Click to expand...

That's so silly. Your version of the _hysterical_, not historical record has it that invasions by the Mongols, foreign Arabs, invasions by Romans and the Crusaders are somehow _native and indigenous inhabitants_ ™ ?

Such a silly boy.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Judeans were native to the region, certainly, whatever religion they followed, be it Paganism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam.  The Zionist colonists were descendants of European religious converts with no real link to Palestine who pursued their twisted and perverted idiology to disposess or exterminate the native inhabitants and steal their lands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionists exterminated the Jews???  I didn't know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The native inhabitants had long since stopped practicing Judaism, so they were no longer Jews.  Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now I said Judaism is an ethnicity???  Where do you come up with this stuff boy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how can ethnic Europeans whose ancestors converted to Judaism have any right, as you claim, to expel the native and indigenous inhabitants of Palestine? The native and indigenous Inhabitants whose ancestors converted, for convenience, by force and/or by law,  to Christianity (and subsequently Islam).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's so silly. Your version of the _hysterical_, not historical record has it that invasions by the Mongols, foreign Arabs, invasions by Romans and the Crusaders are somehow _native and indigenous inhabitants_ ™ ?
> 
> Such a silly boy.
Click to expand...


He is truly a whacko!  The indigenous Jews & Christians converted to Islam, thus the Muslim Palestinians are natives of the land.  Heh Heh!


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, Contumacious, Challenger,  et al,

There are some good points to be had in this exchange.  Let's see if I can address them.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice DID NOT CUT Palestine into any occupations.
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the Armistice Agreements did not mention occupation but none of the forces were withdrawn. They stayed and occupied their respective territories.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Each Armistice agreement, made between the military representatives, stopped the forward advance of each opposing forces relative to the other.  Withdrawal of forces to the Armistice Demarcation Line and the reduction of forces (if any) to defensive strength in accordance with the individual agreements.

An Armistice _(Princeton Unv WolrdNet --- cease-fire, truce --- a state of peace agreed to between opponents so they can discuss peace terms)_ is suppose to be a temporary measure.  In 1949, establishing the cease fire, both Egypt and Jordan attempted to capitalize on the extension of sovereignty in different ways.  But clearly, those designs by distinguished members of the Arab League were neutralized by the 1967 Six Day War.  

Lord Caradon, who was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations from 1964-1970, and was the chief drafter of Resolution 242, said:

"It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."​
Eugene Rostow was a former dean of Yale Law School who served as U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, and helped draft Resolution 242. He said:

“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.”​
_*Derivative SOURCE:*_ *DiscoverTheNetworks.ORG*​


P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, they botched that too. The UN was just one flop after another.


*(COMMENT)*

That is your opinion and your entitled to make any assessment you might find descriptive.  Just as it is my opinion that no participants in the historical events of that time was as successful as they would have liked to have been.



Contumacious said:


> Israel has no right to exist in Palestine.
> None.
> Over and out.


*(COMMENT)*

And I guess that was the issue that the 1948/49 Israeli War of Independence was suppose to address.  And out of the participants to that conflict, Israel has made peace with both Egypt, which had control of the Gaza Strip until 1967, and Jordan, which had control of the West Bank and Jerusalem until 1967.

*Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States*

*ARTICLE 3*
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

*ARTICLE 4*
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

*ARTICLE 5*
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.

*ARTICLE 6*
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.​
I do not care if you do not recognize the Right of Israel to exist.  Recognition by you and your likeminded is irrelevant.  The Reality is that in the "Tangle Universe" there is a place called Israel and it does exist.  

*Article 1 ---  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​Article 1(2) --- UN Charter

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;​
Now, if you are saying that only the Arab Palestinians have that right, then you need to say so.  The Israelis declared and defended their self-determination to establish the Jewish State of Israel as their National Home.



Challenger said:


> 1.  Exactly, sovereignty was transferred by treaty, which is nothing to do with the point you were trying to make, as far as I can tell.
> 
> 2.  Illegally. Syria disputes sovereignty and the UN agrees with Syria.
> 
> 3.  Rubbish. The west bank was handed over to the PLO as sole legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people so that they could pursue their right of self determination. At no point was the West Bank ever considered Terra Nullius (it's spelt "Nullius" not "Nullis", BTW) by anyone except the Zionist regime.
> 
> 4.  It's called invasion or belligerent occupation.
> 
> 5.  Anyone ever tell you it's stupid to say "never" when talking about sovereignty?


*(COMMENT)*

Answer 1.  The point I'm trying to make is that under treaty, the Title and Rights of the territory were passed from the Sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic to the Allied Powers.  The Allied Powers recognized the Israeli self-determination to establish the Jewish National Home.  

Answer 2.  The UN and Syria are welcome to exercise the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations, once the State of Syria engages in Peace talks under Armistice from the 1948 Act of Aggression.  In those talks, the necessary restitution and reparation discussed --- agreed upon pertaining to the Syrian use of force on territorial frontiers of Israel.

Answer 3.  It is TRUE that the Arab League Summit of Rabat, Morocco (October 1974) presented the PLO as ″the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people; with conditions:

•  It did not relinquish any territory, as the Arab League had no rights or title to territory.  It said:  "Palestinian territory that is liberated."

•   The territorial venue was based on a future established.​In 30 July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all ties to the West Bank.  Israel had already established "effective control: over the West Band and parts of Jerusalem.  The PLO have not yet declared independence.  When a "prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty," that is the very definition of _Terra Nullius_.
 Yes, you are absolutely correct about my spelling.  My typing is very much atrocious.  Please except my apology for this mistake and the many, many more future mistakes I will make in the future.  I will even make grammatical errors quite frequently.  I am not perfect by any means (and will *"never"* be perfect).

Answer 4.  Well (you will have to excuse me), most Arab Palestinians constituents of the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip are considered member of the community which provides material assistance to Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters operating in opposition to the Article 43 Hague Regulation on matters of to restoring, and ensuring public order and safety.  Thus, when we speak of "effective control" --- we are speaking of the Article 42 Requirements that describes Territory  considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the  Government.
"The occupation extends only to the territory where Israeli authority has been established and can be exercised."  This is an important distinction.  In the West Bank, Areas "A" and "B" are areas in which the Israelis do not have effective authority or control; thus, not under Occupation in the strict compliance sense.

An invasion is an an entirely different action altogether.  "In fact, belligerent occupation is regarded as a species of international armed conflict and treated as such by the relevant instruments of IHL, particularly the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949."  Thus, the use of the term "belligerent" implies:

•  International armed conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States,
•  For example, there may be an IAC, even though one of the belligerents does not recognize the government of the adverse party. ​
Answer 5.  Yes, "never" and "always" are (generally) terms of statements that add emphasis as to the probability of whatever occurrence it describes.  They are not statements of proof.  Just as the statement "Why are there exceptions to every rule;" because the question itself is non-sensical.  The same is true of the term "infinite."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

Challenger,  et al,

Surely you jest.



Challenger said:


> You don't know very much at all, that's obvious from your posts.


*(COMMENT)*

"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
_Isaac Asimov_
Read more at: Isaac Asimov Quotes

"Five things that annoy me; Rude people, cocky people, stuck up people, smelly people, & people who think they know everything."
_ Unknown quotes _

Read more: People Who Think They Know Everything Quotes

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Bleipriester

RoccoR said:


> "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
> _Isaac Asimov_


Give it a thought.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."


I agree 100%. Israel should withdraw to its defined international borders of 1948. Anything more would be an aggrandizement of territory by war.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Terra Nullius


*concept of unowned land: *in Australia, the idea and legal concept that when the first Europeans arrived in Australia the land was owned by no one and therefore open to settlement. It has been judged not to be legally valid.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *ARTICLE 3*
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,


Indeed, and the Palestinians legally declared independence in 1948 and have every right to defend themselves.


RoccoR said:


> *ARTICLE 4*
> States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. *The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise,* but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.


----------



## Phoenall

Which are detailed in what treaty, remembering that the UN is incapable of delineating any nations borders. But the agreed borders include gaza Jerusalem west bank and the golan heights


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3*
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and the Palestinians legally declared independence in 1948 and have every right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 4*
> States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. *The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise,* but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...







Wrong as they tried to steal the land after Israel had already declared independence on it. This made their claim null and void. That is why they now have less than they began with


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3*
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and the Palestinians legally declared independence in 1948 and have every right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 4*
> States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. *The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise,* but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as they tried to steal the land after Israel had already declared independence on it. This made their claim null and void. That is why they now have less than they began with
Click to expand...

I hear the talking point but nothing to prove it to be true.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3*
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and the Palestinians legally declared independence in 1948 and have every right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 4*
> States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. *The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise,* but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as they tried to steal the land after Israel had already declared independence on it. This made their claim null and void. That is why they now have less than they began with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear the talking point but nothing to prove it to be true.
Click to expand...


If Palestinians squat on land for several generations with no titles or deeds to it whatsoever, is the land theirs?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3*
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and the Palestinians legally declared independence in 1948 and have every right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 4*
> States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. *The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise,* but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong as they tried to steal the land after Israel had already declared independence on it. This made their claim null and void. That is why they now have less than they began with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear the talking point but nothing to prove it to be true.
Click to expand...








 Of course you dont as it destroys your POV. The arab league invaded the mandate of palestine contrary to the UN charter in 1947, the Jews decared independence on may 15 1948 and it was accepted by the UN as a valid document. The arab league tried to declare independence on gaza seeing as that is all they held and the UN ignored them. This is because the arab league had consistently refused to meet and talk, and had declared 181 to be invalid. All a matter of historical record that has been presented many times for your perusal. Because they are the truth you claim they are talking points without any supportive evidence on your side


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, et al,

Well, there are a couple of points that need addressed and corrected.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ..."
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 100%. Israel should withdraw to its defined international borders of 1948. Anything more would be an aggrandizement of territory by war.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I'm sure we agree on something; but, not on this.

The 1948 Borders as originally outlined by the Annex to General Assembly 181(II) --- are history.  It is unlikely that Israel would ever be coerced to fall back to those positions.  By an act of Arab Aggression, and in defense of a Declared State... it defended its independence and in the process, gained additional territory.  (Israel was not yet a Member of the UN.) (See Map for Comparison and Difference.)

In 1967, Israel was a member of the UN.  And under the prohibition against threats to use force --- on the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (Article 2(4) of Charter), Israel defended itself against Egypt (Article 51  of UN Charter) against Arab Aggressors having a previous history of Aggression and the fact that the were staging forces for a new invasion.

In 1974, with the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt, the Armistice Lines around the Gaza Strip were dissolved.

In July 1988, Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank and abandon the territory by default to the Occupation Forces.

In November 1988, The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Declared Independence over the territory occupied by Israel; previously under Jordanian sovereignty.  This Independence was understood by Israel and by remaining silent in word and static in posture, implied an approval.  

In 1993, Israeli and PLO signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (Oslo Accords).  This public and diplomatic event makes "recognition" --- a moot point; a matter no longer of any practical value or importance.

In 1994, with the Peace Treaty between Israel and Jordan, the Armistice Lines around the West Bank were dissolved.​At this point, both sides have an understanding of the the territory to be be govern by the Israelis and the Palestinians.  THIS is the point at which the boundaries are not longer being disputed.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 3*
> The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and the Palestinians legally declared independence in 1948 and have every right to defend themselves.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ARTICLE 4*
> States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. *The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise,* but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong as they tried to steal the land after Israel had already declared independence on it. This made their claim null and void. That is why they now have less than they began with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear the talking point but nothing to prove it to be true.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Declaration of Independence by the Egyptian controlled All Palestine Government (APG) in September 1948 attempted to lay sovereign claim over territory not under its control.  A territory under a different sovereignty; Israel.  A country that makes an organization can dissolve an organization.  In 1959, the APG was dissolved by the Egyptians; which by then was under the claim of a Government in Exile in Cairo.   with essential remnants absorbed by the formal Military Governorship over Gaza.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The 1948 Borders as originally outlined by the Annex to General Assembly 181(II) --- are history.


Indeed, scratch that. Resolution 181 didn't happen. What other 1948 borders do you have?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Declaration of Independence by the Egyptian controlled All Palestine Government (APG) in September 1948 attempted to lay sovereign claim over territory not under its control.


What territory was under Palestinian control for the 1988 declaration?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In 1959, the APG was dissolved by the Egyptians;


A state does not cease to exist if it is without a government for a while.

Lebanon, for example, has been without a government several times but it has always been a state.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1948 Borders as originally outlined by the Annex to General Assembly 181(II) --- are history.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, scratch that. Resolution 181 didn't happen. What other 1948 borders do you have?
Click to expand...






 But it did happen, as it was an either/or outcome. So because the arab muslims refused to accept 181 is of no consequence, and international law of 1923 came into force as soon as Israel declared independence. So the borders as delineated by the LoN in 1922, and provided many times, are the international borders of Israel. Now what borders of the nation of palestine do you have that detail in full these borders ?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence by the Egyptian controlled All Palestine Government (APG) in September 1948 attempted to lay sovereign claim over territory not under its control.
> 
> 
> 
> What territory was under Palestinian control for the 1988 declaration?
Click to expand...






That which was laid out in the Oslo accords


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1959, the APG was dissolved by the Egyptians;
> 
> 
> 
> A state does not cease to exist if it is without a government for a while.
> 
> Lebanon, for example, has been without a government several times but it has always been a state.
Click to expand...






 It never existed in the first place to stop existing, so making this a moot point !


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> What territory was under Palestinian control for the 1988 declaration?
> 
> Indeed, scratch that. Resolution 181 didn't happen. What other 1948 borders do you have?



In 1948 Israel declared independence without delineating borders.  In 1988 Palestine declared independence without delineating borders.  (Border is in dispute).

In 1993 and 1995 Israel and Palestine (both being declared governments with at least some international recognition) entered into a Treaty which agrees that the border is in dispute and that the final border must be negotiated between the two States.  

This seems to me to be the appropriate legal position to take.  Do you agree?  Why or why not?


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What territory was under Palestinian control for the 1988 declaration?
> 
> Indeed, scratch that. Resolution 181 didn't happen. What other 1948 borders do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948 Israel declared independence without delineating borders.  In 1988 Palestine declared independence without delineating borders.  (Border is in dispute).
> 
> In 1993 and 1995 Israel and Palestine (both being declared governments with at least some international recognition) entered into a Treaty which agrees that the border is in dispute and that the final border must be negotiated between the two States.
> 
> This seems to me to be the appropriate legal position to take.  Do you agree?  Why or why not?
Click to expand...








 The arab muslims made a solemn promise to negotiate mutual borders and peace in 1988, still waiting 29 years later for them to start


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> In 1948 Israel declared independence without delineating borders.


How can Israel be attacked in 1948, as Israeli propagandists constantly say, if it did not have any defined territory to attack?

How can the Palestinian 1948 declaration of independence encroach on Israeli territory, as Israeli propagandists constantly say, if it did not have any defined territory to encroach upon?

The Palestinian 1948 declaration of independence defined its territory as that inside its own international borders. Perfectly legal.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948 Israel declared independence without delineating borders.
> 
> 
> 
> How can Israel be attacked in 1948, as Israeli propagandists constantly say, if it did not have any defined territory to attack?
> 
> How can the Palestinian 1948 declaration of independence encroach on Israeli territory, as Israeli propagandists constantly say, if it did not have any defined territory to encroach upon?
> 
> The Palestinian 1948 declaration of independence defined its territory as that inside its own international borders. Perfectly legal.
Click to expand...


Oh please, what kind of mental mind games are you playing here? 

We already know that you and I agree that the international borders of the territory in question exist and that there has been no legal change which created internal borders on that territory.  We both agree that there still isn't.  So, in your mind the entire area is "Palestine" and in mine the entire area is the Jewish National Homeland (Israel).  

When Israel declared independence it changed nothing legally in terms of borders.  The international borders were (are) the international borders.  (As evidenced by the Treaties which came into existence afterward between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.) The fact that Israel did not, in its declaration, cede territory by specifically renouncing all claims to it (as Jordan did) does not mean that Israel had no defined territory.

The only change is in 1993 when BOTH parties agreed that there are two States in the territory and that the border between them should be negotiated.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> When Israel declared independence it changed nothing legally in terms of borders. The international borders were (are) the international borders.


Those are the international borders of Palestine as defined by post WWI treaties. Nothing has changed those.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Israel declared independence it changed nothing legally in terms of borders. The international borders were (are) the international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the international borders of Palestine as defined by post WWI treaties. Nothing has changed those.
Click to expand...


We agree.  The Jewish people, upon declaring independence, decided to name the State re-created in the territory formerly known by the geographical term "Palestine" -- ISRAEL.  Israel's international borders did not change.  Until 1993 with Oslo.  

So, the correct legal interpretation is that the territory in question was one, undivided (but disputed) territory.  Until 1993 with Oslo.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Israel declared independence it changed nothing legally in terms of borders. The international borders were (are) the international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the international borders of Palestine as defined by post WWI treaties. Nothing has changed those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree.  The Jewish people, upon declaring independence, decided to name the State re-created in the territory formerly known by the geographical term "Palestine" -- ISRAEL.  Israel's international borders did not change.  Until 1993 with Oslo.
> 
> So, the correct legal interpretation is that the territory in question was one, undivided (but disputed) territory.  Until 1993 with Oslo.
Click to expand...

That is not how it went down. Israel has never legally acquired any land. It is all still Palestine.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> It is all still Palestine.



Fine.  Call it whatever you want to call it.  Makes no difference.  It was one territory.  Then Oslo happened.  Oslo changed everything.  Oslo, from a legal perspective, gives us two States who have agreed to recognize one another and create a border between them -- the exact placement of which is still under dispute.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Palestine since 1922 was defined as the Territory under the Mandate.  



Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all still Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  Call it whatever you want to call it.  Makes no difference.  It was one territory.  Then Oslo happened.  Oslo changed everything.  Oslo, from a legal perspective, gives us two States who have agreed to recognize one another and create a border between them -- the exact placement of which is still under dispute.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Israel was formerly territory to which the Mandate Applied.

Israel Sovereignty (territorially) supersedes the meaning of Palestine in every manner.  Thus --- the UN was able to replace the PLO designation with "Palestine."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Oslo changed nothing.  Once Ma’ale Adumim is annexed early next year, the two state solution will be deader than dead.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,
> 
> Palestine since 1922 was defined as the Territory under the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all still Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  Call it whatever you want to call it.  Makes no difference.  It was one territory.  Then Oslo happened.  Oslo changed everything.  Oslo, from a legal perspective, gives us two States who have agreed to recognize one another and create a border between them -- the exact placement of which is still under dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel was formerly territory to which the Mandate Applied.
> 
> Israel Sovereignty (territorially) supersedes the meaning of Palestine in every manner.  Thus --- the UN was able to replace the PLO designation with "Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Uhhh, so? 

I don't see a real dispute. There is a dispute manufactured by propaganda.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948 Israel declared independence without delineating borders.
> 
> 
> 
> How can Israel be attacked in 1948, as Israeli propagandists constantly say, if it did not have any defined territory to attack?
> 
> How can the Palestinian 1948 declaration of independence encroach on Israeli territory, as Israeli propagandists constantly say, if it did not have any defined territory to encroach upon?
> 
> The Palestinian 1948 declaration of independence defined its territory as that inside its own international borders. Perfectly legal.
Click to expand...








 NO that is what you islamonazi propagandists say as a reason to demonise the Jews. From May 15 1948 the Jews did have defined territory, and you cant prove they didnt.
What international borders were those, the ones they stole from the mandate of palestine. THERE WAS NEVER A NATION OF PALESTINE


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Israel declared independence it changed nothing legally in terms of borders. The international borders were (are) the international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the international borders of Palestine as defined by post WWI treaties. Nothing has changed those.
Click to expand...






And you can produce the treaties agreed by the palestinians and signed for by their negotiator. All I can find is those agreed by the existing nations and the LoN, no borders that say the nation of palestine have ever existed


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Israel declared independence it changed nothing legally in terms of borders. The international borders were (are) the international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the international borders of Palestine as defined by post WWI treaties. Nothing has changed those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We agree.  The Jewish people, upon declaring independence, decided to name the State re-created in the territory formerly known by the geographical term "Palestine" -- ISRAEL.  Israel's international borders did not change.  Until 1993 with Oslo.
> 
> So, the correct legal interpretation is that the territory in question was one, undivided (but disputed) territory.  Until 1993 with Oslo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not how it went down. Israel has never legally acquired any land. It is all still Palestine.
Click to expand...








 So the INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1922 that set up trans Jordan does not exist, meaning that Jordan does not exist. You really need to stop shooting yourself in the foot, and start reading about who was granted what in 1917


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,
> 
> Palestine since 1922 was defined as the Territory under the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all still Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  Call it whatever you want to call it.  Makes no difference.  It was one territory.  Then Oslo happened.  Oslo changed everything.  Oslo, from a legal perspective, gives us two States who have agreed to recognize one another and create a border between them -- the exact placement of which is still under dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel was formerly territory to which the Mandate Applied.
> 
> Israel Sovereignty (territorially) supersedes the meaning of Palestine in every manner.  Thus --- the UN was able to replace the PLO designation with "Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, so?
> 
> I don't see a real dispute. There is a dispute manufactured by propaganda.
Click to expand...







 And it is you and the other islamonazi stooges that are the biggest culprits for spreading the propganda


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> THERE WAS NEVER A NATION OF PALESTINE


The same blabber I have heard a gazillion times but nobody has ever provided any proof.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,
> 
> Palestine since 1922 was defined as the Territory under the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all still Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  Call it whatever you want to call it.  Makes no difference.  It was one territory.  Then Oslo happened.  Oslo changed everything.  Oslo, from a legal perspective, gives us two States who have agreed to recognize one another and create a border between them -- the exact placement of which is still under dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel was formerly territory to which the Mandate Applied.
> 
> Israel Sovereignty (territorially) supersedes the meaning of Palestine in every manner.  Thus --- the UN was able to replace the PLO designation with "Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, so?
> 
> I don't see a real dispute. There is a dispute manufactured by propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is you and the other islamonazi stooges that are the biggest culprits for spreading the propganda
Click to expand...

Links?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Israel declared independence it changed nothing legally in terms of borders. The international borders were (are) the international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the international borders of Palestine as defined by post WWI treaties. Nothing has changed those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can produce the treaties agreed by the palestinians and signed for by their negotiator. All I can find is those agreed by the existing nations and the LoN, no borders that say the nation of palestine have ever existed
Click to expand...

Oh, you won't find it in Israeli propaganda which is your only source of information.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I'm a bit confused here as to your claim.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you can produce the treaties agreed by the palestinians and signed for by their negotiator. All I can find is those agreed by the existing nations and the LoN, no borders that say the nation of palestine have ever existed
> 
> 
> 
> ]Oh, you won't find it in Israeli propaganda which is your only source of information.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Are you claiming to have knowledge of a Treaty (or similar documentation) that presents the "Title and Rights" to Arab Palestinian?

This is absolutely amazing.  It would change the entire tone and character of the discussion.

You simply must tell us more.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE WAS NEVER A NATION OF PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> The same blabber I have heard a gazillion times but nobody has ever provided any proof.
Click to expand...


Yes indeed.  "THERE NEVER WAS A NATION OF PALESTINE."

Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE WAS NEVER A NATION OF PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> The same blabber I have heard a gazillion times but nobody has ever provided any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.  "THERE NEVER WAS A NATION OF PALESTINE."
> 
> Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
Click to expand...

This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator, and will remain the homeland of the Jewish people in perpetuity.​
You didn't post one of *those,* did you?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE WAS NEVER A NATION OF PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> The same blabber I have heard a gazillion times but nobody has ever provided any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.  "THERE NEVER WAS A NATION OF PALESTINE."
> 
> Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator, and will remain the homeland of the Jewish people in perpetuity.​
> You didn't post one of *those,* did you?
Click to expand...


Do you deny that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are squatters on the land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the stolen land?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE WAS NEVER A NATION OF PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> The same blabber I have heard a gazillion times but nobody has ever provided any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.  "THERE NEVER WAS A NATION OF PALESTINE."
> 
> Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator, and will remain the homeland of the Jewish people in perpetuity.​
> You didn't post one of *those,* did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are squatters on the land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the stolen land?
Click to expand...

They are the legal citizens of Palestine as per international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.


----------



## Eloy

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE WAS NEVER A NATION OF PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> The same blabber I have heard a gazillion times but nobody has ever provided any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.  "THERE NEVER WAS A NATION OF PALESTINE."
> 
> Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator, and will remain the homeland of the Jewish people in perpetuity.​
> You didn't post one of *those,* did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are squatters on the land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the stolen land?
Click to expand...

None of the Native American Nations had title deeds you know.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE WAS NEVER A NATION OF PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> The same blabber I have heard a gazillion times but nobody has ever provided any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.  "THERE NEVER WAS A NATION OF PALESTINE."
> 
> Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator, and will remain the homeland of the Jewish people in perpetuity.​
> You didn't post one of *those,* did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are squatters on the land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the stolen land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are the legal citizens of Palestine as per international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.
Click to expand...


Uh huh.  So where does the treaty of Lausanne make any mention regarding Palestinians?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE WAS NEVER A NATION OF PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> The same blabber I have heard a gazillion times but nobody has ever provided any proof.
Click to expand...








 It is produced every time you make the claim by asking you to provide links showing its leader/s, Currency, Capital, GDP and language


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,
> 
> Palestine since 1922 was defined as the Territory under the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all still Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine.  Call it whatever you want to call it.  Makes no difference.  It was one territory.  Then Oslo happened.  Oslo changed everything.  Oslo, from a legal perspective, gives us two States who have agreed to recognize one another and create a border between them -- the exact placement of which is still under dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel was formerly territory to which the Mandate Applied.
> 
> Israel Sovereignty (territorially) supersedes the meaning of Palestine in every manner.  Thus --- the UN was able to replace the PLO designation with "Palestine."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uhhh, so?
> 
> I don't see a real dispute. There is a dispute manufactured by propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is you and the other islamonazi stooges that are the biggest culprits for spreading the propganda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links?
Click to expand...








 I give you your posts on here that are unsubstantiated and unproven


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Israel declared independence it changed nothing legally in terms of borders. The international borders were (are) the international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the international borders of Palestine as defined by post WWI treaties. Nothing has changed those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you can produce the treaties agreed by the palestinians and signed for by their negotiator. All I can find is those agreed by the existing nations and the LoN, no borders that say the nation of palestine have ever existed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, you won't find it in Israeli propaganda which is your only source of information.
Click to expand...








 So the UN archives are now Israeli propaganda are they, what about the video's from Al-Jazeera that show an arab muslim leader stating that the palestinians are all illegal immigrants ?


----------



## Phoenall

Eloy said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE WAS NEVER A NATION OF PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> The same blabber I have heard a gazillion times but nobody has ever provided any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.  "THERE NEVER WAS A NATION OF PALESTINE."
> 
> Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator, and will remain the homeland of the Jewish people in perpetuity.​
> You didn't post one of *those,* did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are squatters on the land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the stolen land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of the Native American Nations had title deeds you know.
Click to expand...








 AND   how does that alter the facts that at the time the Jews were first invited land title was common. So much so that arafat forged thousands of them and sold them in the arab muslim markets


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> THERE WAS NEVER A NATION OF PALESTINE
> 
> 
> 
> The same blabber I have heard a gazillion times but nobody has ever provided any proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.  "THERE NEVER WAS A NATION OF PALESTINE."
> 
> Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator, and will remain the homeland of the Jewish people in perpetuity.​
> You didn't post one of *those,* did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are squatters on the land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the stolen land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are the legal citizens of Palestine as per international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.
Click to expand...




Where does it say this in the treaty of Lausanne ?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> They are the legal citizens of Palestine as per international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.



They became legal citizens of the Mandate of Palestine, transferring citizenship from the former sovereign.  The transfer of citizenship from one sovereign to another (the Mandate) does not create a State in the process.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are the legal citizens of Palestine as per international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They became legal citizens of the Mandate of Palestine, transferring citizenship from the former sovereign.  The transfer of citizenship from one sovereign to another (the Mandate) does not create a State in the process.
Click to expand...


Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22.

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

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> They became legal citizens of the Mandate of Palestine,


This is a common piece of Israeli propaganda. The Mandate was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no citizens. It had no land. It had no borders.


----------



## Shusha

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


If they had meant that the independent nations were capable of standing alone and being a State, they would have said so.  What they actually said was that some nations, Arab "Palestine" notably being included STILL a hundred years later, are not capable of becoming a State.  

Certainly neither the language of the Covenant did not CREATE States. whether capable or not.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> They became legal citizens of the Mandate of Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> This is a common piece of Israeli propaganda. The Mandate was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no citizens. It had no land. It had no borders.
Click to expand...


If this is true the citizens of Palestine became citizens of nothing.  If the Palestine had no citizens, no land and no borders -- it had nothing.  You have shredded your own argument to pieces.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory* *until such time as they are able to stand alone*. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
> 
> 
> If they had meant that the independent nations were capable of standing alone and being a State, they would have said so.  What they actually said was that some nations, Arab "Palestine" notably being included STILL a hundred years later, are not capable of becoming a State.
> 
> Certainly neither the language of the Covenant did not CREATE States. whether capable or not.


Indeed, they did not create states. The Mandates were assigned to existing states to bring them up to speed and become independent.

That is what the *administrative advice and assistance* was supposed to do. In Palestine's case the opposite was true. Any move by the Palestinians toward independence was taken down by Britain.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> They became legal citizens of the Mandate of Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> This is a common piece of Israeli propaganda. The Mandate was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no citizens. It had no land. It had no borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this is true the citizens of Palestine became citizens of nothing.  If the Palestine had no citizens, no land and no borders -- it had nothing.  You have shredded your own argument to pieces.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that? That is not what I said.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, they did not create states. The Mandates were assigned to existing states to bring them up to speed and become independent.
> 
> That is what the *administrative advice and assistance* was supposed to do. In Palestine's case the opposite was true. Any move by the Palestinians toward independence was taken down by Britain.



Oh you are freaking kidding me.  So Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and "Palestine" were existing States.  With existing borders. Prior to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.  You are mad.   And, of course, the Jewish people, of all the people in the region, were explicitly excluded from being a State.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they did not create states. The Mandates were assigned to existing states to bring them up to speed and become independent.
> 
> That is what the *administrative advice and assistance* was supposed to do. In Palestine's case the opposite was true. Any move by the Palestinians toward independence was taken down by Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you are freaking kidding me.  So Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and "Palestine" were existing States.  With existing borders. Prior to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.  You are mad.   And, of course, the Jewish people, of all the people in the region, were explicitly excluded from being a State.
Click to expand...

They were but they had to wait for the Treaty of Lausanne to release them from Turkish sovereignty so that it can take place.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> the Jewish people, of all the people in the region, were explicitly excluded from being a State.


The people were defined by where they lived. Religion was not a factor.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are the legal citizens of Palestine as per international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They became legal citizens of the Mandate of Palestine, transferring citizenship from the former sovereign.  The transfer of citizenship from one sovereign to another (the Mandate) does not create a State in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22.
> 
> "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where *their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized* subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
Click to expand...





Which applies only to the member states and not the inhabitants of the various mandates


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they did not create states. The Mandates were assigned to existing states to bring them up to speed and become independent.
> 
> That is what the *administrative advice and assistance* was supposed to do. In Palestine's case the opposite was true. Any move by the Palestinians toward independence was taken down by Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you are freaking kidding me.  So Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and "Palestine" were existing States.  With existing borders. Prior to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.  You are mad.   And, of course, the Jewish people, of all the people in the region, were explicitly excluded from being a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were but they had to wait for the Treaty of Lausanne to release them from Turkish sovereignty so that it can take place.
Click to expand...









 WRONG as the covenant explicitly states that it deals with the member nations and not the inhabitants of the mandates. How many times have you had this spelt out to you


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> They became legal citizens of the Mandate of Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> This is a common piece of Israeli propaganda. The Mandate was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no citizens. It had no land. It had no borders.
Click to expand...








 You are confusing the mandate with the mandatory again. It was only the British function that was a temporary assigned administration, the actual mandate had defined borders so the member states of the LoN could see where there authority ended


----------



## Phoenall

Shusha said:


> "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory* *until such time as they are able to stand alone*. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
> 
> 
> If they had meant that the independent nations were capable of standing alone and being a State, they would have said so.  What they actually said was that some nations, Arab "Palestine" notably being included STILL a hundred years later, are not capable of becoming a State.
> 
> Certainly neither the language of the Covenant did not CREATE States. whether capable or not.








 That concept is beyond his capability to understand, he still believes that the arab muslims have been a nation since the beginning of time


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory* *until such time as they are able to stand alone*. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."
> 
> 
> If they had meant that the independent nations were capable of standing alone and being a State, they would have said so.  What they actually said was that some nations, Arab "Palestine" notably being included STILL a hundred years later, are not capable of becoming a State.
> 
> Certainly neither the language of the Covenant did not CREATE States. whether capable or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they did not create states. The Mandates were assigned to existing states to bring them up to speed and become independent.
> 
> That is what the *administrative advice and assistance* was supposed to do. In Palestine's case the opposite was true. Any move by the Palestinians toward independence was taken down by Britain.
Click to expand...







 WRONG try reading the mandates again and see that they did create states, There was no Jordan before the mandate of palestine, no Iraq or Iran either. Not even a Syria even though the land already existed. As for palestine the arab muslims ignored the Mandate and refused to be guided by the principles, meaning they lost everything by not claiming the little bits. By refusing the administrative advice and assistance they also refused the rights implicit with the administrative advice and assistance


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> They became legal citizens of the Mandate of Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> This is a common piece of Israeli propaganda. The Mandate was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no citizens. It had no land. It had no borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this is true the citizens of Palestine became citizens of nothing.  If the Palestine had no citizens, no land and no borders -- it had nothing.  You have shredded your own argument to pieces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that? That is not what I said.
Click to expand...








 From your own words repeated above, if the mandate was not palestine then no palestine can ever exist


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they did not create states. The Mandates were assigned to existing states to bring them up to speed and become independent.
> 
> That is what the *administrative advice and assistance* was supposed to do. In Palestine's case the opposite was true. Any move by the Palestinians toward independence was taken down by Britain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you are freaking kidding me.  So Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and "Palestine" were existing States.  With existing borders. Prior to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.  You are mad.   And, of course, the Jewish people, of all the people in the region, were explicitly excluded from being a State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were but they had to wait for the Treaty of Lausanne to release them from Turkish sovereignty so that it can take place.
Click to expand...







And according to you the Turks handed their sovereignty to the arab muslims in 1917, even though the only palestinians at that time were the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Jewish people, of all the people in the region, were explicitly excluded from being a State.
> 
> 
> 
> The people were defined by where they lived. Religion was not a factor.
Click to expand...








 And once again you deny the Jews their rights to free determination and a national home


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> They became legal citizens of the Mandate of Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> This is a common piece of Israeli propaganda. The Mandate was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no citizens. It had no land. It had no borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this is true the citizens of Palestine became citizens of nothing.  If the Palestine had no citizens, no land and no borders -- it had nothing.  You have shredded your own argument to pieces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that? That is not what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your own words repeated above, if the mandate was not palestine then no palestine can ever exist
Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same blabber I have heard a gazillion times but nobody has ever provided any proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.  "THERE NEVER WAS A NATION OF PALESTINE."
> 
> Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator, and will remain the homeland of the Jewish people in perpetuity.​
> You didn't post one of *those,* did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are squatters on the land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the stolen land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are the legal citizens of Palestine as per international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  So where does the treaty of Lausanne make any mention regarding Palestinians?
Click to expand...


Hello!  PF where are you?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> They became legal citizens of the Mandate of Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> This is a common piece of Israeli propaganda. The Mandate was not Palestine. It was a temporarily assigned administration. It had no citizens. It had no land. It had no borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this is true the citizens of Palestine became citizens of nothing.  If the Palestine had no citizens, no land and no borders -- it had nothing.  You have shredded your own argument to pieces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get that? That is not what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your own words repeated above, if the mandate was not palestine then no palestine can ever exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...








 So you are saying your own posts are now unsubstantiated Israeli talking points


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same blabber I have heard a gazillion times but nobody has ever provided any proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.  "THERE NEVER WAS A NATION OF PALESTINE."
> 
> Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator, and will remain the homeland of the Jewish people in perpetuity.​
> You didn't post one of *those,* did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are squatters on the land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the stolen land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are the legal citizens of Palestine as per international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  So where does the treaty of Lausanne make any mention regarding Palestinians?
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.  "THERE NEVER WAS A NATION OF PALESTINE."
> 
> Articles: There Was Never a Country Called Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator, and will remain the homeland of the Jewish people in perpetuity.​
> You didn't post one of *those,* did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you deny that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are squatters on the land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the stolen land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are the legal citizens of Palestine as per international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  So where does the treaty of Lausanne make any mention regarding Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Still waiting to learn what theTreaty of Lausanne says regarding Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> This land was given to the Jewish people, as stated in the Bible, by the Creator, and will remain the homeland of the Jewish people in perpetuity.​
> You didn't post one of *those,* did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are squatters on the land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the stolen land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are the legal citizens of Palestine as per international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  So where does the treaty of Lausanne make any mention regarding Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting to learn what theTreaty of Lausanne says regarding Palestinians.
Click to expand...

It was a blanket statement covering all of the new states without mentioning any of them by name.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Please don't mislead the discussion members.  Article 30 deals with "nationality."  That pertains exclusively to "nationality" and is found in Section II of the Treaty with that name.



P F Tinmore said:


> It was a blanket statement covering all of the new states without mentioning any of them by name.


*(COMMENT)*

Section I, Territorial Clauses --- contains the disposition of the Title and Rights to the territory that did not stay with the Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Please don't mislead the discussion members.  Article 30 deals with "nationality."  That pertains exclusively to "nationality" and is found in Section II of the Treaty with that name.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a blanket statement covering all of the new states without mentioning any of them by name.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Section I, Territorial Clauses --- contains the disposition of the Title and Rights to the territory that did not stay with the Turkish Republic.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Indeed, and that went to the LoN who held it in trust for the inhabitants through the Mandate system.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.  The Covenant promises the Arab Palestinian nothing.  They were not a party to the Covenant.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, and that went to the LoN who held it in trust for the inhabitants through the Mandate system.


*(COMMENT)*

The Covenant, the Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate, and even the Treaty of Lausanne were all written by the very same victorious Allied Powers.  These documents were written for and between the parties to the agreements.  They were not written for the Arab Palestinians to interpret and use.  The LoN Covenant when the Arab Palestinians were still under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  The Arab Palestinians were represented by the Central Powers; not the Allied Powers.  The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, one of the Enemy Empires of the Central Powers, renounced the Title and Rights to the territory in question.  So, in a way, the representative of the Sovereign Power that represented the Arab Palestinians, placed the Title and Rights in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.  The Covenant promises the Arab Palestinian nothing.  They were not a party to the Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and that went to the LoN who held it in trust for the inhabitants through the Mandate system.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant, the Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate, and even the Treaty of Lausanne were all written by the very same victorious Allied Powers.  These documents were written for and between the parties to the agreements.  They were not written for the Arab Palestinians to interpret and use.  The LoN Covenant when the Arab Palestinians were still under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  The Arab Palestinians were represented by the Central Powers; not the Allied Powers.  The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, one of the Enemy Empires of the Central Powers, renounced the Title and Rights to the territory in question.  So, in a way, the representative of the Sovereign Power that represented the Arab Palestinians, placed the Title and Rights in the hands of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were the "inhabitants" referred to in Article of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  None of your smoke and mirrors changes that. 

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

Quit making things up Rocco, we have got your number.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.


So? Neither were any of the other new states.

Do you have a point?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The point is very simple.  The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement.  Not a third party.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Neither were any of the other new states.
> 
> Do you have a point?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers.  It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates.  Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.

In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation.  The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.  

Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you.  You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you.  In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different.  You have not say in the matter.  The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you.  You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement.  You have not standing in the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

The Covenant was an agreement between several parties that negotiated what was to become of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territories, among other issues.  Your bullshit Rocco, would mean that one of  the signers of the Charter of the United Nations could decide that they would disregard an article within the Charter.  That is not the case.  You are just blowing smoke, as usual.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you deny that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are squatters on the land with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the stolen land?
> 
> 
> 
> They are the legal citizens of Palestine as per international law and the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  So where does the treaty of Lausanne make any mention regarding Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting to learn what theTreaty of Lausanne says regarding Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a blanket statement covering all of the new states without mentioning any of them by name.
Click to expand...








 Nope wrong again, it was a treaty that disclosed the LoN upcoming use for the former Ottoman empire, and the palestinians played no part in it


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.  The Covenant promises the Arab Palestinian nothing.  They were not a party to the Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and that went to the LoN who held it in trust for the inhabitants through the Mandate system.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant, the Palestine Order in Council, the Mandate, and even the Treaty of Lausanne were all written by the very same victorious Allied Powers.  These documents were written for and between the parties to the agreements.  They were not written for the Arab Palestinians to interpret and use.  The LoN Covenant when the Arab Palestinians were still under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  The Arab Palestinians were represented by the Central Powers; not the Allied Powers.  The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, one of the Enemy Empires of the Central Powers, renounced the Title and Rights to the territory in question.  So, in a way, the representative of the Sovereign Power that represented the Arab Palestinians, placed the Title and Rights in the hands of the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were the "inhabitants" referred to in Article of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  None of your smoke and mirrors changes that.
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and *which are inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant...."
> 
> Quit making things up Rocco, we have got your number.
Click to expand...








 So where does it say it only applies to arab muslims and Roman catholic Christians ?   Didnt the Jews warrant a mention, other than the granting of 22% of palestine as their national home ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The point is very simple.  The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement.  Not a third party.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Neither were any of the other new states.
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers.  It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates.  Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation.  The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.
> 
> Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you.  You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you.  In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different.  You have not say in the matter.  The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you.  You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement.  You have not standing in the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, and?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

However you choose to misinterpret what I said, you did get one part right.  What we call today the Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the Covenant; nether bound by it or promised anything by it.



montelatici said:


> The Covenant was an agreement between several parties that negotiated what was to become of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territories, among other issues.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, among other thing, the Covenant was between the parties to the agreement.  "The inhabitants of the former Turkish territories" were not parties to the Covenant. 



montelatici said:


> Your bullshit Rocco, would mean that one of  the signers of the Charter of the United Nations could decide that they would disregard an article within the Charter.  That is not the case.  You are just blowing smoke, as usual.


*(COMMENT)*

That is not what I said at all.  

We were not discussing "exceptions" to a treaty/Charter, or a nation --- exercising its national sovereignty ---having the right to withdraw from the Treaty/Charter if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.  That is an entirely different subject.

BUT AGAIN, without regard to your confusion, those who are bound by the Charter have an obligation between themselves.  The members under the Charter have no obligation to states outside the Charter; only to it fellow members bound by the charter.  Even today, while the State of Palestine is recognized as an observer nation, it is not a member under the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The point is very simple.  The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement.  Not a third party.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Neither were any of the other new states.
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers.  It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates.  Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation.  The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.
> 
> Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you.  You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you.  In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different.  You have not say in the matter.  The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you.  You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement.  You have not standing in the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, and?
Click to expand...







 The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The point is very simple.  The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement.  Not a third party.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Neither were any of the other new states.
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers.  It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates.  Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation.  The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.
> 
> Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you.  You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you.  In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different.  You have not say in the matter.  The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you.  You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement.  You have not standing in the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts
Click to expand...

The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.

You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> However you choose to misinterpret what I said, you did get one part right.  What we call today the Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the Covenant; nether bound by it or promised anything by it.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Covenant was an agreement between several parties that negotiated what was to become of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territories, among other issues.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, among other thing, the Covenant was between the parties to the agreement.  "The inhabitants of the former Turkish territories" were not parties to the Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit Rocco, would mean that one of  the signers of the Charter of the United Nations could decide that they would disregard an article within the Charter.  That is not the case.  You are just blowing smoke, as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> That is not what I said at all.
> 
> We were not discussing "exceptions" to a treaty/Charter, or a nation --- exercising its national sovereignty ---having the right to withdraw from the Treaty/Charter if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.  That is an entirely different subject.
> 
> BUT AGAIN, without regard to your confusion, those who are bound by the Charter have an obligation between themselves.  The members under the Charter have no obligation to states outside the Charter; only to it fellow members bound by the charter.  Even today, while the State of Palestine is recognized as an observer nation, it is not a member under the Charter.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.

Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit. 

Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement.  The bank need not be a party to the agreement.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The point is very simple.  The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement.  Not a third party.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Neither were any of the other new states.
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers.  It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates.  Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation.  The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.
> 
> Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you.  You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you.  In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different.  You have not say in the matter.  The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you.  You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement.  You have not standing in the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.
> 
> You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.
Click to expand...








 That the Jews were the majority of those "people" according to the history books and census taken, meaning the arab muslims are the illegal immigrants with no right to be there. By palestinians you always mean arab muslim, and never Jew showing that you are dead set against any rights ever applying to the Jews, and as you say you can blow all the smoke you want it wont change the facts


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

Nice example.  I have to chuckle...  I have to ask:

••  What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach.  The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.



montelatici said:


> It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.
> 
> Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.
> 
> Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement.  The bank need not be a party to the agreement.


*(COMMENT)*

In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation.  Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage. 

In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation,  When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured.  The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.

The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers.  They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.

Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show.  There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.

All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything.  Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians. 

By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action  by hold "peace" hostage.  *IF* the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, *THEN* Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry.  Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The point is very simple.  The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement.  Not a third party.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Neither were any of the other new states.
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers.  It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates.  Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation.  The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.
> 
> Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you.  You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you.  In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different.  You have not say in the matter.  The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you.  You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement.  You have not standing in the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.
> 
> You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the Jews were the majority of those "people" according to the history books and census taken, meaning the arab muslims are the illegal immigrants with no right to be there. By palestinians you always mean arab muslim, and never Jew showing that you are dead set against any rights ever applying to the Jews, and as you say you can blow all the smoke you want it wont change the facts
Click to expand...

These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.

As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, 521 another calculation is required.

The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). 522 In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. 523 These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic -speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. 524 Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians). 525

Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006+8,507)– 2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ 526 (or nearly 99%).

On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. 527 Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in 1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925. 528

Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725 – (37,997 + 76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ 529 (or about 1%).

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance,...


By constantly demanding their rights only to get poked in the eye by the British.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Nice example.  I have to chuckle...  I have to ask:
> 
> ••  What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach.  The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.
> 
> Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.
> 
> Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement.  The bank need not be a party to the agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation.  Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.
> 
> In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation,  When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured.  The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.
> 
> The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers.  They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.
> 
> Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show.  There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.
> 
> All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything.  Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action  by hold "peace" hostage.  *IF* the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, *THEN* Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry.  Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



You continue with this nonsensical blabbering.  The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant. 

Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate.  So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine.  You are making things up when you claim otherwise. 

_".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."_

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

No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews.    The problem was recognized by the British:

_"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."
_
A/364 of 3 September 1947


You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The point is very simple.  The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement.  Not a third party.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers.  It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates.  Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation.  The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.
> 
> Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you.  You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you.  In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different.  You have not say in the matter.  The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you.  You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement.  You have not standing in the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> OK, and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.
> 
> You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the Jews were the majority of those "people" according to the history books and census taken, meaning the arab muslims are the illegal immigrants with no right to be there. By palestinians you always mean arab muslim, and never Jew showing that you are dead set against any rights ever applying to the Jews, and as you say you can blow all the smoke you want it wont change the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These 729,873 persons formed the bulk of inhabitants in Palestine who acquired Palestinian nationality by the natural change from the previous Ottoman nationality according to Article 1, Clause (1), of the Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925.
> 
> As to the Arab and Jewish Ottomans of Palestine, 521 another calculation is required.
> 
> The number of ‘Arabs’ of the total population in mid-1925 was 717,006 inhabitants (641,494 Muslims and 75,512 Christians). 522 In addition, there were 8,507 persons classified as ‘Others’. 523 These ‘Others’ were mainly Druzes, Bahais and Samiries who were overwhelmingly Arabic -speakers and residing in Palestine as Ottoman subjects. 524 Hence, ‘Others’ were in fact ‘Arabs’. The number of immigrant Arabs who entered and registered in Palestine from 1920 to 1925 was 2,783 persons (mostly Christians). 525
> 
> Thus, the net number of Arabs who were Ottomans, and then acquired Palestinian nationality by natural change, was as follows: (717,006+8,507)– 2,783 = 722,730 ‘Palestinian Arabs’ 526 (or nearly 99%).
> 
> On the other hand, the number of Jews within the total population of Palestine, during this period, stood at 121,725 persons. 527 Of these, there were 76,585 foreigners: 37,997 individuals who acquired provisional Palestinian naturalization certificates in 1922, as just mentioned, and 76,585 registered immigrants who entered Palestine from 1920 to 1925. 528
> 
> Thus, the net number of Jews who were Ottomans and then became Palestinian citizens by natural change was as follows: 121,725 – (37,997 + 76,585) = 7,143 ‘Palestinian Jews’ 529 (or about 1%).
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf
Click to expand...








And the best you have is a pack of LIES written by an islamonazi propagandist based on his own POV and nothing else. He gets it wrong almost immediately when he  claims that the occupation started in 1948 with the formation of Israel.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance,...
> 
> 
> 
> By constantly demanding their rights only to get poked in the eye by the British.
Click to expand...









 What rights were those, and when where they granted universally to everyone. You cant just wake up one day and state that you have the right to rape children or mass murder the Jews


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Nice example.  I have to chuckle...  I have to ask:
> 
> ••  What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach.  The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.
> 
> Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.
> 
> Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement.  The bank need not be a party to the agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation.  Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.
> 
> In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation,  When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured.  The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.
> 
> The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers.  They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.
> 
> Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show.  There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.
> 
> All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything.  Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action  by hold "peace" hostage.  *IF* the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, *THEN* Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry.  Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You continue with this nonsensical blabbering.  The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.
> 
> Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate.  So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine.  You are making things up when you claim otherwise.
> 
> _".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."_
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews.    The problem was recognized by the British:
> 
> _"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."
> _
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> 
> You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.
Click to expand...









 And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> He gets it wrong almost immediately when he claims that the occupation started in 1948 with the formation of Israel.


It didn't?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Nice example.  I have to chuckle...  I have to ask:
> 
> ••  What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach.  The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.
> 
> Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.
> 
> Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement.  The bank need not be a party to the agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation.  Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.
> 
> In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation,  When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured.  The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.
> 
> The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers.  They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.
> 
> Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show.  There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.
> 
> All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything.  Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action  by hold "peace" hostage.  *IF* the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, *THEN* Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry.  Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You continue with this nonsensical blabbering.  The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.
> 
> Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate.  So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine.  You are making things up when you claim otherwise.
> 
> _".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."_
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews.    The problem was recognized by the British:
> 
> _"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."
> _
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> 
> You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board
Click to expand...

I have never denied that Jews lived in Palestine.

Where do you keep getting this shit?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> He gets it wrong almost immediately when he claims that the occupation started in 1948 with the formation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...








 Read it again and see


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Nice example.  I have to chuckle...  I have to ask:
> 
> ••  What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach.  The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.
> 
> Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.
> 
> Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement.  The bank need not be a party to the agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation.  Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.
> 
> In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation,  When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured.  The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.
> 
> The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers.  They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.
> 
> Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show.  There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.
> 
> All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything.  Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action  by hold "peace" hostage.  *IF* the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, *THEN* Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry.  Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You continue with this nonsensical blabbering.  The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.
> 
> Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate.  So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine.  You are making things up when you claim otherwise.
> 
> _".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."_
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews.    The problem was recognized by the British:
> 
> _"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."
> _
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> 
> You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never denied that Jews lived in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you keep getting this shit?
Click to expand...








 From your posts when you miss out the Jews as being indigenous peoples


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The point is very simple.  The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement.  Not a third party.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were not members of the LoN.
> 
> 
> 
> So? Neither were any of the other new states.
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers.  It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates.  Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation.  The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.
> 
> Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you.  You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you.  In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different.  You have not say in the matter.  The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you.  You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement.  You have not standing in the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.
> 
> You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.
Click to expand...

*Pit Stop for Criminal Nomad Gangs*

The Arabs weren't residents; they were campers.


----------



## montelatici

The Sage of Main Street said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The point is very simple.  The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement.  Not a third party.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Neither were any of the other new states.
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers.  It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates.  Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation.  The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.
> 
> Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you.  You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you.  In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different.  You have not say in the matter.  The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you.  You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement.  You have not standing in the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.
> 
> You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Pit Stop for Criminal Nomad Gangs*
> 
> The Arabs weren't residents; they were campers.
Click to expand...


It doesn't take long for the morons to come out of their holes.  Of course the Muslims and Christians were residents, they nearly 100% of the residents. 

"148. When the Mandate was approved, all concerned were aware of the existence of an overwhelming Arab majority in Palestine. More over, the King-Crane Report, among others, had warned that the Zionist program could not be carried out except by force of arms. It would seem clear, therefore, that the provisions of the Mandate relating to the Jewish National Home could be based only on the assumption that sooner or later the Arab fears would gradually be overcome and that Arab hostility to the terms of the Mandate would in time weaken and disappear."

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Nice example.  I have to chuckle...  I have to ask:
> 
> ••  What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach.  The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is difficult to understand if you are as dimwitted as the nonsense you write.
> 
> Let me make it as simple as possible for you, dimwit.
> 
> Those who are bound by a treaty/charter/contract/covenant (agreement) are required to adhere to the terms of the agreement. If a multilateral treaty requires that the parties of the treaty to recapitalize a bank within the sphere of influence assigned to that party of the agreement, that party must recapitalize the bank or that party will be in breach of the agreement.  The bank need not be a party to the agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation.  Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.
> 
> In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation,  When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured.  The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.
> 
> The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers.  They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.
> 
> Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show.  There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.
> 
> All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything.  Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action  by hold "peace" hostage.  *IF* the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, *THEN* Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry.  Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You continue with this nonsensical blabbering.  The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.
> 
> Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate.  So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine.  You are making things up when you claim otherwise.
> 
> _".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."_
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews.    The problem was recognized by the British:
> 
> _"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."
> _
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> 
> You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never denied that Jews lived in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you keep getting this shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your posts when you miss out the Jews as being indigenous peoples
Click to expand...

 Links?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> He gets it wrong almost immediately when he claims that the occupation started in 1948 with the formation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read it again and see
Click to expand...

\
It didn't? Was a question not a statement.

You need to keep up.


----------



## MJB12741

The Sage of Main Street said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The point is very simple.  The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement.  Not a third party.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Neither were any of the other new states.
> 
> Do you have a point?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers.  It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates.  Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation.  The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.
> 
> Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you.  You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you.  In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different.  You have not say in the matter.  The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you.  You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement.  You have not standing in the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.
> 
> You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Pit Stop for Criminal Nomad Gangs*
> 
> The Arabs weren't residents; they were campers.
Click to expand...


Today's Palestinians are mostly squatters with no titles or deeds whatsoever to the land they stole.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The point is very simple.  The Covenant, like any contract, is between the parties to the agreement.  Not a third party.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Covenant is the foundation for the agreement between the various Mandatory Powers and the remainder of the Allied Powers.  It was the overarching framework on the most general of agreements as to how the Mandatories with achieve their obligations to the other Allied Powers relative to the Mandates.  Any obligation in the Mandate is an obligation to the other Allied Powers; and not the former inhabitants of the Enemy Occupied Territory.
> 
> In 1919, when the Allied Powers assembled the Covenant, the Arabs of Palestine were under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  In 1920, when the Allied Powers crafted the framework for the Mandate for Palestine (San Remo), there were no promises made by the Allied Powers to the Inhabitants under Enemy Occupation.  The Allied Powers decided how the Mandate system will relate to the Mandatories.
> 
> Suppose that I and Hollie make an agreement between ourselves, for me to feed you.  You, not a party to the agreement, have not say as to what I feed you, how much I feed you, or the quality of the food I give you.  In fact, at any point along the timeline, Hollie and I can --- between us --- decide to do something different.  You have not say in the matter.  The agreement (the LoN Covenant) is the legal and binding agreement between the two of us, and not you.  You have no right to enforce anything relative to the agreement.  You have not standing in the agreement.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> OK, and?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The arab muslims were the third party no matter how much you want to change facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are the people of the place. One of the peoples always mentioned in defining a peoples inherent, inalienable rights.
> 
> You can blow all the smoke you want but it will not change the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Pit Stop for Criminal Nomad Gangs*
> 
> The Arabs weren't residents; they were campers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't take long for the morons to come out of their holes.  Of course the Muslims and Christians were residents, they nearly 100% of the residents.
> 
> "148. When the Mandate was approved, all concerned were aware of the existence of an overwhelming Arab majority in Palestine. More over, the King-Crane Report, among others, had warned that the Zionist program could not be carried out except by force of arms. It would seem clear, therefore, that the provisions of the Mandate relating to the Jewish National Home could be based only on the assumption that sooner or later the Arab fears would gradually be overcome and that Arab hostility to the terms of the Mandate would in time weaken and disappear."
> 
> https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3
Click to expand...








Still using this pack of lies that you know does not say what you claim, unless you manipulate and alter the words in the report.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> He gets it wrong almost immediately when he claims that the occupation started in 1948 with the formation of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read it again and see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> It didn't? Was a question not a statement.
> 
> You need to keep up.
Click to expand...







 No you do as you dont even read your own cut and paste's now, and then find you have made another OOOPPPS  moment


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Nice example.  I have to chuckle...  I have to ask:
> 
> ••  What party to what agreement is claiming a Breach.  The Arab Palestinians cannot make a claim on a Agreement to which they are not a party.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In your example, still only parties to the agreement have a say in the evaluation.  Some third party, which sabotage the elements in the agreement, cannot come along and attempt to profit from their sabotage.
> 
> In the case of the covenant, the British accepted ab assignment that was sabotaged by the Arab Palestinians.  The Arab Palestinians made it impossible to establish a Jewish National Home; and they Arab Palestinians made it impossible to set the condition for the Arab Palestinians to stand alone as a nation,  When the Arab Palestinians, in bad faith and intentionally obstruct performance, they cannot claim to be a party to the agreement that was injured.  The Arab Palestinians may not profit or claim injury based on the outcome of a separate international agreement which they interfered with.
> 
> The actions of the Arab Palestinian made it impossible to comply with the explicit intent of the Allied Powers.  They cannot complain that the outcome was not to their liking.
> 
> Their was no agreement made between with the Arab Palestinian, that the they can show.  There is only the threat of violence that the Arab Palestinians made if they don't get their outcome.
> 
> All along, the Arab Palestinians act as if there was some agreement between the Allied Powers and the former population under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration --- of the Arab Palestinian to which the evolved, that obligated the Allied Powers to do anything.  Out of all the declarations, covenants, treaties and agreements, none of them set an obligation between the Allied Powers and what came to be known as the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> By extension, you cannot expect the present day holders of the Title and Rights to a segment of the territory formerly under the administration of the Mandate, to be blackmailed, intimidated or coerced into an action  by hold "peace" hostage.  *IF* the only way to get "peace" between the two parties in conflict is for the Israelis to capitulate or forfeit territorial concessions, *THEN* Israel should take all the necessary steps neutralize use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of their State and Citizenry.  Nothing in the law of 1919 through to the present shall impair the inherent right of individual self-defence if an armed attack occurs against their state.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue with this nonsensical blabbering.  The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.
> 
> Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate.  So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine.  You are making things up when you claim otherwise.
> 
> _".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."_
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews.    The problem was recognized by the British:
> 
> _"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."
> _
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> 
> You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never denied that Jews lived in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you keep getting this shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your posts when you miss out the Jews as being indigenous peoples
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links?
Click to expand...

 







 Read your own posts where you constantly do it


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue with this nonsensical blabbering.  The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians, they were the subject of article 22 of the Covenant.
> 
> Of course they had standing, and the British confirmed it in writing during negotiations, by stating unequivocally that the rights of the non-Jewish were to be protected as part of the terms of the Covenant and the Mandate.  So there was clearly an agreement between the British and the non-Jewish population of Palestine.  You are making things up when you claim otherwise.
> 
> _".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights...."_
> 
> UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)
> 
> No solution could be agreed to by the non-Jews, acceptable to the British and Jews, that would not have insured the permanent subjugation of non-Jews by Jews.    The problem was recognized by the British:
> 
> _"To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."
> _
> A/364 of 3 September 1947
> 
> 
> You are so partisan and hateful vis-a-vis the Muslims and Christians of Palestine that you can't think straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never denied that Jews lived in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you keep getting this shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your posts when you miss out the Jews as being indigenous peoples
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own posts where you constantly do it
Click to expand...

No links of course.


----------



## Challenger

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Surely you jest.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know very much at all, that's obvious from your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
> _Isaac Asimov_
> Read more at: Isaac Asimov Quotes
> 
> "Five things that annoy me; Rude people, cocky people, stuck up people, smelly people, & people who think they know everything."
> _ Unknown quotes _
> 
> Read more: People Who Think They Know Everything Quotes
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


You can always tell when Rambling RoccoR loses it, he projects his own particular "qualities" onto others. I could respond in kind, but I'm better than that.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still you deny that Jews were living in palestine, even after you copied the above to this board
> 
> 
> 
> I have never denied that Jews lived in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you keep getting this shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your posts when you miss out the Jews as being indigenous peoples
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own posts where you constantly do it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No links of course.
Click to expand...








Still waiting for yours that shows the treaty that created the nation of palestine prior to 1988, why should I give what you refuse ?


----------



## Phoenall

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Surely you jest.
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know very much at all, that's obvious from your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
> _Isaac Asimov_
> Read more at: Isaac Asimov Quotes
> 
> "Five things that annoy me; Rude people, cocky people, stuck up people, smelly people, & people who think they know everything."
> _ Unknown quotes _
> 
> Read more: People Who Think They Know Everything Quotes
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always tell when Rambling RoccoR loses it, he projects his own particular "qualities" onto others. I could respond in kind, but I'm better than that.
Click to expand...







Lifted straight from the red book of disinformation.

 Rule 1 try disinformation as a first resort


----------



## MJB12741

Who is stealing whose land?    Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?


----------



## montelatici

A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Who is stealing whose land?    Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?


Religion is not the issue.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is stealing whose land?    Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is not the issue.
Click to expand...


Religion always plays a part in Middle East conflicts.  It is no coincidence that all of the intifadas started after disturbances on the Temple Mount.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is stealing whose land?    Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is not the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion always plays a part in Middle East conflicts.  It is no coincidence that all of the intifadas started after disturbances on the Temple Mount.
Click to expand...

Was it religion or politics?


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is stealing whose land?    Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is not the issue.
Click to expand...








 Yes it is when the arab muslims bring it into the equation, and they have used it many times as a stick to break eggs


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.




Oh now I get it.  The "native Muslim & Christian Palestinians" were Jews when they built Solomon's Temple.  Amazing what we can learn from the infinite wisdom of Monte.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The "native Muslim & Christian Palestinians" were Jews when they built Solomon's Temple.  Amazing what we can learn from the infinite wisdom of Monte.
Click to expand...


What religion(s) do you think they practiced? Many of the ancestors of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians practiced Judaism, some practiced other religions at the time of the building of the temple.  But not Christianity or Islam as the religions were not established at the time.

You still haven't figured out that the original Christians previously practiced Judaism.  LOL


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is stealing whose land?    Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is not the issue.
Click to expand...

Of course religion is the issue, certainly from the perspective of the _Islamist Entity™. _You are hoping to sidestep the explicit whining contained in the Hamas charter, for one example, wherein explicit reference is made to Islam and the destruction of Israel.  

You shouldn't believe your dishonesty is accepted as anything but what it clearly is.


----------



## Phoenall

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is stealing whose land?    Which came first, Solomon's Temple or the Al Aqua Mosque?
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is not the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion always plays a part in Middle East conflicts.  It is no coincidence that all of the intifadas started after disturbances on the Temple Mount.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was it religion or politics?
Click to expand...







 Same thing as far as islam is concerned


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The "native Muslim & Christian Palestinians" were Jews when they built Solomon's Temple.  Amazing what we can learn from the infinite wisdom of Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion(s) do you think they practiced? Many of the ancestors of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians practiced Judaism, some practiced other religions at the time of the building of the temple.  But not Christianity or Islam as the religions were not established at the time.
> 
> You still haven't figured out that the original Christians previously practiced Judaism.  LOL
Click to expand...







 Werent they evicted many times by the various invaders like the Crusaders and the muslims making your claims a pack of lies. This makes them all recent immigrants and not indigenous, much to your dismay as this means the Jews are the indigenous peoples.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The "native Muslim & Christian Palestinians" were Jews when they built Solomon's Temple.  Amazing what we can learn from the infinite wisdom of Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion(s) do you think they practiced? Many of the ancestors of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians practiced Judaism, some practiced other religions at the time of the building of the temple.  But not Christianity or Islam as the religions were not established at the time.
> 
> You still haven't figured out that the original Christians previously practiced Judaism.  LOL
Click to expand...


Oh Monte.  You are a blast.  Okay so now I get it.  The Palestinian Christians & Muslims living in Israel were the indigenous Jews who built Solomon's Temple.  Heh Heh!


----------



## RoccoR

MJB12741, montelatici, et al,

It is my opinion that the anti-Israeli set, and those that unnecessarily involve the religious aspects, is a bit like cosmology looking back in time.  That is to say that the finer points of the question are becoming more uncertain --- the farther back we look in time and into a more ancient the period.  And, like the question of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, what happened one, two or three millennium ago really doesn't matter.  Just as the interaction of the discussion with the concepts of "native Muslim & Christian Palestinians" _(implying the ∆ is Hebrew Jewish)_ and the circular migrant departing the Middle East _(Jews leave, travel across Europe)_ and returning to the Middle East.  

It really doesn't matter.  While it was historically recognized by the Allied Powers, it makes no difference when it came to the safety and preservation of the culture; of the solution to the conflict.  



MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The "native Muslim & Christian Palestinians" were Jews when they built Solomon's Temple.  Amazing what we can learn from the infinite wisdom of Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion(s) do you think they practiced? Many of the ancestors of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians practiced Judaism, some practiced other religions at the time of the building of the temple.  But not Christianity or Islam as the religions were not established at the time.
> 
> You still haven't figured out that the original Christians previously practiced Judaism.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh Monte.  You are a blast.  Okay so now I get it.  The Palestinian Christians & Muslims living in Israel were the indigenous Jews who built Solomon's Temple.  Heh Heh!
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It is not the case that the outcome of whether or not the two-state solution is the answer; but rather, whether or not a significant blow to the preservation of a under continuous attack for two thousand years (plus).  It is not likely that --- in any case --- or impact on the Arabs of Palestine, will not be significant adverse impact to the preservation of the Arab.

The Palestinian Christians & Muslims, King's Solomons Temple, the migration from the Middle East - through Europe - and back to the Middle East, have no real impact on the reality that peace and the preservation are required.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The "native Muslim & Christian Palestinians" were Jews when they built Solomon's Temple.  Amazing what we can learn from the infinite wisdom of Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion(s) do you think they practiced? Many of the ancestors of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians practiced Judaism, some practiced other religions at the time of the building of the temple.  But not Christianity or Islam as the religions were not established at the time.
> 
> You still haven't figured out that the original Christians previously practiced Judaism.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Monte.  You are a blast.  Okay so now I get it.  The Palestinian Christians & Muslims living in Israel were the indigenous Jews who built Solomon's Temple.  Heh Heh!
Click to expand...


The ancestors of the current Palestinians practiced other religions before Christianity and Islam came into being.  Many, if not most practiced Judaism before they converted to Christianity.  Where do you think the first Christians came from you idiot.


----------



## Phoenall

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The "native Muslim & Christian Palestinians" were Jews when they built Solomon's Temple.  Amazing what we can learn from the infinite wisdom of Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion(s) do you think they practiced? Many of the ancestors of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians practiced Judaism, some practiced other religions at the time of the building of the temple.  But not Christianity or Islam as the religions were not established at the time.
> 
> You still haven't figured out that the original Christians previously practiced Judaism.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Monte.  You are a blast.  Okay so now I get it.  The Palestinian Christians & Muslims living in Israel were the indigenous Jews who built Solomon's Temple.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the current Palestinians practiced other religions before Christianity and Islam came into being.  Many, if not most practiced Judaism before they converted to Christianity.  Where do you think the first Christians came from you idiot.
Click to expand...









 And according to you were systematically wiped out by invading hordes over the centuries until not one of the original Christian or muslim lineages was left intact. So how have they suddenly appeared, was it magic that created the lineage


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The "native Muslim & Christian Palestinians" were Jews when they built Solomon's Temple.  Amazing what we can learn from the infinite wisdom of Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion(s) do you think they practiced? Many of the ancestors of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians practiced Judaism, some practiced other religions at the time of the building of the temple.  But not Christianity or Islam as the religions were not established at the time.
> 
> You still haven't figured out that the original Christians previously practiced Judaism.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Monte.  You are a blast.  Okay so now I get it.  The Palestinian Christians & Muslims living in Israel were the indigenous Jews who built Solomon's Temple.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the current Palestinians practiced other religions before Christianity and Islam came into being.  Many, if not most practiced Judaism before they converted to Christianity.  Where do you think the first Christians came from you idiot.
Click to expand...


Oh Yeah!  Fadi's ancient great grandfather was a Jew who built Solomon's temple for his great grandson Fadi & his ilk to occupy in the21st century AD.


----------



## montelatici

Most of the ancestors of the current Palestinians practiced Judaism, Samaritanism or the the Roman state religions before Christianity was made the obligatory state religion of Rome.  So, naturally the ancestors of those that converted from Judaism to Christianity built the temple.  Why would you think otherwise?  Jesus Christ's and his disciples' ancestors practiced Judaism. Are you really that dense?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Most of the ancestors of the current Palestinians practiced Judaism, Samaritanism or the the Roman state religions before Christianity was made the obligatory state religion of Rome.  So, naturally the ancestors of those that converted from Judaism to Christianity built the temple.  Why would you think otherwise?  Jesus Christ's and his disciples' ancestors practiced Judaism. Are you really that dense?




Oh now I get it.  Modern day Palestinians under Arafat, PLO & Hamas killing Israeli's are really Jews .  Jews ethnic cleansing Jews in Israel. Don't that beat all?  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the ancestors of the current Palestinians practiced Judaism, Samaritanism or the the Roman state religions before Christianity was made the obligatory state religion of Rome.  So, naturally the ancestors of those that converted from Judaism to Christianity built the temple.  Why would you think otherwise?  Jesus Christ's and his disciples' ancestors practiced Judaism. Are you really that dense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  Modern day Palestinians under Arafat, PLO & Hamas killing Israeli's are really Jews .  Jews ethnic cleansing Jews in Israel. Don't that beat all?  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
Click to expand...


Many of the ancestors of modern day Palestinians practiced Judaism, of course. Where did you get the idea that this was not the case?  One is a Jew when one practices Judaism.  Once the people that practiced Judaism in Roman Palestine began worshipping Jesus Christ and the Gospel, they became Christians.  Is that so difficult to understand?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> A portion, if not a major portion of the ancestors of the native Muslim and Christian Palestinians built the temple. Not European ancestors of the Zionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The "native Muslim & Christian Palestinians" were Jews when they built Solomon's Temple.  Amazing what we can learn from the infinite wisdom of Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What religion(s) do you think they practiced? Many of the ancestors of the Muslim and Christian Palestinians practiced Judaism, some practiced other religions at the time of the building of the temple.  But not Christianity or Islam as the religions were not established at the time.
> 
> You still haven't figured out that the original Christians previously practiced Judaism.  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh Monte.  You are a blast.  Okay so now I get it.  The Palestinian Christians & Muslims living in Israel were the indigenous Jews who built Solomon's Temple.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the current Palestinians practiced other religions before Christianity and Islam came into being.  Many, if not most practiced Judaism before they converted to Christianity.  Where do you think the first Christians came from you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And according to you were systematically wiped out by invading hordes over the centuries until not one of the original Christian or muslim lineages was left intact. So how have they suddenly appeared, was it magic that created the lineage
Click to expand...

Many people have come and gone over the centuries. However, there is a core group of people who stayed and put down roots.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

Making the case for a two state solution.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


>



I too prefer a one state solution.  But Israel has done nothing to relocate the Palestinians back to their native homelands.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Making the case for a two state solution.


Palestinians have shifted their tactics. Israel is up a tree because they cannot bomb them.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too prefer a one state solution.  But Israel has done nothing to relocate the Palestinians back to their native homelands.
Click to expand...


The Jews should be sent back to where their grandparents and great grand parents came from, Europe. With the Palestinians in their native homeland, Palestine as a single state, we can forget of the huge error that colonizing Palestine with Europeans was.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The Jews should be sent back to where their grandparents and great grand parents came from, Europe. With the Palestinians in their native homeland, Palestine as a single state, we can forget of the huge error that colonizing Palestine with Europeans was.



How can you even pretend, when you are using this language, that your anti-Zionism isn't anti-semitism?  Any discussion about ethnic cleansing is, frankly, abhorrent.  When that ethnic cleansing is restricted to Jews, it is abhorrent and anti-semitic.  

If you believe that displacing people is the solution to the conflict, and you want to demonstrate that you are not anti-semitic, then you should be using language which does not include "the Jews".  For example:  All immigrants and their descendants who were not residents in 1922 must return to their country of origin.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I believe that you (your attitude) are an example of exactly why the Jewish State was needed.



montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Media removed to save Bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too prefer a one state solution.  But Israel has done nothing to relocate the Palestinians back to their native homelands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews should be sent back to where their grandparents and great grand parents came from, Europe. With the Palestinians in their native homeland, Palestine as a single state, we can forget of the huge error that colonizing Palestine with Europeans was.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Now I would like to see some positive contribution made by you to the discussion.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews should be sent back to where their grandparents and great grand parents came from, Europe. With the Palestinians in their native homeland, Palestine as a single state, we can forget of the huge error that colonizing Palestine with Europeans was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you even pretend, when you are using this language, that your anti-Zionism isn't anti-semitism?  Any discussion about ethnic cleansing is, frankly, abhorrent.  When that ethnic cleansing is restricted to Jews, it is abhorrent and anti-semitic.
> 
> If you believe that displacing people is the solution to the conflict, and you want to demonstrate that you are not anti-semitic, then you should be using language which does not include "the Jews".  For example:  All immigrants and their descendants who were not residents in 1922 must return to their country of origin.
Click to expand...


Besides the anti-Semitism implied in monte's statement, that plan is totally unrealistic and inhuman.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews should be sent back to where their grandparents and great grand parents came from, Europe. With the Palestinians in their native homeland, Palestine as a single state, we can forget of the huge error that colonizing Palestine with Europeans was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you even pretend, when you are using this language, that your anti-Zionism isn't anti-semitism?  Any discussion about ethnic cleansing is, frankly, abhorrent.  When that ethnic cleansing is restricted to Jews, it is abhorrent and anti-semitic.
> 
> If you believe that displacing people is the solution to the conflict, and you want to demonstrate that you are not anti-semitic, then you should be using language which does not include "the Jews".  For example:  All immigrants and their descendants who were not residents in 1922 must return to their country of origin.
Click to expand...


I feel I am entitled to replicate in kind to the racist lies of your racist friend MJB. But since probably 99% of the immigrants to Palestine/Israel since 1992 to date are Jews (nearly 90% were Jews from 1922 to 1946), the use of the term is accurate.






Survey of Palestine Vol. 2

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I believe that you (your attitude) are an example of exactly why the Jewish State was needed.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Media removed to save Bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too prefer a one state solution.  But Israel has done nothing to relocate the Palestinians back to their native homelands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jews should be sent back to where their grandparents and great grand parents came from, Europe. With the Palestinians in their native homeland, Palestine as a single state, we can forget of the huge error that colonizing Palestine with Europeans was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Now I would like to see some positive contribution made by you to the discussion.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Proposing that invaders leave territory that they have invaded is positive, however, unrealistic.


----------



## montelatici

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews should be sent back to where their grandparents and great grand parents came from, Europe. With the Palestinians in their native homeland, Palestine as a single state, we can forget of the huge error that colonizing Palestine with Europeans was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you even pretend, when you are using this language, that your anti-Zionism isn't anti-semitism?  Any discussion about ethnic cleansing is, frankly, abhorrent.  When that ethnic cleansing is restricted to Jews, it is abhorrent and anti-semitic.
> 
> If you believe that displacing people is the solution to the conflict, and you want to demonstrate that you are not anti-semitic, then you should be using language which does not include "the Jews".  For example:  All immigrants and their descendants who were not residents in 1922 must return to their country of origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Besides the anti-Semitism implied in monte's statement, that plan is totally unrealistic and inhuman.
Click to expand...


There is nothing antisemitic about a desire for invaders to withdraw from the territory they have invaded, however unrealistic.  I think the Russians should withdraw from Crimea, that does not mean I am anti-Russian.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

You don't get any points for exaggerations.



montelatici said:


> Proposing that invaders leave territory that they have invaded is positive, however, unrealistic.


*(COMMENT)*

Pretending that the Israelis "invaded" is simply the fallacy to invoke emotion.  The claim of "invasion" by the Jewish people is about as fraudulent as a three-dollar bill.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> You don't get any points for exaggerations.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proposing that invaders leave territory that they have invaded is positive, however, unrealistic.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Pretending that the Israelis "invaded" is simply the fallacy to invoke emotion.  The claim of "invasion" by the Jewish people is about as fraudulent as a three-dollar bill.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


People from one place travel (through the good offices an imperial colonial power militarily occupying said territory)  to a territory (on a different continent) with the stated intention of colonizing said territory to rule, as a separate people, over the existing native inhabitants of this territory on another continent. 

What is that called?


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> There is nothing antisemitic about a desire for invaders to withdraw from the territory they have invaded, however unrealistic.  I think the Russians should withdraw from Crimea, that does not mean I am anti-Russian.



Then it is easy enough to stop using that language.  Just say "all immigrants to Palestine" must withdraw from the territory they immigrated to.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> People from one place travel ... to a territory ... with the stated intention of colonizing said territory to rule, as a separate people ....
> 
> What is that called?



Right of return.  Immigration.  Migration.  Self-determination.  Nationalism.  Any of those would work.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...



montelatici said:


> What is that called?


*(ANSWER)*

_*Immigration*_!   Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.

 Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is that called?
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> _*Immigration*_!   Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Jews imported by the Zionist colonial project were not immigrants.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is that called?
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> _*Immigration*_!   Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The land was held in trust by the Allies for the inhabitants as stated clearly by the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Mandatory had no title or rights to the territory beyond protecting the rights of the inhabitants.   It's called tutelage or "the act of guarding, protecting, or guiding; office or function of a guardian; guardianship". 

It was an invasion and subsequent colonization at the expense of the native inhabitants who were to be protected.  Supporting and facilitaing an invasion and colonization did not protect the rights of the inhabitants.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is that called?
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> _*Immigration*_!   Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The land was held in trust by the Allies for the inhabitants as stated clearly by the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Mandatory had no title or rights to the territory beyond protecting the rights of the inhabitants.   It's called tutelage or "the act of guarding, protecting, or guiding; office or function of a guardian; guardianship".
> 
> It was an invasion and subsequent colonization at the expense of the native inhabitants who were to be protected.  Supporting and facilitaing an invasion and colonization did not protect the rights of the inhabitants.
Click to expand...



Except that the Jewish people were also inhabitants. With every one of the rights to self-determinations DJ self-government that the Arabs had (actually legally more right). And the Mandatory was required to protect those rights. Including the right to settlement on the land. 

Any expense incurred to the Arab population was a direct result of Arab use of violence and acts of military force to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their rights and to prevent the Mandatory from exercising her obligations. 

The Arabs in Israel are doing very well. Thriving even.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is that called?
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> _*Immigration*_!   Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jews imported by the Zionist colonial project were not immigrants.
Click to expand...


Don't be ridiculous. Of course they were immigrants. You are trying to say that there is a difference between the two men who bought neighbouring farmland in the 1930s. There isn't any. They were both immigrants. And there for similar reasons.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is that called?
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> _*Immigration*_!   Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The land was held in trust by the Allies for the inhabitants as stated clearly by the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Mandatory had no title or rights to the territory beyond protecting the rights of the inhabitants.   It's called tutelage or "the act of guarding, protecting, or guiding; office or function of a guardian; guardianship".
> 
> It was an invasion and subsequent colonization at the expense of the native inhabitants who were to be protected.  Supporting and facilitaing an invasion and colonization did not protect the rights of the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the Jewish people were also inhabitants. With every one of the rights to self-determinations DJ self-government that the Arabs had (actually legally more right). And the Mandatory was required to protect those rights. Including the right to settlement on the land.
> 
> Any expense incurred to the Arab population was a direct result of Arab use of violence and acts of military force to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their rights and to prevent the Mandatory from exercising her obligations.
> 
> The Arabs in Israel are doing very well. Thriving even.
Click to expand...



The Jewish people that came from Europe were not inhabitants.  After decades of invasion, the Jews that inhabited Palestine numbered less that 10% of the population in 1922.  The obligation of the Mandatory was to protect the inhabitants.  The Mandatory did not protect 90% of them. In fact, it participated in the colonization of the territory by non-inhabitants at the expense of 90% of the inhabitants.  The native inhabitants were absolutely correct in attacking the people intent on expropriating them.  In fact, had they been more forceful they might have succeeded in repelling the invasion.  They had too many within their ranks that believed the British who promised to protect the religious and civil rights of the native people.  Big mistake.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> The Jewish people that came from Europe were not inhabitants.



Sure, the inhabitants were the inhabitants.  If your criteria is only "inhabitants" (such as only those who were residents prior to 1922) should have been protected and brought under tutelage and given self-determination -- then you need to start using that language, instead of using "the Jews".  Its not hard.  Try it. Repeat after me:

_ALL people who immigrated after 1922 are foreign invaders and should be required to return to their country of origin.  _

Once you've mastered that simple concept, we can discuss whether or not minority populations should have rights or not.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is that called?
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> _*Immigration*_!   Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The land was held in trust by the Allies for the inhabitants as stated clearly by the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Mandatory had no title or rights to the territory beyond protecting the rights of the inhabitants.   It's called tutelage or "the act of guarding, protecting, or guiding; office or function of a guardian; guardianship".
> 
> It was an invasion and subsequent colonization at the expense of the native inhabitants who were to be protected.  Supporting and facilitaing an invasion and colonization did not protect the rights of the inhabitants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the Jewish people were also inhabitants. With every one of the rights to self-determinations DJ self-government that the Arabs had (actually legally more right). And the Mandatory was required to protect those rights. Including the right to settlement on the land.
> 
> Any expense incurred to the Arab population was a direct result of Arab use of violence and acts of military force to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their rights and to prevent the Mandatory from exercising her obligations.
> 
> The Arabs in Israel are doing very well. Thriving even.
Click to expand...


Is anyone aware of even a single Palestinian/Israeli citizen who wants to leave Israel to go live in some Arab country?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

Do you enough cheese and bread to go with that whine?



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm so happy to have the opportunity to answer this critical question...
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is that called?
> 
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> _*Immigration*_!   Encouraged by the authority of the holder to Title and rights.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The land was held in trust by the Allies for the inhabitants as stated clearly by the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Mandatory had no title or rights to the territory beyond protecting the rights of the inhabitants.   It's called tutelage or "the act of guarding, protecting, or guiding; office or function of a guardian; guardianship".
> 
> It was an invasion and subsequent colonization at the expense of the native inhabitants who were to be protected.  Supporting and facilitaing an invasion and colonization did not protect the rights of the inhabitants.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Oh, yes... What a limited mind you have...

The members of the League and the Allied Powers (having the Title and Rights) decide what the intent of Article 22; they wrote it.  The Arab Palestinian has no claim under Article 22; they were not a party to the Covenant.  In 1947 the UN General Assembly, on the recommendation of the UN Special Committee on Palestine, decided that the outcome should be crafted in the form of Resolution 181 (II).  No matter what you might think about Resolution 181 (II), it clearly shows their intent on the matter.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

The League and the Allied Powers did not have title or rights to the territories of the former Turkish empire.  The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations. Mandates did not imply title or any claim to the territory by the Mandatory as clearly stated in the Covenant.  The Mandatory was required to hold the land in trust for the inhabitants who alone held title.  As the ICJ confirmed, Palestine was one of the Class A mandates which was granted provisional sovereignty by the Covenant. Note the word "entrusted" below in the ICJ decision. So, please stop your bullshitting once and for all. You are ignorant of the facts, blowhard.

 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Summary Not an official document Summary 2004/2 9 July 2004 

"To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class “A” mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. "

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici, et al,

I am well aware of the ICJ Opinion.  This is relative to the Barrier and the disputed difference between the location of the wall and some locations of the Armistice line which was dissolved by the Treaty with Jordan.



montelatici said:


> The League and the Allied Powers did not have title or rights to the territories of the former Turkish empire.  The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations. Mandates did not imply title or any claim to the territory by the Mandatory as clearly stated in the Covenant.  The Mandatory was required to hold the land in trust for the inhabitants who alone held title.  As the ICJ confirmed, Palestine was one of the Class A mandates which was granted provisional sovereignty by the Covenant. Note the word "entrusted" below in the ICJ decision. So, please stop your bullshitting once and for all. You are ignorant of the facts, blowhard.
> 
> INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Summary Not an official document Summary 2004/2 9 July 2004
> 
> "To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class “A” mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. "
> 
> http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf





			
				Article 16 Treaty of Laussane said:
			
		

> Turkey hereby renounces *all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories* situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands *being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.



Nothing in the LoN Covenant gives anything, or obligates in any way, territory to the Arab Palestinians.  Nothing compares to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne until you get to the *Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994*, wherein the



			
				Article XII - 1949 Armistice between Israel and Jordan said:
			
		

> 1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.
> 
> 2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, *shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved*, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.



*Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994*









​v/r
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I am well aware of the ICJ Opinion.  This is relative to the Barrier and the disputed difference between the location of the wall and some locations of the Armistice line which was dissolved by the Treaty with Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The League and the Allied Powers did not have title or rights to the territories of the former Turkish empire.  The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations. Mandates did not imply title or any claim to the territory by the Mandatory as clearly stated in the Covenant.  The Mandatory was required to hold the land in trust for the inhabitants who alone held title.  As the ICJ confirmed, Palestine was one of the Class A mandates which was granted provisional sovereignty by the Covenant. Note the word "entrusted" below in the ICJ decision. So, please stop your bullshitting once and for all. You are ignorant of the facts, blowhard.
> 
> INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Summary Not an official document Summary 2004/2 9 July 2004
> 
> "To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class “A” mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. "
> 
> http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 Treaty of Laussane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces *all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories* situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands *being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in the LoN Covenant gives anything, or obligates in any way, territory to the Arab Palestinians.  Nothing compares to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne until you get to the *Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994*, wherein the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article XII - 1949 Armistice between Israel and Jordan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.
> 
> 2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, *shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved*, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994*
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 107479
> View attachment 107480​v/r
> R
Click to expand...


Stop your bullshitting.  Article 22 of the Covenant is clear as to what is to be done with the inhabitants former Turkish territories. The Jews were in Europe and were not inhabitants. 

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

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

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I am well aware of the ICJ Opinion.  This is relative to the Barrier and the disputed difference between the location of the wall and some locations of the Armistice line which was dissolved by the Treaty with Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The League and the Allied Powers did not have title or rights to the territories of the former Turkish empire.  The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations. Mandates did not imply title or any claim to the territory by the Mandatory as clearly stated in the Covenant.  The Mandatory was required to hold the land in trust for the inhabitants who alone held title.  As the ICJ confirmed, Palestine was one of the Class A mandates which was granted provisional sovereignty by the Covenant. Note the word "entrusted" below in the ICJ decision. So, please stop your bullshitting once and for all. You are ignorant of the facts, blowhard.
> 
> INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Summary Not an official document Summary 2004/2 9 July 2004
> 
> "To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class “A” mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. "
> 
> http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 Treaty of Laussane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces *all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories* situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands *being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in the LoN Covenant gives anything, or obligates in any way, territory to the Arab Palestinians.  Nothing compares to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne until you get to the *Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994*, wherein the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article XII - 1949 Armistice between Israel and Jordan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.
> 
> 2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, *shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved*, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994*
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 107479
> View attachment 107480​v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop your bullshitting.  Article 22 of the Covenant is clear as to what is to be done with the inhabitants former Turkish territories. The Jews were in Europe and were not inhabitants.
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be* applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples* form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
Click to expand...


What an embarrassing admission on your part. Nothing in the above in an any way supports the comments in your earlier cut and paste that whined:
"The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations"



You just make up this nonsense, oblivious to the fact that you stumble over your own attempt at argument.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I am well aware of the ICJ Opinion.  This is relative to the Barrier and the disputed difference between the location of the wall and some locations of the Armistice line which was dissolved by the Treaty with Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The League and the Allied Powers did not have title or rights to the territories of the former Turkish empire.  The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations. Mandates did not imply title or any claim to the territory by the Mandatory as clearly stated in the Covenant.  The Mandatory was required to hold the land in trust for the inhabitants who alone held title.  As the ICJ confirmed, Palestine was one of the Class A mandates which was granted provisional sovereignty by the Covenant. Note the word "entrusted" below in the ICJ decision. So, please stop your bullshitting once and for all. You are ignorant of the facts, blowhard.
> 
> INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Summary Not an official document Summary 2004/2 9 July 2004
> 
> "To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class “A” mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. "
> 
> http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 Treaty of Laussane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces *all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories* situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands *being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in the LoN Covenant gives anything, or obligates in any way, territory to the Arab Palestinians.  Nothing compares to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne until you get to the *Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994*, wherein the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article XII - 1949 Armistice between Israel and Jordan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.
> 
> 2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, *shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved*, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994*
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 107479
> View attachment 107480​v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop your bullshitting.  Article 22 of the Covenant is clear as to what is to be done with the inhabitants former Turkish territories. The Jews were in Europe and were not inhabitants.
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be* applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples* form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an embarrassing admission on your part. Nothing in the above in an any way supports the comments in your earlier cut and paste that whined:
> "The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations"
> 
> 
> 
> You just make up this nonsense, oblivious to the fact that you stumble over your own attempt at argument.
Click to expand...


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici, et al,
> 
> I am well aware of the ICJ Opinion.  This is relative to the Barrier and the disputed difference between the location of the wall and some locations of the Armistice line which was dissolved by the Treaty with Jordan.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The League and the Allied Powers did not have title or rights to the territories of the former Turkish empire.  The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations. Mandates did not imply title or any claim to the territory by the Mandatory as clearly stated in the Covenant.  The Mandatory was required to hold the land in trust for the inhabitants who alone held title.  As the ICJ confirmed, Palestine was one of the Class A mandates which was granted provisional sovereignty by the Covenant. Note the word "entrusted" below in the ICJ decision. So, please stop your bullshitting once and for all. You are ignorant of the facts, blowhard.
> 
> INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Summary Not an official document Summary 2004/2 9 July 2004
> 
> "To this end, it first makes a brief historical analysis of the status of the territory concerned since the time that Palestine, having been part of the Ottoman Empire, was, at the end of the First World War, the subject of a class “A” mandate entrusted by the League of Nations to Great Britain. "
> 
> http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 Treaty of Laussane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces *all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories* situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands *being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.*
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing in the LoN Covenant gives anything, or obligates in any way, territory to the Arab Palestinians.  Nothing compares to Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne until you get to the *Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994*, wherein the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article XII - 1949 Armistice between Israel and Jordan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The present Agreement is not subject to ratification and shall come into force immediately upon being signed.
> 
> 2. This Agreement, having been negotiated and concluded in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council of 16 November 1948 calling for the establishment of an armistice in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, *shall remain in force until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved*, except as provided in paragraph 3 of this article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994*
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 107479
> View attachment 107480​v/r
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop your bullshitting.  Article 22 of the Covenant is clear as to what is to be done with the inhabitants former Turkish territories. The Jews were in Europe and were not inhabitants.
> 
> *"ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be* applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples* form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What an embarrassing admission on your part. Nothing in the above in an any way supports the comments in your earlier cut and paste that whined:
> "The Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine had exclusive claim over the territories as the inhabitants of said territories as per the Covenant of the League of Nations"
> 
> 
> 
> You just make up this nonsense, oblivious to the fact that you stumble over your own attempt at argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the guy for keeping us laughing while those he supports are killing Christians & Jews all over the world.
Click to expand...


You are laughing about the killing of Christians and Jews? What's the matter with you?  And why are you claiming that a Christian, such as myself, who despises Islam would support the killing of Christians?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Well, that is your interpretation; not the correct interpretation.



montelatici said:


> You are laughing about the killing of Christians and Jews? What's the matter with you?  And why are you claiming that a Christian, such as myself, who despises Islam would support the killing of Christians?


*(COMMENT)*

There are many things about the Arab Palestinian that are comedic and draw laughter.  One of which is that the self-proclaimed Arab Palestinian Jihadists and the Radical Islamic Resistance try to present themselves as some sort of heroic militant rather than the state population that supports Asymmetric Violence. 

As long as the various Palestinian Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters, insist on putting their general population at a disadvantage, and as long as they condemn their population to poverty and the drawbacks associated with their continuation of hostilities, so will it be their fault (a self-inflicted wound) for the lack of positive development.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

So, what would heroic and patriotic resistance to military occupation be, Rocco.  Do you think that they should passively accept military occupation?


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Oh, you act like this has not been discussed.



montelatici said:


> So, what would heroic and patriotic resistance to military occupation be, Rocco.  Do you think that they should passively accept military occupation?


*(COMMENT)*

•  Chapter I, Article 1(1), UN Charter:  To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

•  A/RES/25/2625  Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States Paragraph 1 ---  Solemnly proclaims the following principles:  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

•  Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip --- ARTICLE XXI  Settlement of Differences and Disputes:  Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim period shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.

3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
How about just doing the very practical; that which was established even before Israel was declared independent.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> So, what would heroic and patriotic resistance to military occupation be, Rocco.  Do you think that they should passively accept military occupation?



If by 'end the occupation' you mean that Israel continues to exist on some part of the territory, YES, yes, they should passively accept that.  Israel is not going away and the sooner that is accepted the better for everyone.  

If by 'end the occupation' you mean end the blockade of Gaza, YES, yes, they should passively accept that.  The blockade is a response to violence and will continue as long as there is violence.  The best (and by 'best' I mean only) way to get rid of the blockade is to stop attacking Israel.

If by 'end the occupation' you mean defining a territory and creating a border between two States and signing a peace treaty, YES, yes, they should passively accept that.  That will give them the self-determination they say they want.  

If by 'end the occupation' you mean the end of any two State solution and Israel takes over the entire territory; YES, yes, they should passively accept that.  Israel is not going to incorporate a hostile population intent on random and not random violence into its State.  

If by 'end the occupation' you mean ethnically cleansing Arab Muslim Palestine, YES, yes they should passively accept that.  And be damned grateful that the world is against the Jewish people enough to actually suggest such an atrocity, let alone make UN resolutions in favor of it, let alone carry it out.  

In other words, all of this senseless, random, low-level, terrorism is getting the Palestinians exactly no where.  If they want a one State solution "resistance" prevents that.  If they want a two State solution resistance prevents that.  If they want to end the blockade resistance prevents that.  If they want to destroy Israel resistance is pointless and ultimately harms Palestinians FAR more than it harms Israel.  If they want a Judenrein State, resistance is unnecessary because the international community already supports that (to their abject shame).

In fact, the only benefit to this kind of low-level terrorism is to make the Muslim Palestinians feel like they are being good little Allah warriors by killing Jews.


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Oh, you act like this has not been discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what would heroic and patriotic resistance to military occupation be, Rocco.  Do you think that they should passively accept military occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  Chapter I, Article 1(1), UN Charter:  To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
> 
> •  A/RES/25/2625  Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States Paragraph 1 ---  Solemnly proclaims the following principles:  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> •  Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip --- ARTICLE XXI  Settlement of Differences and Disputes:  Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:
> 
> 1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim period shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.
> 
> 2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.
> 
> 3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
> How about just doing the very practical; that which was established even before Israel was declared independent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


So you both believe it would have been reasonable (and practical) in 1947 for the Palestinians to have abandoned a third of their population, the Christians and Muslims left in the Jewish partition, which with the Bedouin formed a majority population, within the part of Palestine given to the Jews.  You believe they should have agreed that their fellow Palestinians would never achieve self-determination and would be ruled by Jews forever.

Do you think any people would have passively accepted such a thing?

You may say, well look what resisting got them.  Well, people resist injustice, that's the way people are. 

I don't think you two have a clue as to the injustice done to the Muslims and Christians by the UN.  The UN which states:

"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;"

Instead the UN's action insured decades of conflict. The UN was quite cognizant that their action resulted in an injustice to the native people of Palestine.  That's why Palestinian refugees have a special status.  It was guilt.

As for now, Israel has never agreed to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state and the leadership has stated that there will never be one, so resistance is the only course of action for the Palestinians.  They have to make Israel occupation as costly and untenable as possible.  The only hope they have is that pressure from the rest of the world will succeed in forcing Israel to accept a sovereign Palestinian state, i.e. not a fake state with Israeli forces occupying the area, as was proposed before.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> So, what would heroic and patriotic resistance to military occupation be, Rocco.  Do you think that they should passively accept military occupation?


It's truly a pathology that causes you to flail your Pom Poms for Islamic terrorists. The Hamas charter is hardly a document that suggests heroism or patriotism. 

But then, your heroes share a consistent theme: Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment


----------



## P F Tinmore

montelatici said:


> and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,


The Zionist's settler colonial project was the initial act of aggression that started this whole mess.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionist's settler colonial project was the initial act of aggression that started this whole mess.
Click to expand...

Your use of silly slogans and clichés is a hoot.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Oh, you act like this has not been discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what would heroic and patriotic resistance to military occupation be, Rocco.  Do you think that they should passively accept military occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  Chapter I, Article 1(1), UN Charter:  To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
> 
> •  A/RES/25/2625  Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States Paragraph 1 ---  Solemnly proclaims the following principles:  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> •  Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip --- ARTICLE XXI  Settlement of Differences and Disputes:  Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:
> 
> 1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim period shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.
> 
> 2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.
> 
> 3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​
> How about just doing the very practical; that which was established even before Israel was declared independent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Israel is going to eat up all of Palestine no matter what they do. That has been the goal for a hundred years.

While you suggest a bunch of crap that won't work.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace,
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionist's settler colonial project was the initial act of aggression that started this whole mess.
Click to expand...



Black November.  Don't you just love the British?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is an over exaggeration in itself.  I'm not sure you can predict today, what Israel will do tomorrow; because I'm  not sure if the Israelis know themselves what the ultimate the current undertakings will lead them.

Don't jump to conclusions.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Oh, you act like this has not been discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what would heroic and patriotic resistance to military occupation be, Rocco.  Do you think that they should passively accept military occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  Chapter I, Article 1(1), UN Charter:  To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
> 
> •  A/RES/25/2625  Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States Paragraph 1 ---  Solemnly proclaims the following principles:  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> •  Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip --- ARTICLE XXI  Settlement of Differences and Disputes:  Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:
> 
> 1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim period shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.
> 
> 2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.
> 
> 3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​How about just doing the very practical; that which was established even before Israel was declared independent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is going to eat up all of Palestine no matter what they do. That has been the goal for a hundred years.
> While you suggest a bunch of crap that won't work.
Click to expand...

*(INTERIM ANSWERS)*

Why will it not work?

∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have too many demands that if conceded would put Israeli Sovereignty at risk?
∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have a dysfunctional government that cannot compromise?
∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have a level of corruption that thrives on the conflict and profits from the continuation?
∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have produced an unskilled labor force, several generations deep, and do not know anything but how to be a Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters?
∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have glorified the campaign against Israel so much, that they see violence as a popular and respectable service to the community?​*(COMMENT)*

There are many that simply benefit more from the continuation of the struggle --- than they do by coming together in a common cause of rebuilding their nation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is an over exaggeration in itself.  I'm not sure you can predict today, what Israel will do tomorrow; because I'm  not sure if the Israelis know themselves what the ultimate the current undertakings will lead them.
> 
> Don't jump to conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Oh, you act like this has not been discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what would heroic and patriotic resistance to military occupation be, Rocco.  Do you think that they should passively accept military occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  Chapter I, Article 1(1), UN Charter:  To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
> 
> •  A/RES/25/2625  Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States Paragraph 1 ---  Solemnly proclaims the following principles:  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> •  Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip --- ARTICLE XXI  Settlement of Differences and Disputes:  Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:
> 
> 1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim period shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.
> 
> 2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.
> 
> 3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​How about just doing the very practical; that which was established even before Israel was declared independent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is going to eat up all of Palestine no matter what they do. That has been the goal for a hundred years.
> While you suggest a bunch of crap that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(INTERIM ANSWERS)*
> 
> Why will it not work?
> 
> ∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have too many demands that if conceded would put Israeli Sovereignty at risk?
> ∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have a dysfunctional government that cannot compromise?
> ∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have a level of corruption that thrives on the conflict and profits from the continuation?
> ∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have produced an unskilled labor force, several generations deep, and do not know anything but how to be a Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters?
> ∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have glorified the campaign against Israel so much, that they see violence as a popular and respectable service to the community?​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are many that simply benefit more from the continuation of the struggle --- than they do by coming together in a common cause of rebuilding their nation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Who writes your shit, Rocco?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> ​Who writes your shit, Rocco?



Translation:  I have no reasonable counter-argument to your post.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​Who writes your shit, Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  I have no reasonable counter-argument to your post.
Click to expand...


Documented facts just don't bode well with Tinmore & his ilk.  But they sure are fun to play with.


----------



## montelatici

The documented fact is that European Zionists invaded a territory inhabited by Muslims and Christians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​Who writes your shit, Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  I have no reasonable counter-argument to your post.
Click to expand...

A hit piece does not warrant a detailed response.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The documented fact is that European Zionists invaded a territory inhabited by Muslims and Christians.


Your supposed documented facts are a farce. Provide the specific data for the imagined invasion you claim has occurred. 

Obviously you can't. That makes your blustering claims nothing more than so much noise.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​Who writes your shit, Rocco?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  I have no reasonable counter-argument to your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A hit piece does not warrant a detailed response.
Click to expand...


_Nice dodge_


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> The documented fact is that European Zionists invaded a territory inhabited by Muslims and Christians.



There were no indigenous Muslim Palestinians.  There were however Jews as indigenous Palestinians.


----------



## montelatici

Of course the Muslims and Christian Palestinians were indigenous.  There were no indigenous Jews, all indigenous people were required to convert to Christianity in 308 AD, and non-Christians were forbidden from entering Palestine from that date until the Muslim conquest.


----------



## Shusha

See, the indigenous people who didn't convert to Christianity and then to Islam stopped being indigenous.  If you maintained your culture and language and religious faith and life celebrations and rituals and legal codes and myths and histories and stories and cultural heritage then you stop being indigenous.  Just like the First Nations peoples of the Americas who failed to convert to Christianity can no longer be considered indigenous.


----------



## montelatici

The European Christian converts to Judaism (Zionists) were indigenous to Europe. Conversion to a religion does not change one's ancestors.


----------



## Shusha

Migration doesn't change your ancestry.


----------



## montelatici

European are Europeans they are not indigenous to the Middle East.  The Zionists were Europeans.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Of course the Muslims and Christian Palestinians were indigenous.  There were no indigenous Jews, all indigenous people were required to convert to Christianity in 308 AD, and non-Christians were forbidden from entering Palestine from that date until the Muslim conquest.



Once again, must have been those Christians & Muslims who built Solomon's Temple.  Heh Heh!


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> European are Europeans they are not indigenous to the Middle East.  The Zionists were Europeans.


It's truly comical to read your befuddled commentaries on indigenous people. How did the invading Christians from Europe magically transform into indigenous people?


----------



## Shusha

I swear monte actually doesn't realize how he contradicts his own arguments.


----------



## Challenger

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is an over exaggeration in itself.  I'm not sure you can predict today, what Israel will do tomorrow; because I'm  not sure if the Israelis know themselves what the ultimate the current undertakings will lead them.
> 
> Don't jump to conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Oh, you act like this has not been discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what would heroic and patriotic resistance to military occupation be, Rocco.  Do you think that they should passively accept military occupation?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  Chapter I, Article 1(1), UN Charter:  To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
> 
> •  A/RES/25/2625  Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States Paragraph 1 ---  Solemnly proclaims the following principles:  Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
> 
> •  Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip --- ARTICLE XXI  Settlement of Differences and Disputes:  Any difference relating to the application of this Agreement shall be referred to the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism established under this Agreement. The provisions of Article XV of the DOP shall apply to any such difference which is not settled through the appropriate coordination and cooperation mechanism, namely:
> 
> 1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Agreement or any related agreements pertaining to the interim period shall be settled through the Liaison Committee.
> 
> 2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be settled by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed between the Parties.
> 
> 3. The Parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both Parties, the Parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​How about just doing the very practical; that which was established even before Israel was declared independent.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is going to eat up all of Palestine no matter what they do. That has been the goal for a hundred years.
> While you suggest a bunch of crap that won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(INTERIM ANSWERS)*
> 
> Why will it not work?
> 
> ∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have too many demands that if conceded would put Israeli Sovereignty at risk?
> ∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have a dysfunctional government that cannot compromise?
> ∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have a level of corruption that thrives on the conflict and profits from the continuation?
> ∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have produced an unskilled labor force, several generations deep, and do not know anything but how to be a Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters?
> ∆∆  RHETORICAL ANSWER:  Is it because the Arab Palestinians have glorified the campaign against Israel so much, that they see violence as a popular and respectable service to the community?​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are many that simply benefit more from the continuation of the struggle --- than they do by coming together in a common cause of rebuilding their nation.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who writes your shit, Rocco?
Click to expand...


PUI?


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Migration doesn't change your ancestry.



Correct! Jewish Europeans remain Europeans. The indigenous people of Palestine remain indigenous, regardless of what religion they adopt and that includes Judaism.


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Migration doesn't change your ancestry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct! Jewish Europeans remain Europeans. The indigenous people of Palestine remain indigenous, regardless of what religion they adopt and that includes Judaism.
Click to expand...


The Jewish people who migrated to Europe remained Jewish (witness the retention of Jewish culture).  The Arab people who migrated to "Palestine" remained Arab (witness their Arab culture). And Palestinian people who migrate to Chile remain Palestinians.  All migrating peoples mix with locals.  All of this is self-evident.  

But the definition of_ indigenous _remains:  a pre-invasion culture originating on a specific territory.  A migrating Arab culture does not meet this definition no matter how badly you twist it. The purpose of identifying indigenous cultures is to preserve the pre-invasion peoples and cultures from being overtaken by invading and migrating cultures.  

But none of this is important in resolving the conflict.  (In fact, this thinking is what keeps the conflict alive in the Palestinian people.)  Its been a hundred years -- neither the Jewish people nor the Palestinian people are going to just go away at this point.  And removing either from group from this land would be ethnic cleansing which is both legally and morally wrong.


----------



## montelatici

The Palestinians are the indigenous people, that they adopted the religion, language and culture of the new rulers who were Arabians does not change their ancestry.  That people indigenous to Morocco, Sudan, Algeria Syria etc. are called Arab, does not make them Arabians from the Arabian Peninsula.  The only exception would be the Bedouins, who are in fact Arabians.

On the other hand, European Jews are Europeans.  Their ancestors, especially their female ancestors are almost exclusively from Europe. 

"The finding establishes that the women who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Europe were not from the Near East, as previously supposed......."

Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> The Palestinians are the indigenous people, that they adopted the religion, language and culture of the new rulers who were Arabians does not change their ancestry.  That people indigenous to Morocco, Sudan, Algeria Syria etc. are called Arab, does not make them Arabians from the Arabian Peninsula.  The only exception would be the Bedouins, who are in fact Arabians.
> 
> On the other hand, European Jews are Europeans.  Their ancestors, especially their female ancestors are almost exclusively from Europe.
> 
> "The finding establishes that the women who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Europe were not from the Near East, as previously supposed......."
> 
> Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree





montelatici said:


> The Palestinians are the indigenous people, that they adopted the religion, language and culture of the new rulers who were Arabians does not change their ancestry.  That people indigenous to Morocco, Sudan, Algeria Syria etc. are called Arab, does not make them Arabians from the Arabian Peninsula.  The only exception would be the Bedouins, who are in fact Arabians.
> 
> On the other hand, European Jews are Europeans.  Their ancestors, especially their female ancestors are almost exclusively from Europe.
> 
> "The finding establishes that the women who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Europe were not from the Near East, as previously supposed......."
> 
> Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree




Well then, was it those "European Jews" who build Solomon's Temple???


----------



## montelatici

The Europeans that converted to Judaism built nothing in Palestine. You still haven't figured out that the few Palestinians that had not already converted to Christianity by 380 AD, subsequently converted to Christianity to be able to remain residents of Palestine.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The Palestinians are the indigenous people, that they adopted the religion, language and culture of the new rulers who were Arabians does not change their ancestry.  That people indigenous to Morocco, Sudan, Algeria Syria etc. are called Arab, does not make them Arabians from the Arabian Peninsula.  The only exception would be the Bedouins, who are in fact Arabians.
> 
> On the other hand, European Jews are Europeans.  Their ancestors, especially their female ancestors are almost exclusively from Europe.
> 
> "The finding establishes that the women who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Europe were not from the Near East, as previously supposed......."
> 
> Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree


Well isn't that interesting. Odd how the Crusading Christian invaders from Europe magically became indigenous Arabs. 

Welcome to Monty's world.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> The Jewish people who migrated to Europe remained Jewish (witness the retention of Jewish culture).



People from Judea may well have taken their religion to Europe, but overwhelmingly most Jewish Europeans are the decendants of converts; without Judaism, there is no specifically ethnic Jewish culture.



Shusha said:


> The Arab people who migrated to "Palestine" remained Arab (witness their Arab culture).



There is no evidence of significant post invasion Arab migration to Palestine; most recorded migration out of Arabia went to what is now Iraq. The population of Palestine were either minority Pagan or Jewish, with a Christian majority in the 7th century, over the succeeding centuries this population adopted Arabic as their language and Islam as their religion. 



Shusha said:


> And removing either from group from this land would be ethnic cleansing which is both legally and morally wrong.


Crocodile tears...pity the Zionist colonists paid scant attention to morals and the law when they ethnically cleansed the indigenous Palestinians to create their Zionist paradise in 1947-48


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Muslims and Christian Palestinians were indigenous.  There were no indigenous Jews, all indigenous people were required to convert to Christianity in 308 AD, and non-Christians were forbidden from entering Palestine from that date until the Muslim conquest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, must have been those Christians & Muslims who built Solomon's Temple.  Heh Heh!
Click to expand...


Oh dear, there's a few years between 832BCE and 308CE, a lot can change in 1000 years.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people who migrated to Europe remained Jewish (witness the retention of Jewish culture).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People from Judea may well have taken their religion to Europe, but overwhelmingly most Jewish Europeans are the decendants of converts; without Judaism, there is no specifically ethnic Jewish culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab people who migrated to "Palestine" remained Arab (witness their Arab culture).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of significant post invasion Arab migration to Palestine; most recorded migration out of Arabia went to what is now Iraq. The population of Palestine were either minority Pagan or Jewish, with a Christian majority in the 7th century, over the succeeding centuries this population adopted Arabic as their language and Islam as their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And removing either from group from this land would be ethnic cleansing which is both legally and morally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crocodile tears...pity the Zionist colonists paid scant attention to morals and the law when they ethnically cleansed the indigenous Palestinians to create their Zionist paradise in 1947-48
Click to expand...


OMG!  Please tell us more about this "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians.  Thank you.  Heh Heh.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people who migrated to Europe remained Jewish (witness the retention of Jewish culture).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People from Judea may well have taken their religion to Europe, but overwhelmingly most Jewish Europeans are the decendants of converts; without Judaism, there is no specifically ethnic Jewish culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab people who migrated to "Palestine" remained Arab (witness their Arab culture).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of significant post invasion Arab migration to Palestine; most recorded migration out of Arabia went to what is now Iraq. The population of Palestine were either minority Pagan or Jewish, with a Christian majority in the 7th century, over the succeeding centuries this population adopted Arabic as their language and Islam as their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And removing either from group from this land would be ethnic cleansing which is both legally and morally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crocodile tears...pity the Zionist colonists paid scant attention to morals and the law when they ethnically cleansed the indigenous Palestinians to create their Zionist paradise in 1947-48
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  Please tell us more about this "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians.  Thank you.  Heh Heh.
Click to expand...

You don't want to know.


----------



## member

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are the indigenous people, that they adopted the religion, language and culture of the new rulers who were Arabians does not change their ancestry.  That people indigenous to Morocco, Sudan, Algeria Syria etc. are called Arab, does not make them Arabians from the Arabian Peninsula.  The only exception would be the Bedouins, who are in fact Arabians.
> 
> On the other hand, European Jews are Europeans.  Their ancestors, especially their female ancestors are almost exclusively from Europe.
> 
> "The finding establishes that the women who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community of Europe were not from the Near East, as previously supposed......."
> 
> Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree
> 
> 
> 
> Well isn't that interesting. Odd how the Crusading Christian invaders from Europe magically became indigenous Arabs.
> 
> Welcome to Monty's world.
Click to expand...



*"Welcome to Monty's world."* 










​






​



_israel_.....

​


----------



## montelatici

MJB never fails to demonstrate is inability to understand fairly simple concepts.  He, for example, believes that to be guilty of genocide, the perpetrator must be successful in completely eliminating and/or insure the reduction in growth of the target group. He probably believes that only ethnically cleansing 80%  of the non-Jews from what became Israel, is not ethnic cleansing. heh, heh. He's a real treat.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people who migrated to Europe remained Jewish (witness the retention of Jewish culture).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People from Judea may well have taken their religion to Europe, but overwhelmingly most Jewish Europeans are the decendants of converts; without Judaism, there is no specifically ethnic Jewish culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab people who migrated to "Palestine" remained Arab (witness their Arab culture).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of significant post invasion Arab migration to Palestine; most recorded migration out of Arabia went to what is now Iraq. The population of Palestine were either minority Pagan or Jewish, with a Christian majority in the 7th century, over the succeeding centuries this population adopted Arabic as their language and Islam as their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And removing either from group from this land would be ethnic cleansing which is both legally and morally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crocodile tears...pity the Zionist colonists paid scant attention to morals and the law when they ethnically cleansed the indigenous Palestinians to create their Zionist paradise in 1947-48
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  Please tell us more about this "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians.  Thank you.  Heh Heh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't want to know.
Click to expand...


Indeed I do.  I could never support a people who commit ethnic cleansing like the Arab countries did to Christians & Jews.  Could  you?

As to Israel & the Palestinians regarding "ethnic cleansing, let us all consider the documented facts.  Okay by you?  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are only around just 6 million of them left.  It's a GENOCIDE I tell ya.  A GENOCIDE!  Pass it on.

Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org


----------



## member

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people who migrated to Europe remained Jewish (witness the retention of Jewish culture).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People from Judea may well have taken their religion to Europe, but overwhelmingly most Jewish Europeans are the decendants of converts; without Judaism, there is no specifically ethnic Jewish culture.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab people who migrated to "Palestine" remained Arab (witness their Arab culture).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no evidence of significant post invasion Arab migration to Palestine; most recorded migration out of Arabia went to what is now Iraq. The population of Palestine were either minority Pagan or Jewish, with a Christian majority in the 7th century, over the succeeding centuries this population adopted Arabic as their language and Islam as their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And removing either from group from this land would be ethnic cleansing which is both legally and morally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crocodile tears...pity the Zionist colonists paid scant attention to morals and the law when they ethnically cleansed the indigenous Palestinians to create their Zionist paradise in 1947-48
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  Please tell us more about this "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians.  Thank you.  Heh Heh.
Click to expand...




*"OMG!  Please tell us more about this "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians.  Thank you.  Heh Heh."*


*". . .The (israeli) committee also approved building permits for 105 housing units for Palestinians in East Jerusalem. . ."*





  ...despicable, those _*"ethnic-cleansers..."*_


----------



## montelatici

MJB never fails to demonstrate that he just doesn't understand what the crime of genocide is. He does provide comic relief though.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB never fails to demonstrate that he just doesn't understand what the crime of genocide is. He does provide comic relief though.



Hey, I am on your side.  Did I not state this is a GENOCIDE?  1.2 million to 6 million.  And here you thought I didn't know what constitutes a genocide.  Right Monte?  Ya gotta love that guy.  Heh Heh!


As to Israel & the Palestinians regarding "ethnic cleansing, let us all consider the documented facts. Okay by you? In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel. And now there are only around just 6 million of them left. It's a GENOCIDE I tell ya. A GENOCIDE! Pass it on.

Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org


----------



## montelatici

Again, by making that silly remark demonstrates that you don't know what the crime of genocide is.


----------



## Challenger

montelatici said:


> Again, by making that silly remark demonstrates that you don't know what the crime of genocide is.



Especially as I was talking about ethnic cleansing, hey ho...


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> ... there is no specifically ethnic Jewish culture ...



You would have to entirely re-define the meaning of the word _culture_ in order for this to be true.  And to deliberately re-define the meaning of words so as to exclude and erase Jews is vile.  Actually, scratch that, there is absolutely no way to re-define the term "culture" in order to exclude the Jewish people, no matter how hard you might try.  It gets especially difficult when you try to exclude the Jewish people and include the Palestinian people, who have virtually no recognizable differentiation in their "culture" from neighboring Syrians and Jordanians.  



> There is no evidence of significant post invasion Arab migration to Palestine



Of course there is.  The entire culture changed:  language, religious faith, core values, legal precepts, life celebrations, celebrated holidays, even actual, documented history is being changed (attempted) in the Arab Muslim "Palestinian" narrative.  There was an invasion which entirely changed the culture of the area, not once, but twice.  How the hell do you think that happens?  Cultures don't just change on their own.  They require people to come in and do the changing. And not just a handful of elites either.  How the hell are you going to learn Arabic if you don't have anyone who speaks the language to teach you?!  



> ....the Zionist colonists paid scant attention to morals and the law when they ethnically cleansed the indigenous Palestinians to create their Zionist paradise in 1947-48



And pity that the Arabs did the same and created such hostility between the two groups of peoples who had been living on the land for thousands or hundreds of years.  And pity that the whole Arab Muslim world got in on the act by ethnically cleansing the Jews from the Arab world.  A bunch of shitty, tragic, terrible things happened between WWI and WWII.  

But we were not talking about the past.  We were talking about making moral decisions for the future.  I believe it would be immoral, at this point, to ethnically cleanse anyone from Israel / "Palestine".  Do you agree or disagree?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Again, by making that silly remark demonstrates that you don't know what the crime of genocide is.



You are so much fun to play with.  Thanks for being such a good sport.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, by making that silly remark demonstrates that you don't know what the crime of genocide is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially as I was talking about ethnic cleansing, hey ho...
Click to expand...


So, do you condone the ethnic cleansing of Christians & Jews by the Arab countries?


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, by making that silly remark demonstrates that you don't know what the crime of genocide is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially as I was talking about ethnic cleansing, hey ho...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, do you condone the ethnic cleansing of Christians & Jews by the Arab countries?
Click to expand...


The Zionists were very good at that, using scare tactics on the Jewish populations and provoking outrage amongst the Muslim populations by their actions against the Muslims and Christians in Palestine. 

I don't condone ethnic cleansing, period. Whether carried out by Zionists, both overtly and covertly, or Isis fanatics in Syria and Iraq, or Christian fanatics in Bosnia and what was once Yugoslavia.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, by making that silly remark demonstrates that you don't know what the crime of genocide is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially as I was talking about ethnic cleansing, hey ho...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, do you condone the ethnic cleansing of Christians & Jews by the Arab countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists were very good at that, using scare tactics on the Jewish populations and provoking outrage amongst the Muslim populations by their actions against the Muslims and Christians in Palestine.
> 
> I don't condone ethnic cleansing, period. Whether carried out by Zionists, both overtly and covertly, or Isis fanatics in Syria and Iraq, or Christian fanatics in Bosnia and what was once Yugoslavia.
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight.  Is this what you mean by Zionist ethnic cleansing?  1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel in 1948 & now just over 6 million of them left?

Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, by making that silly remark demonstrates that you don't know what the crime of genocide is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially as I was talking about ethnic cleansing, hey ho...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, do you condone the ethnic cleansing of Christians & Jews by the Arab countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists were very good at that, using scare tactics on the Jewish populations and provoking outrage amongst the Muslim populations by their actions against the Muslims and Christians in Palestine.
> 
> I don't condone ethnic cleansing, period. Whether carried out by Zionists, both overtly and covertly, or Isis fanatics in Syria and Iraq, or Christian fanatics in Bosnia and what was once Yugoslavia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.  Is this what you mean by Zionist ethnic cleansing?  1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel in 1948 & now just over 6 million of them left?
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
Click to expand...

Ethnic cleansing is not numbers. It is location.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, by making that silly remark demonstrates that you don't know what the crime of genocide is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially as I was talking about ethnic cleansing, hey ho...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, do you condone the ethnic cleansing of Christians & Jews by the Arab countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists were very good at that, using scare tactics on the Jewish populations and provoking outrage amongst the Muslim populations by their actions against the Muslims and Christians in Palestine.
> 
> I don't condone ethnic cleansing, period. Whether carried out by Zionists, both overtly and covertly, or Isis fanatics in Syria and Iraq, or Christian fanatics in Bosnia and what was once Yugoslavia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.  Is this what you mean by Zionist ethnic cleansing?  1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel in 1948 & now just over 6 million of them left?
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ethnic cleansing is not numbers. It is location.
Click to expand...


"Ethnic Cleansing" has become a silly slogan used by islamics and their Pom Pom flailers to describe an exploding population, (well, maybe that's the wrong term to be applied to Islamic terrorists)... uncontrolled breeding, among Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially as I was talking about ethnic cleansing, hey ho...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you condone the ethnic cleansing of Christians & Jews by the Arab countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists were very good at that, using scare tactics on the Jewish populations and provoking outrage amongst the Muslim populations by their actions against the Muslims and Christians in Palestine.
> 
> I don't condone ethnic cleansing, period. Whether carried out by Zionists, both overtly and covertly, or Isis fanatics in Syria and Iraq, or Christian fanatics in Bosnia and what was once Yugoslavia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.  Is this what you mean by Zionist ethnic cleansing?  1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel in 1948 & now just over 6 million of them left?
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ethnic cleansing is not numbers. It is location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Ethnic Cleansing" has become a silly slogan used by islamics and their Pom Pom flailers to describe an exploding population, (well, maybe that's the wrong term to be applied to Islamic terrorists)... uncontrolled breeding, among Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories.
Click to expand...

Israel has been ethnic cleansing since before it was called Israel and it continues today.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you condone the ethnic cleansing of Christians & Jews by the Arab countries?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionists were very good at that, using scare tactics on the Jewish populations and provoking outrage amongst the Muslim populations by their actions against the Muslims and Christians in Palestine.
> 
> I don't condone ethnic cleansing, period. Whether carried out by Zionists, both overtly and covertly, or Isis fanatics in Syria and Iraq, or Christian fanatics in Bosnia and what was once Yugoslavia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.  Is this what you mean by Zionist ethnic cleansing?  1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel in 1948 & now just over 6 million of them left?
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ethnic cleansing is not numbers. It is location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Ethnic Cleansing" has become a silly slogan used by islamics and their Pom Pom flailers to describe an exploding population, (well, maybe that's the wrong term to be applied to Islamic terrorists)... uncontrolled breeding, among Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel has been ethnic cleansing since before it was called Israel and it continues today.
Click to expand...

As usual, you make no sense.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionists were very good at that, using scare tactics on the Jewish populations and provoking outrage amongst the Muslim populations by their actions against the Muslims and Christians in Palestine.
> 
> I don't condone ethnic cleansing, period. Whether carried out by Zionists, both overtly and covertly, or Isis fanatics in Syria and Iraq, or Christian fanatics in Bosnia and what was once Yugoslavia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.  Is this what you mean by Zionist ethnic cleansing?  1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel in 1948 & now just over 6 million of them left?
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ethnic cleansing is not numbers. It is location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Ethnic Cleansing" has become a silly slogan used by islamics and their Pom Pom flailers to describe an exploding population, (well, maybe that's the wrong term to be applied to Islamic terrorists)... uncontrolled breeding, among Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel has been ethnic cleansing since before it was called Israel and it continues today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you make no sense.
Click to expand...

To you? No surprise here.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, by making that silly remark demonstrates that you don't know what the crime of genocide is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially as I was talking about ethnic cleansing, hey ho...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, do you condone the ethnic cleansing of Christians & Jews by the Arab countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists were very good at that, using scare tactics on the Jewish populations and provoking outrage amongst the Muslim populations by their actions against the Muslims and Christians in Palestine.
> 
> I don't condone ethnic cleansing, period. Whether carried out by Zionists, both overtly and covertly, or Isis fanatics in Syria and Iraq, or Christian fanatics in Bosnia and what was once Yugoslavia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight.  Is this what you mean by Zionist ethnic cleansing?  1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel in 1948 & now just over 6 million of them left?
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ethnic cleansing is not numbers. It is location.
Click to expand...


How do you like that?  And here I actually believed ethnic cleansing would require lowering a population rather than increasing it.


----------



## montelatici

There are apparently quite a number of "alternative facts" that you believe.  Your type thrives on them.  Without the ethnic cleansing that took place, non-Jews would substantially outnumber Jews in Israel today.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Ethnic cleansing is not numbers. It is location.



Here we go again re-defining terms in order to demonize Israel.  It defies rational thinking.  There are no Jews in Gaza and Areas A and B.  There are almost no Jews left anywhere in the ME except Israel.  There is a significant portion of Arab Muslims and Christians in Israel.  

Where is this ethnic cleansing occurring, then?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethnic cleansing is not numbers. It is location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again re-defining terms in order to demonize Israel.  It defies rational thinking.  There are no Jews in Gaza and Areas A and B.  There are almost no Jews left anywhere in the ME except Israel.  There is a significant portion of Arab Muslims and Christians in Israel.
> 
> Where is this ethnic cleansing occurring, then?
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand ethnic cleansing, do you?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You clearly do not understand ethnic cleansing, do you?



Oh, I can't wait to have you explain it to me!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand ethnic cleansing, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I can't wait to have you explain it to me!
Click to expand...

Oh jeese, why do I always have to start at square one with you people?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand ethnic cleansing, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I can't wait to have you explain it to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, why do I always have to start at square one with you people?
Click to expand...


Its because your ideas are contrary to rational thinking.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand ethnic cleansing, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I can't wait to have you explain it to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, why do I always have to start at square one with you people?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its because your ideas are contrary to rational thinking.
Click to expand...

Moving people from where they live to someplace else because you do not want them there is ethnic cleansing.

There is nothing irrational about it.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand ethnic cleansing, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I can't wait to have you explain it to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, why do I always have to start at square one with you people?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its because your ideas are contrary to rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moving people from where they live to someplace else because you do not want them there is ethnic cleansing.
> 
> There is nothing irrational about it.
Click to expand...


Examples of this happening in Israel today?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand ethnic cleansing, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I can't wait to have you explain it to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, why do I always have to start at square one with you people?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its because your ideas are contrary to rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moving people from where they live to someplace else because you do not want them there is ethnic cleansing.
> 
> There is nothing irrational about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples of this happening in Israel today?
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand ethnic cleansing, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I can't wait to have you explain it to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, why do I always have to start at square one with you people?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its because your ideas are contrary to rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moving people from where they live to someplace else because you do not want them there is ethnic cleansing.
> 
> There is nothing irrational about it.[/QUOTE
> 
> Well then, how are Israel's peace offerings,, security fence & land concessions so Palestinians can stay where they are "Ethnic Cleansing???
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly do not understand ethnic cleansing, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I can't wait to have you explain it to me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese, why do I always have to start at square one with you people?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its because your ideas are contrary to rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moving people from where they live to someplace else because you do not want them there is ethnic cleansing.
> 
> There is nothing irrational about it.
Click to expand...



 Well then, how are Israel's peace offerings, security fence & land concessions so Palestinians can stay where they are cases"Ethnic Cleansing"???


----------



## MJB12741

If you want to talk ethnic cleansing then talk about the Arab country ethnic cleansing of Christians & Jews.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I can't wait to have you explain it to me!
> 
> 
> 
> Oh jeese, why do I always have to start at square one with you people?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its because your ideas are contrary to rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moving people from where they live to someplace else because you do not want them there is ethnic cleansing.
> 
> There is nothing irrational about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples of this happening in Israel today?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why do you think what is happening in Umm al-Hiran is ethnic cleansing?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh jeese, why do I always have to start at square one with you people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its because your ideas are contrary to rational thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moving people from where they live to someplace else because you do not want them there is ethnic cleansing.
> 
> There is nothing irrational about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples of this happening in Israel today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think what is happening in Umm al-Hiran is ethnic cleansing?
Click to expand...

Because the area is being cleansed for Jewish only settlements.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its because your ideas are contrary to rational thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Moving people from where they live to someplace else because you do not want them there is ethnic cleansing.
> 
> There is nothing irrational about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples of this happening in Israel today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think what is happening in Umm al-Hiran is ethnic cleansing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the area is being cleansed for Jewish only settlements.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't you prefer clean Israeli settlements to the filthy Palestinian settlements?


----------



## member

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethnic cleansing is not numbers. It is location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again re-defining terms in order to demonize Israel.  It defies rational thinking.  There are no Jews in Gaza and Areas A and B.  There are almost no Jews left anywhere in the ME except Israel.  There is a significant portion of Arab Muslims and Christians in Israel.
> 
> Where is this ethnic cleansing occurring, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly do not understand ethnic cleansing, do you?
Click to expand...




Isn’t it what they’re doing in Syria?


































_p.s.:_


no more crowds for him.









 Him and his friends, 


he/they murdered all of them. “Cleansed.”



_p.s.s.:_


what happened to that stupid anti-american tombstone picture of yours?


----------



## P F Tinmore

member said:


> what happened to that stupid anti-american tombstone picture of yours?


What is anti-american about that?

BTW, I don't know what happened. It disappeared when they changed programs.


----------



## P F Tinmore

member said:


> Isn’t it what they’re doing in Syria?


Shouldn't that be: Isn’t it what we’re doing in Syria?


----------



## member

P F Tinmore said:


> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it what they’re doing in Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't that be: Isn’t it what we’re doing in Syria?
Click to expand...


you make me sick.  



twisting the facts around [_as usual_]. yeah, _*"we."*_ we're responsible, not icehole and bashir...

...(so, what does your ex-tombstone mean then)...?


----------



## P F Tinmore

member said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it what they’re doing in Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't that be: Isn’t it what we’re doing in Syria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you make me sick.
> 
> 
> 
> twisting the facts around [_as usual_]. yeah, _*"we."*_ we're responsible, not icehole and bashir...
> 
> ...(so, what does your ex-tombstone mean then)...?
Click to expand...

You criticize my tombstone but you do not know what it means.


----------



## member

P F Tinmore said:


> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it what they’re doing in Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't that be: Isn’t it what we’re doing in Syria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you make me sick.
> 
> 
> 
> twisting the facts around [_as usual_]. yeah, _*"we."*_ we're responsible, not icehole and bashir...
> 
> ...(so, what does your ex-tombstone mean then)...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You criticize my tombstone but you do not know what it means.
Click to expand...



fuck talking about the tombstone - what about BLAMING the united states of america for the ETHNIC-CLEASING of syria?


P F Tinmore said:


> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it what they’re doing in Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't that be: Isn’t it what we’re doing in Syria?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you make me sick.
> 
> 
> 
> twisting the facts around [_as usual_]. yeah, _*"we."*_ we're responsible, not icehole and bashir...
> 
> ...(so, what does your ex-tombstone mean then)...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You criticize my tombstone but you do not know what it means.
Click to expand...





 fuck talking about the _"tombstone"_ - what about YOU blaming the United States of America for the genocide happening in Syria ?


----------



## RoccoR

member,

What does it mean?



member said:


> fuck talking about the _"tombstone"_ - what about YOU blaming the United States of America for the genocide happening in Syria ?



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## member

RoccoR said:


> member,
> 
> What does it mean?
> 
> 
> 
> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> fuck talking about the _"tombstone"_ - what about YOU blaming the United States of America for the genocide happening in Syria ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



_*"What does it mean?"*_




 - I don't know exactly - but, i found it...unsightly.  i just asked him 2 posts ago to clarify.  he got all bent out of shape that I "ain't" no walking encyclopedia 

- so i asked him to RE-EXPLAIN what his tombstone avatar means so i don't have _oggida_ wondering...

I got _nothing_ from him....


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> member,
> 
> What does it mean?
> 
> 
> 
> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> fuck talking about the _"tombstone"_ - what about YOU blaming the United States of America for the genocide happening in Syria ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

This is the wrong thread for this. But here are links to the proper thread.

Aleppo liberated from terrorists

Aleppo liberated from terrorists


----------



## MJB12741

member said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ethnic cleansing is not numbers. It is location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again re-defining terms in order to demonize Israel.  It defies rational thinking.  There are no Jews in Gaza and Areas A and B.  There are almost no Jews left anywhere in the ME except Israel.  There is a significant portion of Arab Muslims and Christians in Israel.
> 
> Where is this ethnic cleansing occurring, then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You clearly do not understand ethnic cleansing, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn’t it what they’re doing in Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _p.s.:_
> 
> 
> no more crowds for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Him and his friends,
> 
> 
> he/they murdered all of them. “Cleansed.”
> 
> 
> 
> _p.s.s.:_
> 
> 
> what happened to that stupid anti-american tombstone picture of yours?
Click to expand...


He may be right if us Americans keep on allowing radical Muslims to immigrate to our country.


----------



## RoccoR

MJB12741,  et al,

I'm not sure if anyone knows what the strategy is to defeat DAESH (ISIS).  



MJB12741 said:


> He may be right if us Americans keep on allowing radical Muslims to immigrate to our country.


*(COMMENT)*

Who is in charge of the Syrian Campaign?

How do we divide-up the parties to the conflict?  (Who is on what side?)

Sometime into the future, one of these Regional Fighters is going to be a media scandal for the US Leadership and military.  It will not be because the US did something wrong; but because the groups and environment changed.

The US is no longer a Superpower.  But even if it was a Superpower, it does not have the influence to prevent creeping low intensity conflicts; and  or deter the involvement of other global powers from stepping in and altering the course of the war.  Since the end of the Clinton Administration, the once powerful roar of America has gradually become the prolonged cry of a nation in decline.

In 1969, the US Army was 15 Divisions strong and could fight two and a half war.  It was a time when US Astronauts walks on the moon; and the Boeing 747 was making its first flights.  Today we think of the Army in Brigades, the US still using the B-52 and Boeing 747, and our astronauts have to hitchhike into space. 

What we are doing in Syria?

In last August (2016), Turkey (a US/NATO Ally) began an offensive against IS/DAESH --- and --- the YPG; which Turkey considers terrorists and insurgents.  The YPG controls ≈ 20% of Syria and a significant chunk of the northern border with Turkey

YET!   The People's Protection Units (YPG) is a key ally of the US against the Islamic State/DAESH.  The US Special Forces coalition fighting IS/DAESH; altogether the coalition is called the Kurdish-Arab Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).​If we don't back-out slowly and quietly, we are likely to come out as bad there as we did in Iraq.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> I'm not sure if anyone knows what the strategy is to defeat DAESH (ISIS).
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be right if us Americans keep on allowing radical Muslims to immigrate to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who is in charge of the Syrian Campaign?
> 
> How do we divide-up the parties to the conflict?  (Who is on what side?)
> 
> Sometime into the future, one of these Regional Fighters is going to be a media scandal for the US Leadership and military.  It will not be because the US did something wrong; but because the groups and environment changed.
> 
> The US is no longer a Superpower.  But even if it was a Superpower, it does not have the influence to prevent creeping low intensity conflicts; and  or deter the involvement of other global powers from stepping in and altering the course of the war.  Since the end of the Clinton Administration, the once powerful roar of America has gradually become the prolonged cry of a nation in decline.
> 
> In 1969, the US Army was 15 Divisions strong and could fight two and a half war.  It was a time when US Astronauts walks on the moon; and the Boeing 747 was making its first flights.  Today we think of the Army in Brigades, the US still using the B-52 and Boeing 747, and our astronauts have to hitchhike into space.
> 
> What we are doing in Syria?
> 
> In last August (2016), Turkey (a US/NATO Ally) began an offensive against IS/DAESH --- and --- the YPG; which Turkey considers terrorists and insurgents.  The YPG controls ≈ 20% of Syria and a significant chunk of the northern border with Turkey
> 
> YET!   The People's Protection Units (YPG) is a key ally of the US against the Islamic State/DAESH.  The US Special Forces coalition fighting IS/DAESH; altogether the coalition is called the Kurdish-Arab Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).​If we don't back-out slowly and quietly, we are likely to come out as bad there as we did in Iraq.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are the only ones in Syria legally. Everyone else with their hand in the pie is illegal.

It is true that those who destroyed Iraq based on a pack of lies and the same liars who created a vacuum in Syria created Daesh.

There is no question who that might be.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> I'm not sure if anyone knows what the strategy is to defeat DAESH (ISIS).
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be right if us Americans keep on allowing radical Muslims to immigrate to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who is in charge of the Syrian Campaign?
> 
> How do we divide-up the parties to the conflict?  (Who is on what side?)
> 
> Sometime into the future, one of these Regional Fighters is going to be a media scandal for the US Leadership and military.  It will not be because the US did something wrong; but because the groups and environment changed.
> 
> The US is no longer a Superpower.  But even if it was a Superpower, it does not have the influence to prevent creeping low intensity conflicts; and  or deter the involvement of other global powers from stepping in and altering the course of the war.  Since the end of the Clinton Administration, the once powerful roar of America has gradually become the prolonged cry of a nation in decline.
> 
> In 1969, the US Army was 15 Divisions strong and could fight two and a half war.  It was a time when US Astronauts walks on the moon; and the Boeing 747 was making its first flights.  Today we think of the Army in Brigades, the US still using the B-52 and Boeing 747, and our astronauts have to hitchhike into space.
> 
> What we are doing in Syria?
> 
> In last August (2016), Turkey (a US/NATO Ally) began an offensive against IS/DAESH --- and --- the YPG; which Turkey considers terrorists and insurgents.  The YPG controls ≈ 20% of Syria and a significant chunk of the northern border with Turkey
> 
> YET!   The People's Protection Units (YPG) is a key ally of the US against the Islamic State/DAESH.  The US Special Forces coalition fighting IS/DAESH; altogether the coalition is called the Kurdish-Arab Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).​If we don't back-out slowly and quietly, we are likely to come out as bad there as we did in Iraq.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are the only ones in Syria legally. Everyone else with their hand in the pie is illegal.
> 
> It is true that those who destroyed Iraq based on a pack of lies and the same liars who created a vacuum in Syria created Daesh.
> 
> There is no question who that might be.
Click to expand...


I think the above is just another rambling screed intended to blame the _Great Satan_™ for the disease of Islamist ideology. 

Daesh differs from any of the other islamist fascist parties gaining power across the Middle East only in degrees of retrogression. The Hamas vs. Fatah civil war was nearly as vicious as what Daesh does to Arabs-Moslems, just on a broader scale. You're hoping to sidestep the fact that all the Islamic Boys Clubs, by whatever name they assign their franchises, are subordinate to an ideology. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Daesh, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, etc., are not so much Islamic terrorist "organizations" as they are a retrograde politico-religious ideology and a worldview. Within these groups, and only separating them by the amount of financing they acquire to maintain their mini-caliphates, they all subscribe to a virulent manifesto of God-given Islamosupremacy, and they are the blueprint for the Religion of Peace's assault on humanity. 

It's easier to identify discrete groups of Islamic terrorists with a name, rather than the politico-religious ideology that inspires them.


----------



## member

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> I'm not sure if anyone knows what the strategy is to defeat DAESH (ISIS).
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be right if us Americans keep on allowing radical Muslims to immigrate to our country.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who is in charge of the Syrian Campaign?
> 
> How do we divide-up the parties to the conflict?  (Who is on what side?)
> 
> Sometime into the future, one of these Regional Fighters is going to be a media scandal for the US Leadership and military.  It will not be because the US did something wrong; but because the groups and environment changed.
> 
> The US is no longer a Superpower.  But even if it was a Superpower, it does not have the influence to prevent creeping low intensity conflicts; and  or deter the involvement of other global powers from stepping in and altering the course of the war.  Since the end of the Clinton Administration, the once powerful roar of America has gradually become the prolonged cry of a nation in decline.
> 
> In 1969, the US Army was 15 Divisions strong and could fight two and a half war.  It was a time when US Astronauts walks on the moon; and the Boeing 747 was making its first flights.  Today we think of the Army in Brigades, the US still using the B-52 and Boeing 747, and our astronauts have to hitchhike into space.
> 
> What we are doing in Syria?
> 
> In last August (2016), Turkey (a US/NATO Ally) began an offensive against IS/DAESH --- and --- the YPG; which Turkey considers terrorists and insurgents.  The YPG controls ≈ 20% of Syria and a significant chunk of the northern border with Turkey
> 
> YET!   The People's Protection Units (YPG) is a key ally of the US against the Islamic State/DAESH.  The US Special Forces coalition fighting IS/DAESH; altogether the coalition is called the Kurdish-Arab Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).​If we don't back-out slowly and quietly, we are likely to come out as bad there as we did in Iraq.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are the only ones in Syria legally. Everyone else with their hand in the pie is illegal.
> 
> It is true that those who destroyed Iraq based on a pack of lies and the same liars who created a vacuum in Syria created Daesh.
> 
> There is no question who that might be.
Click to expand...


...blaming "america" (me) for islamic terrorism.

you are a very disturbing, hateful man.  screw you.  blaming me for the genocide in syria.  vomitus, nutjob ramblings......you have this irrationality...it's to weird, even for me..  you're from 'some other fucking world."

i promise, never-ever to read or reply to your posts.  reading your posts/replying... would only make me feel dumbed-down (...EVEN more than....usual....lol).

Go to hell you son of a bitch.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I'm not sure I understand you.



P F Tinmore said:


> Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are the only ones in Syria legally. Everyone else with their hand in the pie is illegal.
> 
> It is true that those who destroyed Iraq based on a pack of lies and the same liars who created a vacuum in Syria created Daesh.
> 
> There is no question who that might be.


*(COMMENT)*

What criteria are you using to distinguish between (in Syria) "illegal" and (in Syria) "legal" counter-DAESH Operations in Syria?

Of course, you have to remember that the Arab League changes their interpretation to fit their action.

The use of force in any territory of another state is prohibited under the UN Charter and Customary International Law.  The four universally recognized exceptions _(that the Arab Countries make use of frequently)_ to the Chapter I prohibitions are:

•  UN Security Council Chapter VII authorization;
•  Consent from the state on whose territory the operations are conducted;
•  Self-defense;
•  Collective self-defense.
•  Humanitarian intervention involving “overwhelming humanitarian *exigency* or necessity”.​The US is opposed to —
•  The President al-Assad. Regime Also,
•  The Islamic State,
•  All the other jihadi groups fighting in Syria — including

•  Jabhat al-Nusra (the al-Qaeda affiliate)
•  Ahrar al-Sham
•  Hezbollah forces 
•  Iranian forces supporting the Syrian government.​It really does not matter who the US is allied with, or opposed to; the various Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters will assume the opposite station keeping to that of the US.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The US is opposed to —
> • The President al-Assad. Regime Also,
> • The Islamic State,
> • All the other jihadi groups fighting in Syria — including
> 
> • Jabhat al-Nusra (the al-Qaeda affiliate)
> • Ahrar al-Sham
> • Hezbollah forces
> • Iranian forces supporting the Syrian government.


It doesn't matter who we don't like. We still have to stay out of other countries.


----------



## Hossfly

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is opposed to —
> • The President al-Assad. Regime Also,
> • The Islamic State,
> • All the other jihadi groups fighting in Syria — including
> 
> • Jabhat al-Nusra (the al-Qaeda affiliate)
> • Ahrar al-Sham
> • Hezbollah forces
> • Iranian forces supporting the Syrian government.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter who we don't like. We still have to stay out of other countries.
Click to expand...

How about you telling Abbas to stay the hell out of Israel then.   Deal?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The use of force in any territory of another state is prohibited under the UN Charter and Customary International Law.


Indeed, that is what I have always said.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

So you are saying (for example) that the intrusion by the Arab League against Israel was prohibited...?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of force in any territory of another state is prohibited under the UN Charter and Customary International Law.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that is what I have always said.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Yes, I would rather like to have seen the nature of the Syrian Arab Republic (al-Assad Regime) if the US had just allowed DAESH/ISIS to take its course.  These various factions would have just torn-up everything in its path; eventually taking control of Syria (ousting the al-Assad Regime) and be on the border of Jordan.

Believe me when I say that there were some very strong arguments for allowing the Arab on Arab carnage take its course, and allow DAESH/ISIS destroy the historical legacies of the region.

But even though the voice of reason prevailed back then, today you see the signs that Russian support to counter DAESH/ISIS is withdrawing.



			
				Russia begins withdrawing forces from Syria said:
			
		

> *Syrian opposition welcomes Russian drawdown*
> Asked Tuesday whether the Russian withdrawal signaled a case of "mission accomplished," Shaaban replied, "Hundreds of villages have been liberated, many towns have been liberated from armed gangs, huge parts of Syria have been liberated."
> She said Russia's Defense Ministry had said the *"war against terrorism will continue. And we are happy also to see Russian-American coordination in fighting terrorism."*
> Russia's steps were "the right steps toward a political settlement and also toward a continuation of fighting terrorism," she continued.



Admittedly, it gradual draw-down will be slow; but the intent is there.


*The Russian Defense Ministry: Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier set sail for home*
 Friday, January 13, 2017 10:31:00 AM





​
The more were step back and allow the Arab-on-Arab fighting to continue, the clearer the Regional Stability develop.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Because the area is being cleansed for Jewish only settlements.



I think you are incorrect to label this as ethnic cleansing. I think you are over-simplifying the extremely complex issues involved here, especially those of urban planning, urbanization and the competing desire to maintain traditional agricultural way of life in a very small country.  The issues are much more complex than removing people because of their ethnicity.  

That said, I absolutely believe there is a form of institutionalized discrimination at play here, as well as forced eviction and segregation.  And I believe Israel is rightly criticized for its policies with respect to its Bedouin citizens (they are all Israel citizens and thus, at least theoretically, are not colored the conflict).

As I said, it is a complex issue, and it is extremely difficult to find good, objective sources, but let me try to give an overview:

There are 39 "unrecognized" Bedouin villages in the Negev region, comprising of ~70,000 people.  (There are 6 villages which have been recognized).  These villages represent locations where, in the past ~75 years, traditional, nomadic tribes have fallen into a more sedentary and localize agricultural lifestyle.  The location of these villages is based on complex and competing tribal relationships as well as the result of the upheaval of the War of Independence.  Some of those villages (including Umm al-Hiran in 1956) received government permission to settle on that land.  The villages, however, were not considered or included in Israel's long-term land use strategy and planning.  It may be that Israel's intent was to permit only temporary use of the land.  This land is not "privately owned" by any citizen, and is State land.  This is not land which is historically "ancestral" land in the sense often used by advocates in this conflict.  

The issue is that this land does not fit into Israel's long-term urban planning schedule.  Israel does not intend for this land to be traditional, local, agricultural subsistence-level farming. This conflict between urbanization and traditional farming communities is a common one all over the world.  It is not primarily a conflict of ethnicities -- but a conflict of technology and civilization.  

So what is Israel to do?  First, it offered incentives -- each married couple and each single male over the age of 24 was offered legal ownership of a 800 sq m parcel of land in the nearby town of Hura with 100,000 NIS to build a house.  Hura offered not only legal ownership of land and a home, but also water, electricity, and access to schools and medical services.  The majority of the residents accepted this offer.  The remaining ~700 residents refused.  

But, there are problems with Hura.  Unemployment is high.  Housing is limited by physical space and there are families waiting to receive housing from the government (the Bedouin population''s fertility rate is so high the population doubles every 15 years).  There are tribal and family conflicts.  

The remaining residents of Umm al-Hiran have also been offered parcels of land within the new Hiran community to be built there.  Those parcels are necessarily smaller than those in Hura, because the land parcels in Hiran are smaller universally.  

The residents seem to be resisting this incorporation into the new Hiran community, near as I can tell.  (As I said, it is difficult to get detailed, accurate information).  The residents of Umm al-Hiran appear, at least to me, to want to maintain a semi-traditional, rural, agricultural subsistence farming-bound life.  The ~700 residents want individual or communal ownership of the land they currently farm, and they will need enough land reserves to deal with a population which doubles ever 15 years. 

Now, having said all that, there is a tendency in Israel to segregate Arab and Jewish communities.  (No, don't go all apartheid on me -- its not that).  There is an element of embedded, even institutionalized racism.  It occurs on both sides.  Its not much different than segregated communities which occur all over the world -- in the US, Canada, UK, Europe. 

So what is Israel to do?  What is the solution to this?  Its a complex problem.  Its a problem tackled by many countries in the past and still being addressed in many places today.  

Its easy enough to say, "well, just give the 39 Bedouin villages recognition and land ownership within defined and official village boundaries, provide them with water, electricity, sanitation, education and medical facilities."  And I wouldn't disagree with you.  But be aware that this 'solution' presents a new host of problems.  In the six villages which have been recognized, there is a problem with them growing outside their boundaries, building illegal houses there, taking over land which is not under their ownership.  What does Israel do then? 

Its a good discussion to have.  This actually is one of the areas where people can legitimately criticize Israel. Be glad to have this debate with anyone willing to pursue it with integrity.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> So you are saying (for example) that the intrusion by the Arab League against Israel was prohibited...?


Israeli talking point. Nobody has ever proven that to be true.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying (for example) that the intrusion by the Arab League against Israel was prohibited...?
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point. Nobody has ever proven that to be true.
Click to expand...


Oh please!  What was never proven to be true?  That the Arab League nations sent or permitted troops into Israel and "Palestine" to fight against the Jewish people and the nascent Israeli nation?  Are you saying it never happened?  You've got to be kidding me.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> So you are saying (for example) that the intrusion by the Arab League against Israel was prohibited...?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of force in any territory of another state is prohibited under the UN Charter and Customary International Law.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that is what I have always said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, I would rather like to have seen the nature of the Syrian Arab Republic (al-Assad Regime) if the US had just allowed DAESH/ISIS to take its course.  These various factions would have just torn-up everything in its path; eventually taking control of Syria (ousting the al-Assad Regime) and be on the border of Jordan.
> 
> Believe me when I say that there were some very strong arguments for allowing the Arab on Arab carnage take its course, and allow DAESH/ISIS destroy the historical legacies of the region.
> 
> But even though the voice of reason prevailed back then, today you see the signs that Russian support to counter DAESH/ISIS is withdrawing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russia begins withdrawing forces from Syria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Syrian opposition welcomes Russian drawdown*
> Asked Tuesday whether the Russian withdrawal signaled a case of "mission accomplished," Shaaban replied, "Hundreds of villages have been liberated, many towns have been liberated from armed gangs, huge parts of Syria have been liberated."
> She said Russia's Defense Ministry had said the *"war against terrorism will continue. And we are happy also to see Russian-American coordination in fighting terrorism."*
> Russia's steps were "the right steps toward a political settlement and also toward a continuation of fighting terrorism," she continued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admittedly, it gradual draw-down will be slow; but the intent is there.
> 
> 
> *The Russian Defense Ministry: Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier set sail for home*
> Friday, January 13, 2017 10:31:00 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> The more were step back and allow the Arab-on-Arab fighting to continue, the clearer the Regional Stability develop.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Would Daesh ever have gained foothold in Syria if they were not busy fighting the US and friends?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying (for example) that the intrusion by the Arab League against Israel was prohibited...?
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point. Nobody has ever proven that to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please!  What was never proven to be true?  That the Arab League nations sent or permitted troops into Israel and "Palestine" to fight against the Jewish people and the nascent Israeli nation?  Are you saying it never happened?  You've got to be kidding me.
Click to expand...

Thar Arab League fought Israel troops in Palestine.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Thar Arab League fought Israel troops in Palestine.



Okay, so you agree that it did happen.  So what was the point of your last post?  You said it had never been proven true.  WHAT was "never proven true"?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thar Arab League fought Israel troops in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you agree that it did happen.  So what was the point of your last post?  You said it had never been proven true.  WHAT was "never proven true"?
Click to expand...

That Israel was attacked.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> That Israel was attacked.



Ah. Okay.  So you agree that it is prohibited for a State to use military force to interfere with territory not under its sovereignty (presumably with the exceptions Rocco laid out).  And you agree that the Arab League did use military force in territory not under its sovereignty.

So unless you are calling in one of the exceptions (and I rather think you are, specifically the "permission" one), you agree with Rocco that the Arab League acted illegally by using military force outside their own sovereign territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Ah. Okay. So you agree that it is prohibited for a State to use military force to interfere with territory not under its sovereignty


That is not what the law says.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. Okay. So you agree that it is prohibited for a State to use military force to interfere with territory not under its sovereignty
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says.
Click to expand...


Stop being so coy.  And address Rocco's and my questions.  What do you think the law says?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. Okay. So you agree that it is prohibited for a State to use military force to interfere with territory not under its sovereignty
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being so coy.  And address Rocco's and my questions.  What do you think the law says?
Click to expand...

It does not say outside of your territory. It says violate another territory.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Teach me!!!!




P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. Okay. So you agree that it is prohibited for a State to use military force to interfere with territory not under its sovereignty
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Which law and what does it say: quote?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. Okay. So you agree that it is prohibited for a State to use military force to interfere with territory not under its sovereignty
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being so coy.  And address Rocco's and my questions.  What do you think the law says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not say outside of your territory. It says violate another territory.
Click to expand...


But, according to you, Palestine was, at the time, another territory.  So same diff in all practical matters.  Back to a few posts ago -- you either have to claim an exception (hint:  the one you want is "permission") or you have to acknowledge that the States of the Arab League were prohibited by international law from interfering in another territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. Okay. So you agree that it is prohibited for a State to use military force to interfere with territory not under its sovereignty
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being so coy.  And address Rocco's and my questions.  What do you think the law says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not say outside of your territory. It says violate another territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, according to you, Palestine was, at the time, another territory.  So same diff in all practical matters.  Back to a few posts ago -- you either have to claim an exception (hint:  the one you want is "permission") or you have to acknowledge that the States of the Arab League were prohibited by international law from interfering in another territory.
Click to expand...

You are trying to make something out of nothing. They did not attack or interfere with Palestine.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. Okay. So you agree that it is prohibited for a State to use military force to interfere with territory not under its sovereignty
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what the law says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being so coy.  And address Rocco's and my questions.  What do you think the law says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not say outside of your territory. It says violate another territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, according to you, Palestine was, at the time, another territory.  So same diff in all practical matters.  Back to a few posts ago -- you either have to claim an exception (hint:  the one you want is "permission") or you have to acknowledge that the States of the Arab League were prohibited by international law from interfering in another territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are trying to make something out of nothing. They did not attack or interfere with Palestine.
Click to expand...

Ah. So, armed from from various Arab lesgue nations crossing the frontier into the area of Pal'istan is not interfering?

Islamo-logic at its worst.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying (for example) that the intrusion by the Arab League against Israel was prohibited...?
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli talking point. Nobody has ever proven that to be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please!  What was never proven to be true?  That the Arab League nations sent or permitted troops into Israel and "Palestine" to fight against the Jewish people and the nascent Israeli nation?  Are you saying it never happened?  You've got to be kidding me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thar Arab League fought Israel troops in Palestine.
Click to expand...


How about the wonderful treatment the Arab countries gave to Palestinians?


----------



## montelatici

What about it?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> What about it?



Don't you agree Israel should end its Zionist treatment of Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions & start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do?   LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## montelatici

Why should I want Jews to continue to mistreat Muslims and Christians of Palestine? What is your point?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you agree Israel should end its Zionist treatment of Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions & start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do?   LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
Click to expand...


You need to get a new line.  Also, you keep on saying that the Palestinians are "mistreated' by their Arab brethren, but the point is that they ARE their brethren, and they have more of a responsibility for the Palestinians than the Israelis have.


----------



## montelatici

Again, Arabs of different nationalities are no more "brethren" than a Chilean is a brethren of a Peruvian.  They may consider themselves Hispanics, but they have had multiple wars against each other.


----------



## MJB12741

ForeverYoung436 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you agree Israel should end its Zionist treatment of Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions & start treating the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do?   LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to get a new line.  Also, you keep on saying that the Palestinians are "mistreated' by their Arab brethren, but the point is that they ARE their brethren, and they have more of a responsibility for the Palestinians than the Israelis have.
Click to expand...


Anything Israel Israel does the Palestinians bitch about.  Yet not a single known complaint from the Palestinians & their supporters over Jordan's Black September.  Is this what they would prefer Israel do to the Palestinians to establish a lasting peace like Jordan did ?


----------



## montelatici

Of course, the treatment of Palestinians by other societies is criticized, in the appropriate forum, not the I/P forum which concerns Israel and Palestine.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Of course, the treatment of Palestinians by other societies is criticized, in the appropriate forum, not the I/P forum which concerns Israel and Palestine.




"Other societies."  Oh Lord I love that one.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the treatment of Palestinians by other societies is criticized, in the appropriate forum, not the I/P forum which concerns Israel and Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Other societies."  Oh Lord I love that one.
Click to expand...


You do?  Why?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the treatment of Palestinians by other societies is criticized, in the appropriate forum, not the I/P forum which concerns Israel and Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Other societies."  Oh Lord I love that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do?  Why?
Click to expand...

Am I an "other society"?  I sure as heck criticize the treatment of Palestinians by those Zionists in Israel with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions so they can remain in Israel to kill Israeli's.


----------



## montelatici

I think you have a reading comprehension problem.  The other societies would be states hosting refugees that do not do their best in the treatment of same. 

As far as your innate racism and murderous intent with respect to Christians and Muslims, well that is just who you are.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Back on topic.

Israel's existence is defacto not dejure.

It has political recognition but no legal status.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Back on topic.
> 
> Israel's existence is defacto not dejure.
> 
> It has political recognition but no legal status.



Not sure it's a good idea to bluster on about that which you don't understand.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is another attempt at the slight of hand.



P F Tinmore said:


> Back on topic.
> 
> Israel's existence is defacto not dejure.
> 
> It has political recognition but no legal status.


*(COMMENT)*

When we speak of a _de jure_ governments, we mean to imply that it was legally legally established, and so recognized by other states; as in UN General Assembly *Resolution 273 (III)*, Israel.


*Article 4:* *Convention on Rights and Duties of States*
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​
It so happens that a country can be, simultaneously, a _de facto_ government.  That is to say that when we speak of the existence of a government that not officially sanctioned, but none-the-less (for all practical purposes) and true to fact --- the reigns of power are held by another influence.  See:  Legal English: “De Facto/De Jure”

In the case of Israel, it is both unambiguous and clear.  The State is parliamentary democracy with a Basic Laws as may be amended by the Knesset; the representative body of government.  There is no invisible hand and no dictatorial power (_de facto_).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> When we speak of a _de jure_ governments, we mean to imply that it was legally legally established, and so recognized by other states; as in UN General Assembly *Resolution 273 (III)*, Israel.


That is what I said. Political recognition.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> See: Legal English: “De Facto/De Jure”


Thank you. That is what I mean.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Convention on Rights and Duties of States


I agree with this.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, then we agree.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we speak of a _de jure_ governments, we mean to imply that it was legally legally established, and so recognized by other states; as in UN General Assembly *Resolution 273 (III)*, Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I said. Political recognition.
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> See: Legal English: “De Facto/De Jure”
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. That is what I mean.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Israel was both legally establish and has legal recognition. See *Posting #2321*.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, then we agree.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we speak of a _de jure_ governments, we mean to imply that it was legally legally established, and so recognized by other states; as in UN General Assembly *Resolution 273 (III)*, Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I said. Political recognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> See: Legal English: “De Facto/De Jure”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you. That is what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel was both legally establish and has legal recognition. See *Posting #2321*.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Not so. What you say, or think, does not match your links.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Back on topic.
> 
> Israel's existence is defacto not dejure.
> 
> It has political recognition but no legal status.



Well then. Support your claim with reasoned arguments. 

What gives States de jure  "legal status"?


----------



## Shusha

Also provide reasoned argument as to what you believe is the legal status of the territory in question.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic.
> 
> Israel's existence is defacto not dejure.
> 
> It has political recognition but no legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then. Support your claim with reasoned arguments.
> 
> What gives States de jure  "legal status"?
Click to expand...

OK, let's start with the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

*ARTICLE 1*

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: *a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​
Palestine had a permanent population. By International law, (the rule of state succession) the treaty of Lausanne, and the Palestinan citizenship order of 1925. Palestinian is their nationality and they are citizens of Palestine. These are the People who have the right to self determination without external interference as stated in subsequent UN resolutions.

The Zionist settlers, claiming to be immigrants, never had any intention of being Palestinian. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. The Zionists imported these settlers to replace the legal population and create their own state. This is a violation of the Palestinian's rights and violates the territorial integrity of Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,

You are just stubborn.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, then we agree.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we speak of a _de jure_ governments, we mean to imply that it was legally legally established, and so recognized by other states; as in UN General Assembly *Resolution 273 (III)*, Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what I said. Political recognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> See: Legal English: “De Facto/De Jure”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you. That is what I mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel was both legally establish and has legal recognition. See *Posting #2321*.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so. What you say, or think, does not match your links.
Click to expand...

*(QUESTION)*

What, in particular, are you pointing out ???

v/r
R


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

A couple important points just to start with:


Palestine was defined by the Allied Powers; the territory to which the Mandate applied.
Palestine was part of the territory for which the Allied Powers had Title and Rights.
The citizenship issue was the customary law of the Allied Powers and made applicable by the Allied Powers.
The Government of Palestine was, in fact, the "Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine."
To be a citizen of Palestine, is to be a citizen of the Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine.




P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic.
> 
> Israel's existence is defacto not dejure.
> 
> It has political recognition but no legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then. Support your claim with reasoned arguments.
> 
> What gives States de jure  "legal status"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, let's start with the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: *a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​
> Palestine had a permanent population. By International law, (the rule of state succession) the treaty of Lausanne, and the Palestinan citizenship order of 1925. Palestinian is their nationality and they are citizens of Palestine. These are the People who have the right to self determination without external interference as stated in subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> The Zionist settlers, claiming to be immigrants, never had any intention of being Palestinian. They lived separate from anything Palestinian. The Zionists imported these settlers to replace the legal population and create their own state. This is a violation of the Palestinian's rights and violates the territorial integrity of Palestine.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You highlighted the portion pertaining to a "Permanent Population."  I don't knwwhat you are driving at, but there is a "Permanent Population today; just as the was when the Provisional Government declared independence in 1948, and just as there was when the State of Israel was extended membership into the UN in 1949.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Palestine was defined by the Allied Powers; the territory to which the Mandate applied.
No, the League of Nations  established the Mandate system pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant.










Origin of the System of Mandates under the League of Nations on JSTOR


Palestine was part of the territory for which the Allied Powers had Title and Rights.
No, the Allied Powers did not have title and rights, as stated above. Title and rights accrued to the inhabitants.


The citizenship issue was the customary law of the Allied Powers and made applicable by the Allied Powers.
No, citizenship was was to be administered by the Mandatory subject to approval of the League of Nations.

The Government of Palestine was, in fact, the "Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine."
No, the wishes of the inhabitants were the principle consideration in the selection of the Mandatory, pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant, to wit:

"The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

To be a citizen of Palestine, is to be a citizen of the Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine.
No, the inhabitants selected the Mandatory and the League confirmed the selection.

It's amazing how wrong you are on almost everything you write.  Either your racist hate of the Muslims and Christians of Palestine and extreme partisanship makes it impossible for you to think clearly, or your are just not very clever.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic.
> 
> Israel's existence is defacto not dejure.
> 
> It has political recognition but no legal status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then. Support your claim with reasoned arguments.
> 
> What gives States de jure  "legal status"?
Click to expand...

OK, let's start with the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

*ARTICLE 1​*​
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory; *c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​
Palestine is a state (according to the League of Nations and other legal bodies) per post war international treaties. It has international borders defined by post war treaties.

Israel, on the other hand, has never had any defined territory. There has never been any treaty or agreement for Israel to legally acquire any territory. Israel sits inside Palestine's international borders by military force.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

It is the reality of the moment that the nation of "Israel" physically exists.   Israel exists in the legal sense; and it exists in a political sense.  Nothing, pertaining to the time before 14 May 1948 _(Independence from League of Nations mandate under British administration)_ makes any difference.  No matter HOW YOU choose to interpret it, the fact and the reality does not change.  And the challenges you make to the interpretation of historical events (while interesting) does not change the fact that Israel maintains its sovereignty.

Nothing you say today changes the physical reality.  There have been three wars and two intifada fought over the issue; not to mention the attempted insurrection by Fedayeen Extremist against the Hashemite Kingdom.  Each time the Arab Palestinians engage in combat, they lose a little something.  You would think that they would like to secure as Peace, as the Jordanians did, and the Egyptians did.  The concept of securing defensible borders was just as important then (See Joints Chiefs of Staff Memorandum 373-67); if not more so today --- since the Arab Palestinian have expanded the reach of their Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  The JSC Memorandum was written in the light prior to the *1972 Summer Olympics* at Munich when Palestinian terrorists storms the Olympic Village.   

It is time for the Arab Palestinians to start building a future; instead of lining the pockets of corrupt leaders.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It is the reality of the moment that the nation of "Israel" physically exists.


Indeed, de facto not de jure. Nothing legal can be derived from illegal behavior.

So all of that stuff you spew is irrelevant.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> OK, let's start with the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States
> 
> *ARTICLE 1*
> 
> The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​


​


> Palestine had a permanent population.



If Palestine had a permanent population, then it had a permanent population.  If you argue that a permanent population is one of the pre-conditions of Statehood, and then argue that the territory in question (Palestine) had a permanent population, you have just obliterated your own argument that a State arising from that territory has not met the pre-condition of having a permanent population.  



> Israel sits inside Palestine's international border ...



If Palestine has international borders (a defined territory), then it had international borders.  If you argue that a defined territory is one of the pre-conditions of Statehood, and then argue that the territory in question (Palestine) had a defined territory (international borders), you have just obliterated your own argument that a State arising from that territory has not met the pre-condition of having a defined territory.  

Here, you are, in fact, arguing that Palestine (re-named Israel) met all of the pre-conditions for Statehood.


----------



## RoccoR

monty,

You take one man's perspective and then try to re-interpret the actual events.

San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain.

•  The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
•  Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.​
This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

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

•  Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine,​
The Treaty of Lausanne

Relative to Rights and Title to Allied Powers

•  ARTICLE I6.

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

SECTION VII.
SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.
ARTICLE 94.  Treaty of Sevres

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.

The determination of the other frontiers of the said States, and the selection of the Mandatories, will be made by the Principal Allied Powers.

ARTICLE 95.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

ARTICLE 97.

Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 132, to accept any decisions which may be taken in relation to the questions dealt with in this Section.

ARTICLE 132.

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​
•   ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​
While the Mudros Agreement: Armistice with Turkey (October 30, 1918) amounted to an Unconditional Surrender, the Armistice was replaced by the Treaty of Sevres.  

WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
LAST UPDATED: 7-20-1998 See Article History

Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

The Palestine Police during the British Mandate

Palestine 1947 Side-affects and paradoxes were the main forces shaping Britain's administration of Palestine.  

*The initial phase between 1917 and 1920, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was an incidental side affect of World War 1 middle-eastern military campaigns.*

The Palestine Police was born when civil administration replaced military administration in 1920 but for much of its history, the British section of the Palestine police received army training.​
Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.​
All the above are quoted excerpts from the various sources provided by the links.  They are not quoted in their entirety do to their size.  Only the salient points are provided; answering the specific questions.

*(∑)*

There was a primary and specific intent that dates back to a time before the Mandate.  That intent, expressed over and over again, was the: "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."  The difference here is that, the intent is relative to the Jewish people.  There is no equivalent to this prior to the 1988 acknowledgement of the Palestinians Declaration of Independence.

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

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

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

The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.

•  Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization
•  Application for Admission by the State of Palestine (23 September 2011)
• Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (15 December 1988)
•  Palestinian National Council Declaration of Independence (November 14, 1988)​
The Arab Palestinians are always attempting to grab more, or to imply more than is theirs or there to be had.  In this case, It is what it is.  There is a clear chain for you to follow pertaining to the Jewish People and the establishment of Israel.  They are links in the chain that specifically state:  "Jewish National Home" and the "State of Israel."  There is no interpretation required.  That is because the Jewish People at that time were the principle interests.  Similarly, when it spoke about Jordan, it clearly stated in an unambiguous form, Jordan.  But there is no unambiguous form specifically addressing the Arabs of Palestine in terms of sovereignty or establishment beyond those that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians. To reject political offers that inadvertently undermines the Arab Palestinian self interests is their trademark; there exclusive brand.  They need not cry about it now.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,

Again!!!



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the reality of the moment that the nation of "Israel" physically exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, de facto not de jure. Nothing legal can be derived from illegal behavior.
> 
> So all of that stuff you spew is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


What "illegal behavior" specifically.  Where and when.?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

It is also necessary to point out that the Montevideo Convention "rules" are guidelines and not hard-and-fast, black-and-white.  There is a measure of "does it have enough" rather than "does it meet each standard in exacting detail".

For example, The Vatican is considered a State and acts as one, even though it has no permanent population (the population is celibate males and thus not self-sustaining -- all citizens are 'immigrants').

There are numerous other examples of States or non-States with various shades of meeting Montevideo guidelines or being shy of them.  I would suggest the 4th criteria (having the capacity of entering into agreements with other States) to be the defining guideline.  The 4th criteria depends on having at least some State recognize a State enough to enter into agreements with it, and thus depends on some form of recognition.

For example, is Taiwan a State or not a State (de jure)?  It is easy enough to argue it easily meets all the Montevideo criteria.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> monty,
> 
> You take one man's perspective and then try to re-interpret the actual events.
> San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain.
> 
> •  The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
> •  Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.​This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> •  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​First Sentence of the Mandate for Palestine (1922)
> 
> •  Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine,​The Treaty of Lausanne
> 
> Relative to Rights and Title to Allied Powers
> 
> •  ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> SECTION VII.
> SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.
> ARTICLE 94.  Treaty of Sevres
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
> 
> The determination of the other frontiers of the said States, and the selection of the Mandatories, will be made by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> ARTICLE 95.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> ARTICLE 97.
> 
> Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 132, to accept any decisions which may be taken in relation to the questions dealt with in this Section.
> 
> ARTICLE 132.
> 
> Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
> 
> Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​•   ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​While the Mudros Agreement: Armistice with Turkey (October 30, 1918) amounted to an Unconditional Surrender, the Armistice was replaced by the Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
> LAST UPDATED: 7-20-1998 See Article History
> 
> Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
> 
> The Palestine Police during the British Mandate
> 
> Palestine 1947 Side-affects and paradoxes were the main forces shaping Britain's administration of Palestine.
> 
> *The initial phase between 1917 and 1920, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was an incidental side affect of World War 1 middle-eastern military campaigns.*
> 
> The Palestine Police was born when civil administration replaced military administration in 1920 but for much of its history, the British section of the Palestine police received army training.​Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.​All the above are quoted excerpts from the various sources provided by the links.  They are not quoted in their entirety do to their size.  Only the salient points are provided; answering the specific questions.
> 
> *(∑)*
> 
> There was a primary and specific intent that dates back to a time before the Mandate.  That intent, expressed over and over again, was the: "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."  The difference here is that, the intent is relative to the Jewish people.  There is no equivalent to this prior to the 1988 acknowledgement of the Palestinians Declaration of Independence.
> 
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
> 
> •  Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization
> •  Application for Admission by the State of Palestine (23 September 2011)
> • Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (15 December 1988)
> •  Palestinian National Council Declaration of Independence (November 14, 1988)​The Arab Palestinians are always attempting to grab more, or to imply more than is theirs or there to be had.  In this case, It is what it is.  There is a clear chain for you to follow pertaining to the Jewish People and the establishment of Israel.  They are links in the chain that specifically state:  "Jewish National Home" and the "State of Israel."  There is no interpretation required.  That is because the Jewish People at that time were the principle interests.  Similarly, when it spoke about Jordan, it clearly stated in an unambiguous form, Jordan.  But there is no unambiguous form specifically addressing the Arabs of Palestine in terms of sovereignty or establishment beyond those that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians. To reject political offers that inadvertently undermines the Arab Palestinian self interests is their trademark; there exclusive brand.  They need not cry about it now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​


So how does all that refute my post?


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> monty,
> 
> You take one man's perspective and then try to re-interpret the actual events.
> San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain.
> 
> •  The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
> •  Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.​This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
> 
> •  The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​First Sentence of the Mandate for Palestine (1922)
> 
> •  Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine,​The Treaty of Lausanne
> 
> Relative to Rights and Title to Allied Powers
> 
> •  ARTICLE I6.
> 
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
> 
> SECTION VII.
> SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.
> ARTICLE 94.  Treaty of Sevres
> 
> The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
> 
> The determination of the other frontiers of the said States, and the selection of the Mandatories, will be made by the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> ARTICLE 95.
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
> 
> ARTICLE 97.
> 
> Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 132, to accept any decisions which may be taken in relation to the questions dealt with in this Section.
> 
> ARTICLE 132.
> 
> Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.
> 
> Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.​•   ARTICLE 30.
> 
> Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.​While the Mudros Agreement: Armistice with Turkey (October 30, 1918) amounted to an Unconditional Surrender, the Armistice was replaced by the Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica
> LAST UPDATED: 7-20-1998 See Article History
> 
> Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
> 
> The Palestine Police during the British Mandate
> 
> Palestine 1947 Side-affects and paradoxes were the main forces shaping Britain's administration of Palestine.
> 
> *The initial phase between 1917 and 1920, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was an incidental side affect of World War 1 middle-eastern military campaigns.*
> 
> The Palestine Police was born when civil administration replaced military administration in 1920 but for much of its history, the British section of the Palestine police received army training.​Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.​All the above are quoted excerpts from the various sources provided by the links.  They are not quoted in their entirety do to their size.  Only the salient points are provided; answering the specific questions.
> 
> *(∑)*
> 
> There was a primary and specific intent that dates back to a time before the Mandate.  That intent, expressed over and over again, was the: "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."  The difference here is that, the intent is relative to the Jewish people.  There is no equivalent to this prior to the 1988 acknowledgement of the Palestinians Declaration of Independence.
> 
> By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
> 
> Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
> 
> Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
> 
> The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem.
> 
> •  Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization
> •  Application for Admission by the State of Palestine (23 September 2011)
> • Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine (15 December 1988)
> •  Palestinian National Council Declaration of Independence (November 14, 1988)​The Arab Palestinians are always attempting to grab more, or to imply more than is theirs or there to be had.  In this case, It is what it is.  There is a clear chain for you to follow pertaining to the Jewish People and the establishment of Israel.  They are links in the chain that specifically state:  "Jewish National Home" and the "State of Israel."  There is no interpretation required.  That is because the Jewish People at that time were the principle interests.  Similarly, when it spoke about Jordan, it clearly stated in an unambiguous form, Jordan.  But there is no unambiguous form specifically addressing the Arabs of Palestine in terms of sovereignty or establishment beyond those that were rejected by the Arab Palestinians. To reject political offers that inadvertently undermines the Arab Palestinian self interests is their trademark; there exclusive brand.  They need not cry about it now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​



The phrase "inhabited by peoples" is "unambiguous", it is for these people (inhabiting Palestine) that the territories were to be held in trust for and the people that were to be protected under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  The Jews were in Europe, and were not the inhabitants.

Let me refresh your memory:

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

So your racism and extreme partisanship is not blinding you, it is the fact that you are just plain dimwitted. You can neither dazzle us with brilliance nor baffle us with your bullshit.   Give it up, writing  more and more bullshit doesn't change the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> I would suggest the 4th criteria (having the capacity of entering into agreements with other States) to be the defining guideline. The 4th criteria depends on having at least some State recognize a State enough to enter into agreements with it, and thus depends on some form of recognition.


When the Palestinians declared independence in 1948 it was recognized by five other states. The US had a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932. Palestine was accepted into the Arab league as a member state in 1974.

Of course those last two items were trampled down by illegal external interference.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest the 4th criteria (having the capacity of entering into agreements with other States) to be the defining guideline. The 4th criteria depends on having at least some State recognize a State enough to enter into agreements with it, and thus depends on some form of recognition.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Palestinians declared independence in 1948 it was recognized by five other states. The US had a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932. Palestine was accepted into the Arab league as a member state in 1974.
> 
> Of course those last two items were trampled down by illegal external interference.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. We are discussing Israels de jure existence not Palestine's.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest the 4th criteria (having the capacity of entering into agreements with other States) to be the defining guideline. The 4th criteria depends on having at least some State recognize a State enough to enter into agreements with it, and thus depends on some form of recognition.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Palestinians declared independence in 1948 it was recognized by five other states. The US had a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932. Palestine was accepted into the Arab league as a member state in 1974.
> 
> Of course those last two items were trampled down by illegal external interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. We are discussing Israels de jure existence not Palestine's.
Click to expand...

Well, Israel's so called legitimacy is based on the lie that there was no Palestine. The land was just up for grabs. But there was. That means that Israel taking that land by force was illegal.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest the 4th criteria (having the capacity of entering into agreements with other States) to be the defining guideline. The 4th criteria depends on having at least some State recognize a State enough to enter into agreements with it, and thus depends on some form of recognition.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Palestinians declared independence in 1948 it was recognized by five other states. The US had a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932. Palestine was accepted into the Arab league as a member state in 1974.
> 
> Of course those last two items were trampled down by illegal external interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. We are discussing Israels de jure existence not Palestine's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel's so called legitimacy is based on the lie that there was no Palestine. The land was just up for grabs. But there was. That means that Israel taking that land by force was illegal.
Click to expand...



HUH???  Indigenous Palestinians were Jews in the territory of Palestine.  Long before any Muslim invaders.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Well, Israel's so called legitimacy is based on the lie that there was no Palestine. The land was just up for grabs. But there was. That means that Israel taking that land by force was illegal.



Okay so your new claim is that Israel has no legal status, not because she failed to fulfill the requirements, but because another State was already in existence on that territory. 

Again, support your claim.  When did "Palestine" come into existence as a State?  What was its permanent population?  What was its defined territory?  What demonstrated their effective control over that territory?  What was its government?  Where was the seat of government?  Which persons occupied the government positions?  What evidence do you have that Palestine had the capability of entering into agreements with other States?  What legal instruments brought about Palestine's Statehood? 

When you are finished with all that, you will also have to provide arguments to prove that Israel is legally prohibited from seceding from "Palestine", by developing her own Statehood.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest the 4th criteria (having the capacity of entering into agreements with other States) to be the defining guideline. The 4th criteria depends on having at least some State recognize a State enough to enter into agreements with it, and thus depends on some form of recognition.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Palestinians declared independence in 1948 it was recognized by five other states. The US had a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932. Palestine was accepted into the Arab league as a member state in 1974.
> 
> Of course those last two items were trampled down by illegal external interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. We are discussing Israels de jure existence not Palestine's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, Israel's so called legitimacy is based on the lie that there was no Palestine. The land was just up for grabs. But there was. That means that Israel taking that land by force was illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Indigenous Palestinians were Jews in the territory of Palestine.  Long before any Muslim invaders.
Click to expand...


Indigenous Palestinians converted to Christianity when Christianity became the state religion of Rome in 380 AD, long before Muslim rulers arrived. Christians were still a majority when the Crusaders conquered Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, *montelatici*, et al,

In this particular case, I was addressing your compatriot, not specifically your post which I address already.

And in most cases, it serves no useful purpose to refuted your post more than once, since you will just ignore the facts anyway.



P F Tinmore said:


> So how does all that refute my post?


*(COMMENT)*

The facts, over the last century is a classic case of the Arab Palestinians attempting to twist the fact, round-up sympathy, play on the emotions and advocate for violence in order to pretend they are recovering something that was never theirs to begin with.

Israel, responding to the

The occupier is required by Article 43 of the Hague Regulations to ‘take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country’.11 This obligation is also reflected in Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states: ‘[t]he Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfill its obligations . . . to maintain the orderly government of the Territory . . .’.


Today, the reality is that Israel is acting in the best interest of regional security and its protection and preservation of its culture, its citizenry and its recognition as a nation state.  It is owed many time the remuneration, reparations, damages, compensation and restitution gross and systematic violations of humanitarian law, conduct of terrorism, and the promotion of violence and acts of aggression.






​
The Hostile Arab Palestinians, refuses to make peace, incite terrorism and war, conduct such propaganda operations to poison the lines of main stream media, and promote generational transmission of hatred.  Since early 1948, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) has been involved in varying degrees of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.  Over the span of ≈ seven decades, the HoAP hijacked airliners, shot-up airports,  pirated ships, massacred unarmed Olympians,  targeted schools - beaches - restaurants - bus stops and ambushed civilian vehicles; not to mention kidnapped and murder others.

Now, not that this is not bad enough, the HoAP, openly supported by the general public for these major crimes, by also honored, and promoted an ever increasing air of violence.  After a half century of this violence, Israel began to ratchet security countermeasures to address the prevention and neutralization of these heinous criminal behaviors.  Gradually, the psychopathic nature the general Arab Palestinian population uncloaked itself and openly rallied in support of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters --- demonstrating the inability to appreciate the sanctity of life.

There is so much more I could write on the nature of the chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior of the Arab Palestinian.  Contrary to popular belief, Arab Palestinian psychopaths are not considered to be mentally ill --- but --- exist more on the order of a culture that is predisposed to Antisocial Personality Disorders (ASPD).  They are exceptionally dangerous. 

Key traits of the psychopath include the tendency to manipulation, intimidation, and move to exert control over others, in order to satisfy their own selfish desires (personal, economic and political):

•  A disregard for laws and social mores,
•  A disregard for the rights of others,
•  A failure to feel remorse or guilt,
•  A tendency to display violent behavior,​The behavior of an Arab Palestinian is consistent with that of a person without any future; because they are parasitic in nature.  They have not true ability to assess the history from which they came.  They are unable to put Arab Palestinians in contrast with other populations and are not capable of nation building.

They are what they are.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

Your hate and racism are just too much for you, all you can do is attempt to baffle people far more clever than you with bullshit.  It doesn't work, bullshitter.  

But this statement of yours poignantly points to where you get your ideas:

"The behavior of an Arab Palestinian is consistent with that of a person without any future; because they are parasitic in nature."

Hitler said just about the same thing about Jews in Mein Kampf.  Congratulations, we know where you are coming from.


----------



## Shusha

The Arab Palestinians, to this day, fall short of the Montevideo requirements.  As Rocco points out, the most egregious of this is the lack of capacity to enter into agreements with other States and to adopt the very first principle of Statehood -- which is the principle of non-violent relationships with its fellow States.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Israel's so called legitimacy is based on the lie that there was no Palestine. The land was just up for grabs. But there was. That means that Israel taking that land by force was illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay so your new claim is that Israel has no legal status, not because she failed to fulfill the requirements, but because another State was already in existence on that territory.
> 
> Again, support your claim.  When did "Palestine" come into existence as a State?  What was its permanent population?  What was its defined territory?  What demonstrated their effective control over that territory?  What was its government?  Where was the seat of government?  Which persons occupied the government positions?  What evidence do you have that Palestine had the capability of entering into agreements with other States?  What legal instruments brought about Palestine's Statehood?
> 
> When you are finished with all that, you will also have to provide arguments to prove that Israel is legally prohibited from seceding from "Palestine", by developing her own Statehood.
Click to expand...

WOW, that reads like an Israeli propaganda sheet.

Do you have a link to that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfill its obligations


Like bulldozing homes to make room for illegal settlements?

I don't think settler colonialism is an obligation.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> WOW, that reads like an Israeli propaganda sheet.
> 
> Do you have a link to that?



A link to what?  I am addressing your claims. 

You stated:  Israel has no legal status.

I replied:  Present your arguments.

You presented Montevideo as the criteria used for determining whether or not Israel (and now also Palestine) had the pre-conditions necessary to assert a claim to Statehood.

I'm asking questions.  I'm asking you to present your argument.  How the hell can a request for information be "propaganda" or necessitate a link?  Present your argument or admit you have none.


----------



## jillian

montelatici said:


> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.





P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
Click to expand...


aaaannnnidddd....here come the anti-semite scum.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, that reads like an Israeli propaganda sheet.
> 
> Do you have a link to that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A link to what?  I am addressing your claims.
> 
> You stated:  Israel has no legal status.
> 
> I replied:  Present your arguments.
> 
> You presented Montevideo as the criteria used for determining whether or not Israel (and now also Palestine) had the pre-conditions necessary to assert a claim to Statehood.
> 
> I'm asking questions.  I'm asking you to present your argument.  How the hell can a request for information be "propaganda" or necessitate a link?  Present your argument or admit you have none.
Click to expand...

Palestine had everything except that denied by illegal external interference. Illegal actions against Palestinians by foreigners do not negate their rights.


----------



## Shusha

You are utterly failing to support your claim with reasoned arguments.  You are utterly failing to even define your claim adequately.  

To remind:  the claim on the table is "Israel has no legal (de jure) status". 

You initially argued the claim, quite reasonably, by introducing the Montevideo Convention which is one (not the only, but one) expression of customary international law with respect to the conditions necessary in order to consider any territory a State (population, territory, government, capacity/recognition).  

Now you are shifting your argument.  You are introducing a new idea -- which is, that whether Israel meets the criteria YOU presented (Montevideo) is not relevant after all, and the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim.  (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw). 

I don't care what you argue.  But you have to pick your goal posts and plant them.  And then stick with them.  So first, decide whether you are arguing that Israel has no legal status or whether you are arguing that (regardless of Israel's status), "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).


Palestine has been a state since 1924. Its territory is defined by international borders. Israel sits inside those borders with no territory of its own.

And you argue about which one is legitimate.


----------



## montelatici

jillian said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous people under Muslim rule, remained the indigenous people. Most converted from Christianity (the state religion of the Byzantine Empire)  to Islam, but they remained the same people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> aaaannnnidddd....here come the anti-semite scum.
Click to expand...


Stating fact has become antisemitic.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine has been a state since 1924. Its territory is defined by international borders. Israel sits inside those borders with no territory of its own.
> 
> And you argue about which one is legitimate.
Click to expand...


You are the one presenting a claim.  You have yet to provide a cohesive, reasonable argument to support that claim.

Now you are presenting another claim.  That is:  "Palestine has been a State since 1924".  Defend that claim.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine has been a state since 1924. Its territory is defined by international borders. Israel sits inside those borders with no territory of its own.
> 
> And you argue about which one is legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one presenting a claim.  You have yet to provide a cohesive, reasonable argument to support that claim.
> 
> Now you are presenting another claim.  That is:  "Palestine has been a State since 1924".  Defend that claim.
Click to expand...

That is not another "claim." That is history. How do you post here and know so little?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> That is not another "claim." That is history. How do you post here and know so little?



Oh for the love of all that is holy.  Do you not understand debate?  You present a claim.  (Israel has no legal status; Palestine became a State in 1924).  And then you defend that claim by providing supporting arguments.  Then I challenge those arguments and offer counter-arguments.  

Jeez.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not another "claim." That is history. How do you post here and know so little?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that is holy.  Do you not understand debate?  You present a claim.  (Israel has no legal status; Palestine became a State in 1924).  And then you defend that claim by providing supporting arguments.  Then I challenge those arguments and offer counter-arguments.
> 
> Jeez.
Click to expand...

Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, but of a state that already existed. They challenge my position that Palestine, as a Class A mandate under the League of Nations, was a state already in that era. 36 But beyond a bald assertion, Benoliel and Perry cite nothing that would demonstrate that Palestine was not a state in the League era. In particular, they mention nothing of the practice of the states of that era in regard to Palestine, which is where one must look to determine if Palestine was then a state.

Had Benoliel and Perry examined that state practice, they would have seen that Palestine was accepted as a state, even though it was administered by Great Britain under the mandate system established by the League. 3 7 Most critically, Benoliel and Perry fail to account for a major international instrument of the era bearing on the status of Palestine, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." It was in this treaty that Turkey gave up its territories in the Arab world following its defeat in World WarI

The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey. 40 The Treaty of Lausanne thus reflected an assumption that the Class A mandate territories, including Palestine, were "states." Under the League Covenant, the independence of these states was "provisionally recognized," and they were to be made independent in due course. 41 The Class A mandates were states temporarily under the administration of an outside state.

Had Benoliel and Perry examined relevant League-era sources, they would have seen that the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) referred to Palestine as a state. This reference came in the well-known case involving concessions that had been granted to a Greek national named Mavrommatis by Turkey while it still controlled Palestine. 42 The case raised the issue of the status of those concessions following the demise of the Turkish empire, meaning that the PCIJ needed to determine what kind of entity had replaced Turkey in the territory of Palestine. 43 The Court said that Palestine was a successor state toTurkey.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've made a couple errors here.



P F Tinmore said:


> Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, ... The Court said that Palestine was a successor state to Turkey.
> http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil


*(COMMENT)*

EXCERPT:  John Quigley Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University:   The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey.

Turkey, in the Treaty of Lausanne, renounces “all rights and title” and specifically accepted that:  “the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.”  Pertaining to the regional area in question, Turkey addressed the territory from the “Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey” as “Syria and Iraq” (found in Article 3).  Nowhere, in the Treaty of Lausanne, is a place called Palestine identified.  John Quigley has confused the “Iraq, Syria, and Palestine” with Section VII --- Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine ---  Articles 94-97 of the Treaty of Sevres.

EXCERPT --- John Quigley: “Had Benoliel and Perry examined that state practice, they would have seen that Palestine was accepted as a state.”  That would be wrong on several levels.  First, Article 22 is completely ambiguous as to what “certain communities” were “provisionally recognized.”  The Covenant for the League of Nations never actually stipulated which territories were provisionally recognized and which territories were not provisionally recognized.  In 1919, when the Covenant was written, the signatories and the Allied Powers had not decided the boundaries of Palestine.  In fact the San Remo Convention had not convened yet.

Secondly, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, while it was the Government of Palestine, administered by Great Britain,  it was a non-self-governing institution.  This was made clear by the fact that it was not governed by the Arab Palestinians which declined to participate in nation build (rejected three time by 1923).  It was also made clear in the LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” in which it clearly states that “Palestine is today (25 February 1948) a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.

02/20/1948  A/AC.21/UK/42 UN Palestine Commission - Mandate termination - Letter from United Kingdom

On the matter of the comment pertaining to the PCIJ Judgment #5, What it actually said was:

"In all territories detached from Turkey, either as a result of the Balkan Wars in 1913, or under the present Treaty, other than those referred to in Article 311, the State which definitely acquires the territory shall ipso facto succeed to the duties and charges of Turkey towards concessions and holders of contracts, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 311, and shall maintain the guarantees granted or assign equivalent ones"​
Great Britain was responsible for the debt because it was the Government of Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine has been a state since 1924. Its territory is defined by international borders. Israel sits inside those borders with no territory of its own.
> 
> And you argue about which one is legitimate.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

One more time:  02/27/1948 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 PAL/138 Future government of Palestine - UN Palestine Commission as successor Government of Palestine/UK memorandum (excerpts) - Press release...  This is the companion to A/AC.21/UK/42 Attached Memorandum "A"

Nothing prior to 1988, recognizes Palestine (as defined by the Order in Council 1922) identifies the territory to which the Mandate applied, as a Self-Governing State or Institution.  Your statement: "Palestine has been a state since 1924."  has NO VALIDITY whatsoever.  The Palestine, within the boundaries eventually established by the Allied Powers, had been under the supervision of another power until 1948 when under the recommendation of the UN, Israel Declared Independence through self-determination.  After the act of Aggression on the part of the Arab League and the subsequent Armistice Agreements, all the remaining territory not under Israeli sovereignty, was occupied  or annexed by the Arab League until 1967.  The UN "Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988."  For the last three decades, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization."  The Arab Palestinians have had a totally dysfunctional leadership and have not been able to form a single governing body to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967.  To-date, the the
people of the territory occupied since 1967 have been parasitic on donor nation contributions and a popular supported state sponsor of terrorism.

Most Respectfully,

R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I think you've made a couple errors here.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Benoliel and Perry attempt to refute my argument that the statehood asserted by the Palestine National Council in 1988 was not of a new state, ... The Court said that Palestine was a successor state to Turkey.
> http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> EXCERPT:  John Quigley Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University:   The Treaty of Lausanne, to which the World War I allies were party, more than once refers to Turkey's Arab territories (Iraq, Syria, and Palestine), all of which became Class A mandates as "states" that were "detached" from Turkey.
> 
> Turkey, in the Treaty of Lausanne, renounces “all rights and title” and specifically accepted that:  “the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.”  Pertaining to the regional area in question, Turkey addressed the territory from the “Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey” as “Syria and Iraq” (found in Article 3).  Nowhere, in the Treaty of Lausanne, is a place called Palestine identified.  John Quigley has confused the “Iraq, Syria, and Palestine” with Section VII --- Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine ---  Articles 94-97 of the Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> EXCERPT --- John Quigley: “Had Benoliel and Perry examined that state practice, they would have seen that Palestine was accepted as a state.”  That would be wrong on several levels.  First, Article 22 is completely ambiguous as to what “certain communities” were “provisionally recognized.”  The Covenant for the League of Nations never actually stipulated which territories were provisionally recognized and which territories were not provisionally recognized.  In 1919, when the Covenant was written, the signatories and the Allied Powers had not decided the boundaries of Palestine.  In fact the San Remo Convention had not convened yet.
> 
> Secondly, the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, while it was the Government of Palestine, administered by Great Britain,  it was a non-self-governing institution.  This was made clear by the fact that it was not governed by the Arab Palestinians which declined to participate in nation build (rejected three time by 1923).  It was also made clear in the LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” in which it clearly states that “Palestine is today (25 February 1948) a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.
> 
> 02/20/1948  A/AC.21/UK/42 UN Palestine Commission - Mandate termination - Letter from United Kingdom
> 
> On the matter of the comment pertaining to the PCIJ Judgment #5, What it actually said was:
> 
> "In all territories detached from Turkey, either as a result of the Balkan Wars in 1913, or under the present Treaty, other than those referred to in Article 311, the State which definitely acquires the territory shall ipso facto succeed to the duties and charges of Turkey towards concessions and holders of contracts, referred to in the first paragraph of Article 311, and shall maintain the guarantees granted or assign equivalent ones"​
> Great Britain was responsible for the debt because it was the Government of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> the relevant piece of the legal pie is whether or not "Palestine" has a competing and superior claim. (And "Palestine" needs to be defined, btw).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine has been a state since 1924. Its territory is defined by international borders. Israel sits inside those borders with no territory of its own.
> 
> And you argue about which one is legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> One more time:  02/27/1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PAL/138 Future government of Palestine - UN Palestine Commission as successor Government of Palestine/UK memorandum (excerpts) - Press release...  This is the companion to A/AC.21/UK/42 Attached Memorandum "A"
> 
> Nothing prior to 1988, recognizes Palestine (as defined by the Order in Council 1922) identifies the territory to which the Mandate applied, as a Self-Governing State or Institution.  Your statement: "Palestine has been a state since 1924."  has NO VALIDITY whatsoever.  The Palestine, within the boundaries eventually established by the Allied Powers, had been under the supervision of another power until 1948 when under the recommendation of the UN, Israel Declared Independence through self-determination.  After the act of Aggression on the part of the Arab League and the subsequent Armistice Agreements, all the remaining territory not under Israeli sovereignty, was occupied  or annexed by the Arab League until 1967.  The UN "Acknowledges the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988."  For the last three decades, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization."  The Arab Palestinians have had a totally dysfunctional leadership and have not been able to form a single governing body to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967.  To-date, the the
> people of the territory occupied since 1967 have been parasitic on donor nation contributions and a popular supported state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> 
> R
Click to expand...

I think you are grasping at straws.

I find it interesting that I came to the same conclusion as Quigley before I heard of Quigley. I came to the same conclusion as Pappe before I heard of Pappe. It is nice to find actual scholars who have more knowledge and resources agree with what I had found on my own.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not another "claim." That is history. How do you post here and know so little?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for the love of all that is holy.  Do you not understand debate?  You present a claim.  (Israel has no legal status; Palestine became a State in 1924).  And then you defend that claim by providing supporting arguments.  Then I challenge those arguments and offer counter-arguments.
> 
> Jeez.
Click to expand...


He just likes to make up his own history.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore 

Yes, I would have to agree with Rocco (not surprising) that there is no basis for understanding that Palestine (nor Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan) achieved full Statehood in 1924 as a result of the Treaty of Lausanne, not the least of which is because it fails to meet the Montevideo criteria which you brought up.  

Still, even if this were true, you have not laid out an argument for how the existence of this "state of Palestine" prohibits the existence of the State of Israel, either then or later when they declared independence.  Indeed, what makes you think that Israel was not and is not the sovereign over the entire territory formerly known as "Palestine"?  If Palestine was a State, wasn't it governed by the Jewish people?  Why would that not have been the sole successor government of the British?  It seems to me you are making a very good argument for the entire territory being under Israel's sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> Yes, I would have to agree with Rocco (not surprising) that there is no basis for understanding that Palestine (nor Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan) achieved full Statehood in 1924 as a result of the Treaty of Lausanne, not the least of which is because it fails to meet the Montevideo criteria which you brought up.
> 
> Still, even if this were true, you have not laid out an argument for how the existence of this "state of Palestine" prohibits the existence of the State of Israel, either then or later when they declared independence.  Indeed, what makes you think that Israel was not and is not the sovereign over the entire territory formerly known as "Palestine"?  If Palestine was a State, wasn't it governed by the Jewish people?  Why would that not have been the sole successor government of the British?  It seems to me you are making a very good argument for the entire territory being under Israel's sovereignty.


Would Israel become the government of the existing state of Palestine or would it be a successor state to Palestine? Different rules would apply.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Would Israel become the government of the existing state of Palestine or would it be a successor state to Palestine? Different rules would apply.



Feel free to present your arguments for either scenario.  If you would wish to indulge my preferences, I would argue that the government of the Jewish National Homeland became the only national governing body in the hole left by the British abandonment of the Mandate -- thus the State of Palestine (if it previously existed) was transferred from the British trust to the government of "Palestine" which declared independence and renamed the place Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would Israel become the government of the existing state of Palestine or would it be a successor state to Palestine? Different rules would apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to present your arguments for either scenario.  If you would wish to indulge my preferences, I would argue that the government of the Jewish National Homeland became the only national governing body in the hole left by the British abandonment of the Mandate -- thus the State of Palestine (if it previously existed) was transferred from the British trust to the government of "Palestine" which declared independence and renamed the place Israel.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that a government was established in the former mandate of Palestine and they changed the name of the country to Israel.

Then all of Palestine would be called Israel. Since there have been no treaties ceding any territory to another country then all of the former mandate would be Israel including the West Bank and Gaza. Then all of the people in the West Bank and Gaza would be Israeli citizens. That would also mean that all Palestinian refugees would be Israeli citizens.

The problem with this scenario is that a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. That government, and many of its laws, are created against the wishes of the vast majority of the people.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Then all of Palestine would be called Israel. Since there have been no treaties ceding any territory to another country then all of the former mandate would be Israel including the West Bank and Gaza. Then all of the people in the West Bank and Gaza would be Israeli citizens. That would also mean that all Palestinian refugees would be Israeli citizens.
> 
> The problem with this scenario is that a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. That government, and many of its laws, are created against the wishes of the vast majority of the people.



Well, you were the one arguing that Palestine was, de jure, a State in 1924.  (I don't happen to agree with you).  But....IF it was then it seems to me the governing body of that State was Britain and after that the Jewish people in the form of the Israeli government.  I don't see any competent, competing government to even offer as a possibility.  Therefore, if Palestine was a State and since you and I are in long-standing agreement that there is no international boundary dividing Palestine, the only option is that Israel is the sovereign over the entire territory, having been the only government operating within that territory meeting the criteria for Statehood.  Thus Egypt and Jordan occupied sovereign Palestinian territory from 1948 to 1967 and Israel (State of de jure Palestine), rather than "winning land in war" just re-exerted control over land already under her de jure sovereignty.  

The question on the table remains:  _Israel has no legal status._  It seems apparent to me that both your supporting arguments (Montevideo criteria and existence of State in 1924) have not only failed to convince that your premise is true -- but actually support its opposite -- that Israel has the ONLY claim to any legal status in the territory of Palestine. 

Moving on to your "will of the people" argument.  Clearly, the "will of the people" has brought about a de facto State of Israel.  If the "will of the people" brings about de jure by legitimizing de facto -- then you have already lost that argument as well.  

Further, self-determination and the right to it are not dependent on holding a majority.  Its an inherent right, remember?  Its not conditional.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> If the "will of the people" brings about de jure by legitimizing de facto -- then you have already lost that argument as well.


Not so. The vast majority of the people have never been allowed to vote.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> IF it was then it seems to me the governing body of that State was Britain and after that the Jewish people in the form of the Israeli government.


You are making a leap there.

It is true that the British were the appointed government. But Britain was not the sovereign of the territory. It was merely a trustee. The people are the sovereigns. When Britain left the people stayed and retained their sovereignty. A government is not required.

So when Israel set up shop in Palestine it was not an empty place up for grabs. It was already populated by a people who had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.

So if Israel does not violate any of those rights it can claim to be a legitimate state.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You are making a leap there.


I'm making a leap here?  Oh, the irony.  Remember you are trying to defend the idea that Israel has no legal status.  I'm just countering your arguments.  



> It is true that the British were the appointed government. But Britain was not the sovereign of the territory. It was merely a trustee.


  Close enough for the purposes of our discussion.



> The people are the sovereigns.


  Yeah, no. The people hold the right to sovereignty (self-determination) but the "people" are not sovereign. (Had the people BEEN sovereign, there would have been no need for a Mandate.) People can hold the RIGHT to sovereignty (self-determination) without actually holding de jure or de facto sovereignty.  Examples:  The people of Scotland, the Quebecois, Catalans, Kurds, Tibetans, Cypriots, Western Saharans, First Nations peoples of the Americas, etc, etc, etc.  (In my opinion, the Arab Palestinians fall into this category -- they hold the RIGHT to sovereignty over some territory, but at the moment, do not have actual sovereignty (excepting Gaza).  Anyone who uses terms like "occupied territory", by implication, agrees with me.)

To create an analogy:  there is a great deal of difference between my right to marry and my being married, de jure.

This is KEY to our discussion at the moment.  At what point do a peoples (holding the inherent right to sovereignty) actually obtain sovereignty and through which acts or legal instruments does this occur?  *What creates de jure sovereignty?*




> A government is not required.


  See THAT is an interesting claim you make.  And directly contradictory to Montevideo, btw.  Are you withdrawing Montevideo as criteria for State formation? How can a State be a State, de jure, without a government?  How can you measure whether a State is a State if there is no government?  



> So when Israel set up shop in Palestine it was not an empty place up for grabs.


  And this goes back to a question I asked at the beginning of this chain of dialogue:  what, do you think, was the de jure condition of the territory from the end of the Ottoman Empire through to today?  Give me a timeline.  



> It was already populated by a people who had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.


  In point of fact, it was populated by TWO such peoples.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Anyone who uses terms like "occupied territory", by implication, agrees with me.)


You can violate the right to sovereignty but you cannot negate it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> In point of fact, it was populated by TWO such peoples.


I don't agree but even if true one cannot violate the rights of the other. Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are making a leap there.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm making a leap here?  Oh, the irony.  Remember you are trying to defend the idea that Israel has no legal status.  I'm just countering your arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the British were the appointed government. But Britain was not the sovereign of the territory. It was merely a trustee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Close enough for the purposes of our discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people are the sovereigns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, no. The people hold the right to sovereignty (self-determination) but the "people" are not sovereign. (Had the people BEEN sovereign, there would have been no need for a Mandate.) People can hold the RIGHT to sovereignty (self-determination) without actually holding de jure or de facto sovereignty.  Examples:  The people of Scotland, the Quebecois, Catalans, Kurds, Tibetans, Cypriots, Western Saharans, First Nations peoples of the Americas, etc, etc, etc.  (In my opinion, the Arab Palestinians fall into this category -- they hold the RIGHT to sovereignty over some territory, but at the moment, do not have actual sovereignty (excepting Gaza).  Anyone who uses terms like "occupied territory", by implication, agrees with me.)
> 
> To create an analogy:  there is a great deal of difference between my right to marry and my being married, de jure.
> 
> This is KEY to our discussion at the moment.  At what point do a peoples (holding the inherent right to sovereignty) actually obtain sovereignty and through which acts or legal instruments does this occur?  *What creates de jure sovereignty?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A government is not required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See THAT is an interesting claim you make.  And directly contradictory to Montevideo, btw.  Are you withdrawing Montevideo as criteria for State formation? How can a State be a State, de jure, without a government?  How can you measure whether a State is a State if there is no government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when Israel set up shop in Palestine it was not an empty place up for grabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And this goes back to a question I asked at the beginning of this chain of dialogue:  what, do you think, was the de jure condition of the territory from the end of the Ottoman Empire through to today?  Give me a timeline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was already populated by a people who had the right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In point of fact, it was populated by TWO such peoples.
Click to expand...


It was overwhelmingly populated by native people who did not practice Judaism until the 1850s when the Zionists began to arrive.

*AN INTERIM REPORT*
*ON THE*
*CIVIL ADMINISTRATION*
*OF*

*PALESTINE,*

*during the period*
*1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*


*AN INTERIM REPORT*
*ON THE*
*CIVIL ADMINISTRATION*
*OF*
*PALESTINE.*

*I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR*

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

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


----------



## Shusha

Shusha said:


> And this goes back to a question I asked at the beginning of this chain of dialogue:  what, do you think, was the de jure condition of the territory from the end of the Ottoman Empire through to today?  Give me a timeline.



Here's my claim, should anyone want to counter:

1.  Territory indisputably under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. (-1920ish)

2.  Territory under the sovereignty of the British Mandate, held in trust, for the independent State of Palestine which was to be the National Homeland of the Jewish people. (1920ish-1948)

3.  Entire territory under the sovereignty of Israel. (1948-1993)

4.  Parts of territory occupied illegally by Jordan and Egypt. (1948-1967)

5.  Territory removed from foreign occupation and restored to Israeli sovereignty. (1967-1993)

6.  Parts of territory ceded to Arab Palestinian government (Areas A and B) and parts held in trust for eventual independent State of Palestine (homeland for the Arab Palestinians) (Area C), with final international border to be determined through negotiation and peace treaty.  (1993-present)


Hit me up with your counter arguments to any of this.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> And this goes back to a question I asked at the beginning of this chain of dialogue: what, do you think, was the de jure condition of the territory from the end of the Ottoman Empire through to today? Give me a timeline.


Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You can violate the right to sovereignty but you cannot negate it.



Then stop trying to negate Israeli sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> 6. Parts of territory ceded to Arab Palestinian government (Areas A and B) and parts held in trust for eventual independent State of Palestine (homeland for the Arab Palestinians) (Area C), with final international border to be determined through negotiation and peace treaty. (1993-present)


Israel never had any land to cede.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.



So you keep asserting.  Sadly, you are lacking any reasoned arguments to support your claim.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can violate the right to sovereignty but you cannot negate it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then stop trying to negate Israeli sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Israel's so called sovereignty is what we are debating.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel never had any land to cede.



On the contrary, as you have demonstrated Palestine (now named Israel) became a State in 1924.  The only government since the British removed their trust, has been the Israeli government.  Therefore, all the land is Israeli land.  Keep up.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's so called sovereignty is what we are debating.



And you have yet to provide even a single reasonable argument against Israel's sovereignty.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel never had any land to cede.



If this is your argument, you need to address my points 2 and 3.  Not 6.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you keep asserting.  Sadly, you are lacking any reasoned arguments to support your claim.
Click to expand...

I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne. Britain occupied Palestine before the Treaty of Lausanne and continued to occupy it until 1948. The UN armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation that lasted until 1967 when Israel occupied all of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never had any land to cede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is your argument, you need to address my points 2 and 3.  Not 6.
Click to expand...

What is there to argue if Israel has no land?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> 2. Territory under the sovereignty of the British Mandate,


The British Mandate had no sovereignty.

You need to rewrite your questions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's so called sovereignty is what we are debating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have yet to provide even a single reasonable argument against Israel's sovereignty.
Click to expand...

You have not offered anything for it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel never had any land to cede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, as you have demonstrated Palestine (now named Israel) became a State in 1924.  The only government since the British removed their trust, has been the Israeli government.  Therefore, all the land is Israeli land.  Keep up.
Click to expand...

So, when did Palestine cede land to Israel?

Documents please.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you keep asserting.  Sadly, you are lacking any reasoned arguments to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne. Britain occupied Palestine before the Treaty of Lausanne and continued to occupy it until 1948. The UN armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation that lasted until 1967 when Israel occupied all of Palestine.
Click to expand...


"I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne."

So... why is it that your mythical "country of Pal'istan" exists only in your lurid fantasies?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> ...when Israel occupied all of Palestine.



Israel IS all of Palestine.  The only government to show up and run the place since the British started the Mandate.  The only State which has ever existed there.  You can call it "Palestine" if you wish -- but its the government put in place by the Jewish people for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Homeland.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne.



You most certainly have not.  You have claimed it.  But have absolutely no supporting argument to make it so.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> What is there to argue if Israel has no land?



Don't be silly.  Of course Israel has land.  

You are trying to prove that her possession of land is not legal. And not especially doing a good job of it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is there to argue if Israel has no land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course Israel has land.
> 
> You are trying to prove that her possession of land is not legal. And not especially doing a good job of it.
Click to expand...

I have already asked you that and you ducked the question.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You most certainly have not.  You have claimed it.  But have absolutely no supporting argument to make it so.
Click to expand...

I did to. You never responded to that post.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You most certainly have not.  You have claimed it.  But have absolutely no supporting argument to make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did to. You never responded to that post.
Click to expand...


These statements that Israel "has no land" and that "Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne" are absolutely ridiculous.  Tinmore could perhaps teach a course in philosophy, but he has no business posting on a Board about the real situation in the Middle East.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  Shusha,  et al,

Interesting concept; but in practice, not entirely true.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who uses terms like "occupied territory", by implication, agrees with me.)
> 
> 
> 
> You can violate the right to sovereignty but you cannot negate it.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Individual sovereignty _(governing one's self)_ is in isolation.  Then extending that outward --- as you combine sovereign entities, you begin forming families, villages, townships, cities, states and nations.  You sort-of see this when we say:  The International Community.  And while this allows people (individuals) to agree on the formation of government that best represents their interests through the establishment of laws and practices, we each agree to contribute some of our sovereignty to benefit the whole.

Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form _(there is no such place)_ you are right _(all things being equal)_.  In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter _(state sovereignty)_ cannot be done at the expense of the former _(individual sovereignty)_.  And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.  IT is very much like when you learned in science that F=MA.  We all know that it is true_ (the right answer on many'a'test)_ if we think of an idealized environment were there is no friction --- no gravity or other bodies also using their F=MA because they are free as well.

When we speak of state sovereignty, we are no longer speaking in terms of the condition in which the individual sovereignty replaces the collective sovereignty of the people.  If that were the case, then we would be describing a condition brought about by the absence of governmental authority; where each sovereign individual has they right to do their own bidding (Anarchy).  Once governments are formed, we are now talking about an invention of the people _(government)_; an entity where the people have collectively provided a piece of their sovereignty to exercise on their behalf.  A President, King, Dictator is not the leader unless some powerful aspect of the population follows them; then it is just a matter of strength and numbers.

When we talk about sovereignty in these discussions, we are well past that basic idea --- and are now into the realm where the state governments are establishing territorial control in the name of the people which gave them power.   That not necessarily the people of the territory in which the government is gaining control over.

The idea of: "You can violate the right to sovereignty but you cannot negate it." is actually looking at it backwards.  Israel is a sovereignty because the people of Israel say it is sovereign.  The West Bank and Gaza Strip are not sovereign because the people have not contributed to form a sovereign entity.  Thus, absent a uniform sovereign entity, they are the lawless brought about by political disorder and instability.  What is distinctive about this particular environment is the fact that the Arab Palestinian has collectively decided not to pursue the building of a nation, but instead to pursue a course of violence against a people that have decided to pursue a course of national development.

Never trust an Arab Palestinian that complains that your progress and development is unlawful and illegal because they did not approve it. The Arab Palestinian, in mid-1949, had the same starting point as the Israelis, with essentially the same resources and more (they had regional allies to help them).  There was none of the security barriers you see today.  The Arab Palestinians created the conditions that brought about today; self-determination in a negative direction of their choosing.  Whereas, the Israelis took a different course of action.  You can be the judge of which was better.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

The Muslims and Christians in 1949 had no resources, 2/3s of their population were either under Jew rule or were war refugees that had lost their homes, land and thus livelihoods with allies whose combined GDP was less than the wealth of the Rothschild's, thus unable to compete with the financing that the U.S., Britain and world Jewry contributed to the colonial project. 

The European Jew colonial invader and now occupier created the conditions that native Muslim and Christian Palestinians have to live under today. Quit spreading vile, racist lies.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

Here again, this is what I'm talking about.



montelatici said:


> The Muslims and Christians in 1949 had no resources, 2/3s of their population were either under Jew rule or were war refugees that had lost their homes, land and thus livelihoods with allies whose combined GDP was less than the wealth of the Rothschild's, thus unable to compete with the financing that the U.S., Britain and world Jewry contributed to the colonial project.
> 
> The European Jew colonial invader and now occupier created the conditions that native Muslim and Christian Palestinians have to live under today. Quit spreading vile, racist lies.


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab League _(contributions from multiple sources)_ and the Arab Palestinians had enough money and resources to mount a full-on military assault and incursion across their borders in contravention with the the Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.




 
Arab Participants in the 
1949 Attack and War on Israel
_From Wikipedia_​Human Development Rating: 
*2015 Human Development Report *




Arab League





Egypt
Ranked 108th 





Jordan
Ranked 80th





Iraq
Ranked 121st





Syria
Ranked 134th





Lebanon
Ranked 67th





Saudi Arabia
Ranked  39th





Yemen
Ranked 160th





Pakistan
Ranked 147th





Sudan
Ranked 167th

Of course 
	
Israel Ranked 18th; compared to [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Holy_War']
	
 State of Palestine, which Ranked 113th.  We do not really know if it is reasonable to assume that [/URL][URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Holy_War']
	
 State of Palestine could have been expected to development more than 
	

 [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan']Jordan; even if would discount the Arab Palestinian _(Fatah Fedayeen)_ insurgency of the late 1960s and the early 1970s.  But what it does indicate is that the Arab Palestinian is now and has been in the past (even before the 1988 Declaration of Independence) prone to violence of the first means to resolve a dispute.[/URL][/URL]

While start-up cost are something important, it should be remembered that in comparative analysis, it is the business sense and the drive to accomplishment that are the most difficult to muster of all intangible assets.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you keep asserting.  Sadly, you are lacking any reasoned arguments to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne. Britain occupied Palestine before the Treaty of Lausanne and continued to occupy it until 1948. The UN armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation that lasted until 1967 when Israel occupied all of Palestine.
Click to expand...


Eh, where does the Treaty Of Lausanne even mention Palestine?


----------



## Eloy

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Here again, this is what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims and Christians in 1949 had no resources, 2/3s of their population were either under Jew rule or were war refugees that had lost their homes, land and thus livelihoods with allies whose combined GDP was less than the wealth of the Rothschild's, thus unable to compete with the financing that the U.S., Britain and world Jewry contributed to the colonial project.
> 
> The European Jew colonial invader and now occupier created the conditions that native Muslim and Christian Palestinians have to live under today. Quit spreading vile, racist lies.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab League _(contributions from multiple sources)_ and the Arab Palestinians had enough money and resources to mount a full-on military assault and incursion across their borders in contravention with the the Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.
> 
> View attachment 110444
> Arab Participants in the
> 1949 Attack and War on Israel
> _From Wikipedia_​Human Development Rating:
> *2015 Human Development Report *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab League
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt
> Ranked 108th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan
> Ranked 80th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq
> Ranked 121st
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syria
> Ranked 134th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lebanon
> Ranked 67th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia
> Ranked  39th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yemen
> Ranked 160th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan
> Ranked 147th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sudan
> Ranked 167th
> 
> Of course
> 
> Israel Ranked 18th; compared to
> 
> State of Palestine, which Ranked 113th.  We do not really know if it is reasonable to assume that
> 
> State of Palestine could have been expected to development more than
> 
> Jordan; even if would discount the Arab Palestinian _(Fatah Fedayeen)_ insurgency of the late 1960s and the early 1970s.  But what it does indicate is that the Arab Palestinian is now and has been in the past (even before the 1988 Declaration of Independence) prone to violence of the first means to resolve a dispute.
> 
> While start-up cost are something important, it should be remembered that in comparative analysis, it is the business sense and the drive to accomplishment that are the most difficult to muster of all intangible assets.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Palestine is under occupation. Also, Israel gets billions of American taxpayers' dollars annually.


----------



## RoccoR

MJB12741,  

It does not.



MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is a state that has been occupied since its inception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you keep asserting.  Sadly, you are lacking any reasoned arguments to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne. Britain occupied Palestine before the Treaty of Lausanne and continued to occupy it until 1948. The UN armistice Agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation that lasted until 1967 when Israel occupied all of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, where does the Treaty Of Lausanne even mention Palestine?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It is a 21st Century interpretation of the reading.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

Eloy,  et al,

See Posting #194.




Eloy said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Here again, this is what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims and Christians in 1949 had no resources, 2/3s of their population were either under Jew rule or were war refugees that had lost their homes, land and thus livelihoods with allies whose combined GDP was less than the wealth of the Rothschild's, thus unable to compete with the financing that the U.S., Britain and world Jewry contributed to the colonial project.
> 
> The European Jew colonial invader and now occupier created the conditions that native Muslim and Christian Palestinians have to live under today. Quit spreading vile, racist lies.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab League _(contributions from multiple sources)_ and the Arab Palestinians had enough money and resources to mount a full-on military assault and incursion across their borders in contravention with the the Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.
> 
> View attachment 110444
> Arab Participants in the
> 1949 Attack and War on Israel
> _From Wikipedia_​Human Development Rating:
> *2015 Human Development Report *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab League
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt
> Ranked 108th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan
> Ranked 80th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq
> Ranked 121st
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syria
> Ranked 134th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lebanon
> Ranked 67th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia
> Ranked  39th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yemen
> Ranked 160th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan
> Ranked 147th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sudan
> Ranked 167th
> 
> Of course
> 
> Israel Ranked 18th; compared to
> 
> State of Palestine, which Ranked 113th.  We do not really know if it is reasonable to assume that
> 
> State of Palestine could have been expected to development more than
> 
> Jordan; even if would discount the Arab Palestinian _(Fatah Fedayeen)_ insurgency of the late 1960s and the early 1970s.  But what it does indicate is that the Arab Palestinian is now and has been in the past (even before the 1988 Declaration of Independence) prone to violence of the first means to resolve a dispute.
> 
> While start-up cost are something important, it should be remembered that in comparative analysis, it is the business sense and the drive to accomplishment that are the most difficult to muster of all intangible assets.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine is under occupation. Also, Israel gets billions of American taxpayers' dollars annually.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

There is nothing stopping the oil rich Arab Nations of the Arab League from assisting the Arab Palestinians the same way to the same degree --- IS THERE? 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

They were not rich at the time, ARAMCO, BAPCO etc. were wholly U.S. owned at the time and until 1980 the Saudis still were only part owners.

Plus,  since about 72% of the aid provided to the Palestinians ends up helping Israel, there is little incentive for Arab states to increase their contributions.



".............at least 72% of international aid ends up in the Israeli economy."

http://www.aidwatch.ps/sites/defaul...alAidToPalestiniansFeedsTheIsraeliEconomy.pdf


----------



## MJB12741

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Here again, this is what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Muslims and Christians in 1949 had no resources, 2/3s of their population were either under Jew rule or were war refugees that had lost their homes, land and thus livelihoods with allies whose combined GDP was less than the wealth of the Rothschild's, thus unable to compete with the financing that the U.S., Britain and world Jewry contributed to the colonial project.
> 
> The European Jew colonial invader and now occupier created the conditions that native Muslim and Christian Palestinians have to live under today. Quit spreading vile, racist lies.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab League _(contributions from multiple sources)_ and the Arab Palestinians had enough money and resources to mount a full-on military assault and incursion across their borders in contravention with the the Chapter 1 of the UN Charter.
> 
> View attachment 110444
> Arab Participants in the
> 1949 Attack and War on Israel
> _From Wikipedia_​Human Development Rating:
> *2015 Human Development Report *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab League
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egypt
> Ranked 108th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan
> Ranked 80th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq
> Ranked 121st
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syria
> Ranked 134th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lebanon
> Ranked 67th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia
> Ranked  39th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yemen
> Ranked 160th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan
> Ranked 147th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sudan
> Ranked 167th
> 
> Of course
> 
> Israel Ranked 18th; compared to
> 
> State of Palestine, which Ranked 113th.  We do not really know if it is reasonable to assume that
> 
> State of Palestine could have been expected to development more than
> 
> Jordan; even if would discount the Arab Palestinian _(Fatah Fedayeen)_ insurgency of the late 1960s and the early 1970s.  But what it does indicate is that the Arab Palestinian is now and has been in the past (even before the 1988 Declaration of Independence) prone to violence of the first means to resolve a dispute.
> 
> While start-up cost are something important, it should be remembered that in comparative analysis, it is the business sense and the drive to accomplishment that are the most difficult to muster of all intangible assets.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Quite an accomplishment for Israel.  Especially considering what Israel has for neighbors to deal with.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form _(there is no such place)_ you are right _(all things being equal)_. In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter _(state sovereignty)_ cannot be done at the expense of the former _(individual sovereignty)_. And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.


Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things up. That is that illegal external interference.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form _(there is no such place)_ you are right _(all things being equal)_. In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter _(state sovereignty)_ cannot be done at the expense of the former _(individual sovereignty)_. And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things. That is that illegal external interference.
Click to expand...


I'm still trying to find out where in theTreaty of Lausanne there is any mention of Palestine or Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already shown that Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You most certainly have not.  You have claimed it.  But have absolutely no supporting argument to make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did to. You never responded to that post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These statements that Israel "has no land" and that "Palestine was a state after the Treaty of Lausanne" are absolutely ridiculous.  Tinmore could perhaps teach a course in philosophy, but he has no business posting on a Board about the real situation in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form _(there is no such place)_ you are right _(all things being equal)_. In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter _(state sovereignty)_ cannot be done at the expense of the former _(individual sovereignty)_. And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things. That is that illegal external interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to find out where in theTreaty of Lausanne there is any mention of Palestine or Palestinians.
Click to expand...

  It is right there with Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Transjordan.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form _(there is no such place)_ you are right _(all things being equal)_. In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter _(state sovereignty)_ cannot be done at the expense of the former _(individual sovereignty)_. And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things. That is that illegal external interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to find out where in theTreaty of Lausanne there is any mention of Palestine or Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is right there with Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Transjordan.
Click to expand...



Link please.  Can't wait to see mention of Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, this is very true.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form _(there is no such place)_ you are right _(all things being equal)_. In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter _(state sovereignty)_ cannot be done at the expense of the former _(individual sovereignty)_. And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things up. That is that illegal external interference.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

But the Arabs in general and the Arab Palestinians have absolutely no room to talk.  For the last seven decades, they have chosen the Rule by the Gun as opposed to the Rule of Law.  And as long as they follow the path of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, --- so long it will be that they will fall beneath the normal rate of development; neanderthals and the unproductive.


*What Is a Philistine?*
*George Santayana*
*This is an excerpt from an essay that appeared in The Harvard Monthly, May, 1892.*​
If you live in Cambridge, dear Reader, or even in Boston, you may think the word Philistine is necessarily a term of reproach. It is, you may say, a synonym for the not-ourselves. Yet if this were so, and the word meant nothing but what is disliked by the speaker, the vast majority that lives elsewhere, in Seattle or in New York, would use it in turn to designate us, the eccentric minority. But it is notorious that they do not. They may call us dilettanti, Anglomaniacs, snobs, Unitarians, or “damn literary fellows”; they never call us Philistines. This term is not, then, like the word foreign, which means whatever is strange and unintelligible to us, whoever we are; it is rather like the word Irish or Mugwump, which signifies what is opposed or distasteful only to a certain tribe or fellowship of men. Such terms are essentially merely descriptive and geographical.  Even Prussian is not necessarily a term of abuse; any one except a Frenchman might use it simply to denote a fact of civil allegiance, and to the ears of a corporal or a school-master it might even have a glorious sound. And so it might be with the word Philistine, were it not as yet too modern and metaphorical to be used by those to whom it applies, who, being of a somewhat conservative and plebian turn of mind, prefer to call themselves “smart” fellows and “bright” girls. But if any of them should do me the honor to read my definition of the ancient and populous Philistine nation, they may henceforth point with pride (as they are apt to do) to its glories as to then-own, and be as happy in being Philistines as they are now in being Americans. Who knows if even you, dear Reader, inhabitant of Cambridge or Boston as you are, may not recognize yourself in my description? Be not hasty, therefore, in condemning the Philistine: haply he is all that you most admire and respect. But even if you are sure that the Philistine is horrid and vulgar, I pray you to be patient with him for a while. I will try to be so myself, for I too secretly dislike the Philistine; but we must forget our tastes for a time, while, happy in the consciousness of our silent sympathy, we proceed to describe the anatomy of the creature as impartially and scientifically as we can.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is very true.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form _(there is no such place)_ you are right _(all things being equal)_. In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter _(state sovereignty)_ cannot be done at the expense of the former _(individual sovereignty)_. And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things up. That is that illegal external interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But the Arabs in general and the Arab Palestinians have absolutely no room to talk.  For the last seven decades, they have chosen the Rule by the Gun as opposed to the Rule of Law.  And as long as they follow the path of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, --- so long it will be that they will fall beneath the normal rate of development; neanderthals and the unproductive.
> 
> 
> *What Is a Philistine?*
> *George Santayana*
> *This is an excerpt form an essay that appeared in The Harvard Monthly, May, 1892.*​
> If you live in Cambridge, dear Reader, or even in Boston, you may think the word Philistine is necessarily a term of reproach. It is, you may say, a synonym for the not-ourselves. Yet if this were so, and the word meant nothing but what is disliked by the speaker, the vast majority that lives elsewhere, in Seattle or in New York, would use it in turn to designate us, the eccentric minority. But it is notorious that they do not. They may call us dilettanti, Anglomaniacs, snobs, Unitarians, or “damn literary fellows”; they never call us Philistines. This term is not, then, like the word foreign, which means whatever is strange and unintelligible to us, whoever we are; it is rather like the word Irish or Mugwump, which signifies what is opposed or distasteful only to a certain tribe or fellowship of men. Such terms are essentially merely descriptive and geographical.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The Palestinian Muslim and Christians have simply resisted colonization and occupation as any other people would, and as many other people have with success. Algerians, South Africans, Irish etc.  You are just a bullshitting racist and expect the Muslims and Christians of Palestine to role and accept Jew domination placidly. It isn't going to happen.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is very true.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form _(there is no such place)_ you are right _(all things being equal)_. In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter _(state sovereignty)_ cannot be done at the expense of the former _(individual sovereignty)_. And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things up. That is that illegal external interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But the Arabs in general and the Arab Palestinians have absolutely no room to talk.  For the last seven decades, they have chosen the Rule by the Gun as opposed to the Rule of Law.  And as long as they follow the path of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, --- so long it will be that they will fall beneath the normal rate of development; neanderthals and the unproductive.
> 
> 
> *What Is a Philistine?*
> *George Santayana*
> *This is an excerpt form an essay that appeared in The Harvard Monthly, May, 1892.*​
> If you live in Cambridge, dear Reader, or even in Boston, you may think the word Philistine is necessarily a term of reproach. It is, you may say, a synonym for the not-ourselves. Yet if this were so, and the word meant nothing but what is disliked by the speaker, the vast majority that lives elsewhere, in Seattle or in New York, would use it in turn to designate us, the eccentric minority. But it is notorious that they do not. They may call us dilettanti, Anglomaniacs, snobs, Unitarians, or “damn literary fellows”; they never call us Philistines. This term is not, then, like the word foreign, which means whatever is strange and unintelligible to us, whoever we are; it is rather like the word Irish or Mugwump, which signifies what is opposed or distasteful only to a certain tribe or fellowship of men. Such terms are essentially merely descriptive and geographical.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Muslim and Christians have simply resisted colonization and occupation as any other people would, and as many other people have with success. Algerians, South Africans, Irish etc.  You are just a bullshitting racist and expect the Muslims and Christians of Palestine to role and accept Jew domination placidly. It isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

This does not change a thing.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is very true.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a limited way, in its corrupted and its purest uncontaminated form _(there is no such place)_ you are right _(all things being equal)_. In its purest form, the theory is that State sovereignty derives its legitimacy from people’s sovereignty and as such, the role of a state is that of an agent of the people; therefore the preservation of the latter _(state sovereignty)_ cannot be done at the expense of the former _(individual sovereignty)_. And like many idealized concepts it is true but not practical or real.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, there is always people with guns to fuck things up. That is that illegal external interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> But the Arabs in general and the Arab Palestinians have absolutely no room to talk.  For the last seven decades, they have chosen the Rule by the Gun as opposed to the Rule of Law.  And as long as they follow the path of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, --- so long it will be that they will fall beneath the normal rate of development; neanderthals and the unproductive.
> 
> 
> *What Is a Philistine?*
> *George Santayana*
> *This is an excerpt form an essay that appeared in The Harvard Monthly, May, 1892.*​
> If you live in Cambridge, dear Reader, or even in Boston, you may think the word Philistine is necessarily a term of reproach. It is, you may say, a synonym for the not-ourselves. Yet if this were so, and the word meant nothing but what is disliked by the speaker, the vast majority that lives elsewhere, in Seattle or in New York, would use it in turn to designate us, the eccentric minority. But it is notorious that they do not. They may call us dilettanti, Anglomaniacs, snobs, Unitarians, or “damn literary fellows”; they never call us Philistines. This term is not, then, like the word foreign, which means whatever is strange and unintelligible to us, whoever we are; it is rather like the word Irish or Mugwump, which signifies what is opposed or distasteful only to a certain tribe or fellowship of men. Such terms are essentially merely descriptive and geographical.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Muslim and Christians have simply resisted colonization and occupation as any other people would, and as many other people have with success. Algerians, South Africans, Irish etc.  You are just a bullshitting racist and expect the Muslims and Christians of Palestine to role and accept Jew domination placidly. It isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

It is very possible to physically pretend that you are doing something partriotic, and it is physcially possible to conduct Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence under the mask and Tactical Desert Shemagh Arab Keffiyeh (or whatever HAMAS calls it), pretending to be something they are not.  Having said that, for every action they take, it should be prosecuted to the fullest extend of Israeli Law under the Provisions of Basic Law or under the provisions of Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The Arab Palestinian Government should also be held accountable for every bit of material support and for each laudatory remarks the make in favor of the irrational Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

You remind of congressman Peter King, R (NY).  


For Representative Peter T. King, as he seizes the national spotlight this week with a hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims, it is the most awkward of résumé entries. Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army.

“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”

As Mr. King, a Republican, rose as a Long Island politician in the 1980s, benefiting from strong Irish-American support, the I.R.A. was carrying out a bloody campaign of bombing and sniping, targeting the British Army, Protestant paramilitaries and pubs and other civilian gathering spots. His statements, along with his close ties to key figures in the military and political wings of the I.R.A., drew the attention of British and American authorities.

For Peter King, Lawmaker Examining Terror, a Pro-I.R.A. Past


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

There is a difference between the Arab Palestinians the incites violence, praises jihadist and searches for excuses to kill more.



montelatici said:


> You remind of congressman Peter King, R (NY).
> 
> For Representative Peter T. King, as he seizes the national spotlight this week with a hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims, it is the most awkward of résumé entries. Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army.
> 
> “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”
> 
> As Mr. King, a Republican, rose as a Long Island politician in the 1980s, benefiting from strong Irish-American support, the I.R.A. was carrying out a bloody campaign of bombing and sniping, targeting the British Army, Protestant paramilitaries and pubs and other civilian gathering spots. His statements, along with his close ties to key figures in the military and political wings of the I.R.A., drew the attention of British and American authorities.
> 
> For Peter King, Lawmaker Examining Terror, a Pro-I.R.A. Past


*(COMMENT)*

Throughout history, there have been good people who have done bad things.  There Have been bad people that have done bad thing.  And there have been bad people that have done good things.  But it has been a very rare point in history were an entire population like the Arab Palestinian that can culturally and generationally  describe as morally despicable; inclined to do evil given the choice between supporting good and supporting evil.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici

How are the Palestinians any different than the IRA, the ANC, the FLN, the Mau Mau, ZANU, etc?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> There is a difference between the Arab Palestinians the incites violence, praises jihadist and searches for excuses to kill more.
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You remind of congressman Peter King, R (NY).
> 
> For Representative Peter T. King, as he seizes the national spotlight this week with a hearing on the radicalization of American Muslims, it is the most awkward of résumé entries. Long before he became an outspoken voice in Congress about the threat from terrorism, he was a fervent supporter of a terrorist group, the Irish Republican Army.
> 
> “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” Mr. King told a pro-I.R.A. rally on Long Island, where he was serving as Nassau County comptroller, in 1982. Three years later he declared, “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”
> 
> As Mr. King, a Republican, rose as a Long Island politician in the 1980s, benefiting from strong Irish-American support, the I.R.A. was carrying out a bloody campaign of bombing and sniping, targeting the British Army, Protestant paramilitaries and pubs and other civilian gathering spots. His statements, along with his close ties to key figures in the military and political wings of the I.R.A., drew the attention of British and American authorities.
> 
> For Peter King, Lawmaker Examining Terror, a Pro-I.R.A. Past
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Throughout history, there have been good people who have done bad things.  There Have been bad people that have done bad thing.  And there have been bad people that have done good things.  But it has been a very rare point in history were an entire population like the Arab Palestinian that can culturally and generationally  describe as morally despicable; inclined to do evil given the choice between supporting good and supporting evil.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Were you always full of crap or did you learn that while working for the government?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.



You just don't like the answer.  Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no?  How do you know?  What made them States?  

Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time.  Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did. 

The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal.  Its your claim.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just don't like the answer.  Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no?  How do you know?  What made them States?
> 
> Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time.  Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.
> 
> The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal.  Its your claim.
Click to expand...


Shusha, I think you should say that "Israel" acquired land.  Tinmore already says that "Palestine" has always had land.  Though I warn you that you will never get anywhere in these far-out philosophical discussions with Tinmore.


----------



## Shusha

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Shusha, I think you should say that "Israel" acquired land.  Tinmore already says that "Palestine" has always had land.  Though I warn you that you will never get anywhere in these far-out philosophical discussions with Tinmore.



Yes.  I hear what you are saying.  But I am trying to get Tinmore to understand that he is creating an artificial construct by differentiating Israel and Palestine in the years we are discussing.  They are the same thing.  They are the same thing, de jure.  The geographical territory known as "Palestine" is the territory which became a State. Only one government arose in that territory (until much later, outside the scope of the current discussion) and only one government had the capacity to "stand alone".  Only one government had the necessary criteria for creation of a State.  That State, formerly known as the geographic and political territory of "Palestine", is Israel. 

The legal constructs which created Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are the same as those which created Palestine (Israel).  He wants it to be different, de jure, but it isn't, de jure.


----------



## RoccoR

montelatici,  et al,

I'm not sure that I did a comparative analysis.   I'm not sure that the Arab Palestinians has enough similarities to make it valuable.  The IRA is much older (over a century) than any of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) groups surviving today.   A new generation of the IRA known as the Provisionals (Provisional IRA) 



montelatici said:


> How are the Palestinians any different than the IRA, the ANC, the FLN, the Mau Mau, ZANU, etc?


*(COMMENT)*

Of course people in the counterintelligence business, see each of these are individually and distinctive.

In May 1974, the Sinn Fein _(Irish republican politico's of the IRA)_, were made legal.  It was a splinter group of the Irish Republican Political Party; but directly associated with the Provisionls.  It was an evolutionary step in the development of the organization.  All during the later 1970's, the 1980's and the first half of the 1990's the evolutionary process moved toward a peaceful solution (unlike any of the HoAP).

As you know, Martin McGuiness (a terrorist himself) acting as the Chief Negotiator, Sinn Fein must be part of the Executive in Northern Ireland before the IRA hands over their weapons.  But it wasn't until late 2005, the International Decommissioning Commission (IDC) completed the decommission and demilitarization of the IRA  arsenal of weapons.

The Provisional IRA, through the Sinn Fein, had been activity moving towards a peaceful solution since 1974.  While there was of period of progress toward Peace with the Palestinians (Oslo Accord Period), in the last quarter century the HoAP, a multi-faceted splinter community of Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters.  The IRA was never been so uncoordinated as the HoAP. and not really comparable.   The conflict between Catholics of the Irish Republic and Protestants of Northern Ireland 
(UK = England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) has come to a close, albeit an uneasy close.  But the parties to the dispute are actually trying to maintain the peace.

I don't know much about Algerian Nationalist, South Africa,  Kenya, or Zimbabwe.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al, 

P F Tinmore --- this is a question that asks for something that does not exist.  The proper question is:  What requires a document and what form must the document take?  _(You can't answer that.)

----------------------------------------------------- DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER ----------------------------------------------------- 
This is merely Reference Material ONLY if you are interested.​_
_1978 VIENNA  CONVENTION ON SUCCESSION OF STATES IN RESPECT OF TREATIES_

In an attempt to codify the rules of succession of states the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties was drafted in 1978. It entered into force on November 6, 1996​
For the purposes of the present Convent i on:

Article 2 (1b) “ succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territor​
Article 2(1d)  d) “ successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of asuccession of States.​
This might be of interest for those of you interested in the Treaty of Sevres:

Article 5 Obligations Imposed By International Law Independently Of A Treaty

The fact that a treaty is not considered to be in force in respect of a State by virtue of the
application of the present Convention shall not in any way impair the duty of that State to fulfill
any obligation embodied in the treaty to which it is subject under international law independently
of the treaty.​Article 11 Boundary Regimes
A succession of States does not as such affect:

(a) a boundary established by a treaty; or
(b) obligations and rights established by a treaty and relating to the regime of a boundary.​
Article 12   Other Territorial Regimes

1. A succession of States does not as such affect:

(a) obligations relating to the use of any territory, or to restrictions upon its use, established by a treaty for the benefit of any territory of a foreign State and considered as attaching to the territories in question;
(b) rights established by a treaty for the benefit of any territory and relating to the use, or to restrictions upon the use, of any territory of a foreign State and considered as attaching to the territories in question.​
2. A succession of States does not as such affect :

(a) obligations relating to the use of any territory, or to restrictions upon its use, established by a treaty for the benefit of a group of States or of all States and considered as attaching to that territory;
(b) rights established by a treaty for the benefit of a group of States or of all States and relating to the use of any territory, or to restrictions upon its use, and considered as attaching to that territory.​
3. The provisions of the present article do not apply to treaty obligations of the predecessor State
providing for the establishment of foreign military bases on the territory to which the succession of
States relates.​Article 15 Succession In Respect Of Part Of Territory

When part of the territory of a State, or when any territory for the international relations of which
a State is responsible, not being part of the territory of that State, becomes part of the territory of
another State:

(a) treaties of the predecessor State cease to be in force in respect of the territory to which the
succession of States relates from the date of the succession of States; and
(b) treaties of the successor State are in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of
States relates from the date of the succession of States, unless it appears from the treaty or is other wise established that the application of the treaty to that territory would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or would radically change the conditions for its operation​


Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just don't like the answer.  Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no?  How do you know?  What made them States?
> 
> Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time.  Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.
> 
> The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal.  Its your claim.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The Montevideo Convention does not stipulate a requirement for a document.  Nor does the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties have a requirement for any particular form of documentation.

Finally, I would like to point out that the current line of thought is that:

Article 39 Cases Of State Responsibility And Outbreak Of Hostilities

The provisions of the present Convention shall not prejudge any question that may arise in r egard to the effect s of a succession of States in respect of a treaty from the international responsibility of  a State or from the outbreak of hostilities between States.​
Article 40 Cases Of Military Occupation 

The provisions of the present Convention shall not prejudge any question that may arise in regard
to a treaty from the military occupation of a territory.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just don't like the answer.  Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no?  How do you know?  What made them States?
> 
> Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time.  Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.
> 
> The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal.  Its your claim.
Click to expand...

The way the Palestinians acquired their land is the same way that the people of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan did.

Israel acquired its land by preplanned and implemented military conquest.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just don't like the answer.  Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no?  How do you know?  What made them States?
> 
> Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time.  Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.
> 
> The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal.  Its your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way the Palestinians acquired their land is the same way that the people of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan did.
> 
> Israel acquired its land by preplanned and implemented military conquest.
Click to expand...


Golly gee.  Do you think maybe the Arab countries should not have united to annihilate Israel?


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You have this partially correct.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just don't like the answer.  Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no?  How do you know?  What made them States?
> 
> Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time.  Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.
> 
> The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal.  Its your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The way the Palestinians acquired their land is the same way that the people of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan did.
> 
> Israel acquired its land by preplanned and implemented military conquest.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Clearly, you are correct in that it was the intention, from the beginning, was to establish a Jewish National Home.

Clearly, there was such an event called WWI (The Great War), and just as clearly the Allied Powers defeated the Central Powers (including the Ottoman Empire).  Clearly the Ottoman Empire surrendered to that Allied Powers and clearly, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic capitulated and ultimately renounced its title and rights to the Allied Powers.  

All of these contemporary nations _(Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria)_ were once under the provisional Governments established by the Mandate Authorities appointed by the Allied Powers.  Israel and Jordan were once under the Mandate for Palestine.  

There was no military conquest for one, and an unassailable peaceful transition for the others.  The Arab Palestinians had irreconcilable differences with the Jewish immigrants.  The conflict rests with the fact that the primary directive mentioned and discussed at length in the Mandate was the "Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory _*should be responsible for putting into effect*_ the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.  Yes, there were some riders and limitations.  But in reading the Mandate, the first 24 of 28 Articles address the management of the Jewish issues and the construct of the National Home.

The scope and nature of the conflict that leads us to this point in the 21st Century has been a century in the making.  It has been subject to the influence of many leaders.  The tone and camber of the issues have fluctuated between moments of melody and a lack of  harmony.   But always (based on historical behaviors) returns to violence.

This violence should not be mistaken or characterized for anything other than what it is.  The Jews have, the Arabs want it, and the fur flies.  If the Arab Palestinians were to be characterized as a chicken, it could be said that is been wrung, plucked, dressed, and stuffed.  But it was never quite cooked enough.  

"_*Ceterum autem censeo Cum MCMLXVII in finibus occupatum esse delendam*_"
----- *delenda est* ----​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians had irreconcilable differences with the Jewish immigrants.


Indeed, they rejected the Zionist settler colonial project as any other people would.

Why do you hold the Palestinians to a different standard?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been asking for years for somebody to document when Israel legally acquired any land. I always get the same response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just don't like the answer.  Are Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon States or no?  How do you know?  What made them States?
> 
> Whatever your answer is -- whatever justification you choose to give -- that is how Palestine also became a State under the government formed by the Jewish people in the Jewish people's National Homeland as required by the legal instruments of the time.  Palestine (Israel) "acquired land" in the exact same way that Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon did.
> 
> The onus is on you to explain how Palestine's "acquisition" of land was somehow different or illegal.  Its your claim.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

Partition and the Law - 1948


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The way the Palestinians acquired their land is the same way that the people of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan did.



Exactly.  And through the very same processes and legal instruments, the government of Palestine developed, was able to stand alone and became a State.  That would be the State of Israel.  Just the same as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan did.  See?  That wasn't very difficult, was it?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians had irreconcilable differences with the Jewish immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, they rejected the Zionist settler colonial project as any other people would.
> 
> Why do you hold the Palestinians to a different standard?
Click to expand...

Indeed, the Israelis have the right to defend themselves from Islamic terrorists. Why would you deny defensive measures on the part of Israeli citizens?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people



Neither Britain nor France annexed any land.  The Jewish people are an indigenous people.



> “_provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”._


The Jewish people were and are fully capable of standing by themselves.



> It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question


If you are going to use the Covenant of the League of Nations, you must include how these Articles were understood and used by the powers at the time.  The Mandate for Palestine included a preamble which explained exactly how Article 22 was understood and to be used in the context of Palestine's sovereignty:

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

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

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
_
The Mandate for Palestine, which was the instructions of how the Mandate was to be defined and implemented, then goes on to declare in Article 2:

_The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion._


You are trying to argue that Article 22 specifically legally prohibits sovereignty for the Jewish people.  It does no such thing.  In fact, if you want to use Article 22 the way you seem to want to, Article 22 PROTECTS Jewish sovereignty, entrenches it in law, just the same as it does the Arab people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Britain nor France annexed any land.  The Jewish people are an indigenous people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “_provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jewish people were and are fully capable of standing by themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to use the Covenant of the League of Nations, you must include how these Articles were understood and used by the powers at the time.  The Mandate for Palestine included a preamble which explained exactly how Article 22 was understood and to be used in the context of Palestine's sovereignty:
> 
> _Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> _
> The Mandate for Palestine, which was the instructions of how the Mandate was to be defined and implemented, then goes on to declare in Article 2:
> 
> _The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion._
> 
> 
> You are trying to argue that Article 22 specifically legally prohibits sovereignty for the Jewish people.  It does no such thing.  In fact, if you want to use Article 22 the way you seem to want to, Article 22 PROTECTS Jewish sovereignty, entrenches it in law, just the same as it does the Arab people.
Click to expand...

It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people.​
That would be the people who lived there. Colonial settlers would not benefit the indigenous people.

Since they have the sovereignty,  they get to determine immigration policies.


----------



## RoccoR

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OK, I'm looking at the map right now.



P F Tinmore said:


> It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people.​
> That would be the people who lived there. Colonial settlers would not benefit the indigenous people.
> 
> Since they have the sovereignty,  they get to determine immigration policies.


*(QUESTION)*

Which territory was "annexed by the victors?"

And in which Treaty did (President) Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points make it?

Which Treaty specifically give "no new territories should be annexed by the victors" any legitimacy?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Britain nor France annexed any land.  The Jewish people are an indigenous people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “_provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Jewish people were and are fully capable of standing by themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to use the Covenant of the League of Nations, you must include how these Articles were understood and used by the powers at the time.  The Mandate for Palestine included a preamble which explained exactly how Article 22 was understood and to be used in the context of Palestine's sovereignty:
> 
> _Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
> 
> Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
> 
> Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
> 
> Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
> 
> Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
> 
> Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
> 
> confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
> _
> The Mandate for Palestine, which was the instructions of how the Mandate was to be defined and implemented, then goes on to declare in Article 2:
> 
> _The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion._
> 
> 
> You are trying to argue that Article 22 specifically legally prohibits sovereignty for the Jewish people.  It does no such thing.  In fact, if you want to use Article 22 the way you seem to want to, Article 22 PROTECTS Jewish sovereignty, entrenches it in law, just the same as it does the Arab people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people.​
> That would be the people who lived there. Colonial settlers would not benefit the indigenous people.
> 
> Since they have the sovereignty,  they get to determine immigration policies.
Click to expand...


I agree that any annexation should benefit the indigenous people who were Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Which territory was "annexed by the victors?"


None of it. It was held in trust for the indigenous people.



P F Tinmore said:


> It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which territory was "annexed by the victors?"
> 
> 
> 
> None of it. It was held in trust for the indigenous people.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It was held "in trust" for the indigenous people the Jews?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which territory was "annexed by the victors?"
> 
> 
> 
> None of it. It was held in trust for the indigenous people.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

As the geographic area of a Pal'istan has been conquered by various armies of various cultures, there's no reason to believe that Arab migrants / invaders are necessarily the indigenous people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

History of the conflict


----------



## Hollie

History of the conflict.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> History of the conflict.


Interesting, but off topic.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> History of the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, but off topic.
Click to expand...


You're sidestepping and waffling. The usual.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> History of the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, but off topic.
Click to expand...


Who is it that's killing us infidels all over the world?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> History of the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, but off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it that's killing us infidels all over the world?
Click to expand...

Not the Palestinians.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people.​
> That would be the people who lived there. Colonial settlers would not benefit the indigenous people.
> 
> Since they have the sovereignty,  they get to determine immigration policies.



The Jewish people are the indigenous people.  And the Jewish people did and do live there.  "...by right and not on sufferance"


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people.​
> That would be the people who lived there. Colonial settlers would not benefit the indigenous people.
> 
> Since they have the sovereignty,  they get to determine immigration policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people are the indigenous people.  And the Jewish people did and do live there.  "...by right and not on sufferance"
Click to expand...

Pfffft, Israeli talking point.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Pfffft, Israeli talking point.



You can't erase a whole people and pretend that they don't exist.  Your whole argument of "Israel has no legal status" rests on the idea that the Jewish people have no rights to a government or a sovereignty.  You have presented absolutely no legal grounds for the prohibition of a Jewish government or Jewish sovereignty in Israel.  None.  You just keep saying that the Jewish people don't 'count' as inhabitants or indigenous people.  Your entire argument rests on this falsehood.


----------



## Shusha

And...whenever you get to that point in the argument you run away from it with pointless comments like "Israeli talking point".


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Your whole argument of "Israel has no legal status" rests on the idea that the Jewish people have no rights to a government or a sovereignty.


Not true. You have not been reading my posts.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your whole argument of "Israel has no legal status" rests on the idea that the Jewish people have no rights to a government or a sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. You have not been reading my posts.
Click to expand...


Go ahead and show me where you have stated that the Jewish people have a right to government and sovereignty in Israel.


----------



## Shusha

And btw, "you have not been reading my posts" is another one of your "I haven't got an answer" dodges.  I have read every single word you have written on this thread since you made the claim "Israel has no legal status".  You have failed to make a convincing argument.  

Israel became a State the same way Jordan did.  

They were both "Palestine".  They were both assigned borders by the Mandate authorities.  They were both charged with developing self-governing systems.  They both did so.  They both declared independence.  They both entered into agreements with other States.  They were both accepted into the UN.  They both now act entirely as all other States do.  Israel even had the additional benefit of having the legal force of international agreements calling for the re-constitution of their National Homeland.

So where is your legal argument?  The only argument you have presented so far is that the government was Jewish and therefore prohibited from becoming the government of the State.  There is certainly no international law which states that the Jewish people aren't allowed to form a government or a State.  (Even the UN isn't that anti-semitic -- yet.  Oh wait.  I take that back.  UNGA 3379).  

Your premise, the foundations of all your posts here, is that the "Jewish people can't have sovereignty there".  You build all your discussions around that premise.  You are just uncomfortable enough with the special rules you make for Jews that you refrain from saying it outright (in contrast to other posters).  What I mean is that you refrain from saying outright that its "Jews" who can't have any sort of sovereignty.  

So you disguise it with vague suggestions that immigrants can't have sovereignty (oops, there goes the legal status of the Americas).  Or that minorities can't have sovereignty (oops, there goes Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc).  Or that a country can't be split into self-determining parts (oops, there goes Serbia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Croatia, Herzegovina, Macedonia, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, etc, etc).  Or that there can be no such thing as returnees (oops, there goes Arab Palestine).  Or that a country can't be split based primarily on religion rather than ethnicity or even culture (again, Pakistan and Bangladesh).  

But because you actually recognize the flaws in your own arguments, you are reduced to having to argue that the Jewish people didn't exist in Israel.  That they aren't indigenous.  That they weren't inhabitants.  Its a ridiculous argument.  Its an erasing argument.   But one that the Arabs are certainly not afraid to make.


----------



## montelatici

Jordan was not Palestine.  Trans-Jordan was added to the Palestine Mandate as a separate former Turkish territory.  

"NOTE BY THE SECRETARY - GENERAL
RELATING TO ITS APPLICATION

*TERRITORY *KNOWN AS TRANS-JORDAN.

under the provisions of Article 25.

Geneva,

September 23, 1922.

ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE.
*Territory* known as Trans-Jordan.


Mandate for Palestine and Memorandum by the British Government Relating to its Application to Transjordan — Viewer — World Digital Library


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your whole argument of "Israel has no legal status" rests on the idea that the Jewish people have no rights to a government or a sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. You have not been reading my posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go ahead and show me where you have stated that the Jewish people have a right to government and sovereignty in Israel.
Click to expand...

I have always said that.

But they do not have an exclusive right.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> I have always said that.
> 
> But they do not have an exclusive right.



Well, DUH!  Who the hell is saying that the Jewish people have the exclusive right to the entire Ottoman Empire?!  The Jewish people just want the same rights that the Jordanian people, and the Syrian people and the Lebanese people and the Iraqi people already have!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> The only argument you have presented so far is that the government was Jewish and therefore prohibited from becoming the government of the State.


I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.

This is a good history on the creation of Israel.

HOME - 1948

BTW, even Rocco has linked to this site.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.



Well then, do tell.  What illegal activities prohibit Israel from having "legal status"?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, do tell.  What illegal activities prohibit Israel from having "legal status"?
Click to expand...

I posted the link.

Read up.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, do tell.  What illegal activities prohibit Israel from having "legal status"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link.
> 
> Read up.
Click to expand...

Why aren't you our Secretary of State?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, do tell.  What illegal activities prohibit Israel from having "legal status"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link.
> 
> Read up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why aren't you our Secretary of State?
Click to expand...

Too honest.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, do tell.  What illegal activities prohibit Israel from having "legal status"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link.
> 
> Read up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why aren't you our Secretary of State?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too honest.
Click to expand...

But you've got a whole wall of photoshopped, superseded documents!


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, do tell.  What illegal activities prohibit Israel from having "legal status"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link.
> 
> Read up.
Click to expand...


Oh G-d, you post so many irrelevant and unnecessarily long links.  Which one?  The Quiggly one?  That is the only link I recall you posting on this topic.  

Just sum up.  What is the basis for your argument?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, do tell.  What illegal activities prohibit Israel from having "legal status"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link.
> 
> Read up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh G-d, you post so many irrelevant and unnecessarily long links.  Which one?  The Quiggly one?  That is the only link I recall you posting on this topic.
> 
> Just sum up.  What is the basis for your argument?
Click to expand...

I have posted many things that you never looked at because Zionists are absolutely opposed to learning anything.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> I have posted many things that you never looked at because Zionists are absolutely opposed to learning anything.



I have looked at everything you post.  

Dude, if you are intelligent and learned and capable of presenting an argument -- just present it.  Stop being coy, man.  

Just as a reminder, we are looking for a legal argument for why the Jewish people are prohibited from being the legal government of State of Palestine.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> [
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> This is a good history on the creation of Israel.
> 
> HOME - 1948.



Linking to a site is not presenting an argument.  Especially a site as large as this one.  

Where is the legal argument that the Jewish people can't be sovereign over territory?  Is it on this site?  If it is, where is it?  Be specific.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> This is a good history on the creation of Israel.
> 
> HOME - 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking to a site is not presenting an argument.  Especially a site as large as this one.
> 
> Where is the legal argument that the Jewish people can't be sovereign over territory?  Is it on this site?  If it is, where is it?  Be specific.
Click to expand...

I know, it is so arduous to know what you are talking about. It is easier just to parrot Israeli talking points.

OK, let's make this simple. In the late 19th century the Zionists in Europe planned to conquer Palestine and create a Jewish state. That was their intended and stated goal. All during the Mandate period they imported people and weapons in preparation of this planned take over of Palestine. After Resolution 181 was approved, but never implemented by the UN Security Council, the Zionists rolled their troops across Palestine driving unarmed civilians out of their homes. On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization declared Israel on land just stolen by force from the Palestinians.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> This is a good history on the creation of Israel.
> 
> HOME - 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking to a site is not presenting an argument.  Especially a site as large as this one.
> 
> Where is the legal argument that the Jewish people can't be sovereign over territory?  Is it on this site?  If it is, where is it?  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it is so arduous to know what you are talking about. It is easier just to parrot Israeli talking points.
> 
> OK, let's make this simple. In the late 19th century the Zionists in Europe planned to conquer Palestine and create a Jewish state. That was their intended and stated goal. All during the Mandate period they imported people and weapons in preparation of this planned take over of Palestine. After Resolution 181 was approved, but never implemented by the UN Security Council, the Zionists rolled their troops across Palestine driving unarmed civilians out of their homes. On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization declared Israel on land just stolen by force from the Palestinians.
Click to expand...


Oh, my. You have been trolling your conspiracy theory sites again.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> This is a good history on the creation of Israel.
> 
> HOME - 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking to a site is not presenting an argument.  Especially a site as large as this one.
> 
> Where is the legal argument that the Jewish people can't be sovereign over territory?  Is it on this site?  If it is, where is it?  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it is so arduous to know what you are talking about. It is easier just to parrot Israeli talking points.
> 
> OK, let's make this simple. In the late 19th century the Zionists in Europe planned to conquer Palestine and create a Jewish state. That was their intended and stated goal. All during the Mandate period they imported people and weapons in preparation of this planned take over of Palestine. After Resolution 181 was approved, but never implemented by the UN Security Council, the Zionists rolled their troops across Palestine driving unarmed civilians out of their homes. On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization declared Israel on land just stolen by force from the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, my. You have been trolling your conspiracy theory sites again.
Click to expand...


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> This is a good history on the creation of Israel.
> 
> HOME - 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking to a site is not presenting an argument.  Especially a site as large as this one.
> 
> Where is the legal argument that the Jewish people can't be sovereign over territory?  Is it on this site?  If it is, where is it?  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it is so arduous to know what you are talking about. It is easier just to parrot Israeli talking points.
> 
> OK, let's make this simple. In the late 19th century the Zionists in Europe planned to conquer Palestine and create a Jewish state. That was their intended and stated goal. All during the Mandate period they imported people and weapons in preparation of this planned take over of Palestine. After Resolution 181 was approved, but never implemented by the UN Security Council, the Zionists rolled their troops across Palestine driving unarmed civilians out of their homes. On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization declared Israel on land just stolen by force from the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, my. You have been trolling your conspiracy theory sites again.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Fact.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> This is a good history on the creation of Israel.
> 
> HOME - 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking to a site is not presenting an argument.  Especially a site as large as this one.
> 
> Where is the legal argument that the Jewish people can't be sovereign over territory?  Is it on this site?  If it is, where is it?  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it is so arduous to know what you are talking about. It is easier just to parrot Israeli talking points.
> 
> OK, let's make this simple. In the late 19th century the Zionists in Europe planned to conquer Palestine and create a Jewish state. That was their intended and stated goal. All during the Mandate period they imported people and weapons in preparation of this planned take over of Palestine. After Resolution 181 was approved, but never implemented by the UN Security Council, the Zionists rolled their troops across Palestine driving unarmed civilians out of their homes. On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization declared Israel on land just stolen by force from the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, my. You have been trolling your conspiracy theory sites again.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Funny stuff. Between the endless YouTube videos you cut and paste and the link to 1948.org, it's remarkable how much time and energy you devote to Jew hating.

Why not just save the complete text of the Hamas charter as a Microsoft word document and use that as a response in all of your posts?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> This is a good history on the creation of Israel.
> 
> HOME - 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linking to a site is not presenting an argument.  Especially a site as large as this one.
> 
> Where is the legal argument that the Jewish people can't be sovereign over territory?  Is it on this site?  If it is, where is it?  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it is so arduous to know what you are talking about. It is easier just to parrot Israeli talking points.
> 
> OK, let's make this simple. In the late 19th century the Zionists in Europe planned to conquer Palestine and create a Jewish state. That was their intended and stated goal. All during the Mandate period they imported people and weapons in preparation of this planned take over of Palestine. After Resolution 181 was approved, but never implemented by the UN Security Council, the Zionists rolled their troops across Palestine driving unarmed civilians out of their homes. On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization declared Israel on land just stolen by force from the Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, my. You have been trolling your conspiracy theory sites again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny stuff. Between the endless YouTube videos you cut and paste and the link to 1948.org, it's remarkable how much time and energy you devote to Jew hating.
> 
> Why not just save the complete text of the Hamas charter as a Microsoft word document and use that as a response in all of your posts?
Click to expand...

IOW, you have nothing to refute my post.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never said that. The fact that it was Jews who created Israel is irrelevant. It is the illegal activities that are the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, do tell.  What illegal activities prohibit Israel from having "legal status"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I posted the link.
> 
> Read up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh G-d, you post so many irrelevant and unnecessarily long links.  Which one?  The Quiggly one?  That is the only link I recall you posting on this topic.
> 
> Just sum up.  What is the basis for your argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted many things that you never looked at because Zionists are absolutely opposed to learning anything.
Click to expand...


I have to agree those Zionists in Israel sure haven't learned from the Arab countries how to deal with Palestinians.  Wouldn't it be wonderful if Israel ended their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions & treated the Palestinians with the same Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to --- and so well deserve?  History has proven, king Hussein was right.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## montelatici

Love it when the murderous racists like MJB propose the murder of women and children because they are not Jews.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> OK, let's make this simple. In the late 19th century the Zionists in Europe planned to conquer Palestine and create a Jewish state. That was their intended and stated goal. All during the Mandate period they imported people and weapons in preparation of this planned take over of Palestine. After Resolution 181 was approved, but never implemented by the UN Security Council, the Zionists rolled their troops across Palestine driving unarmed civilians out of their homes. On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization declared Israel on land just stolen by force from the Palestinians.



So your point is that international law prohibits the formation of a State in territory where there has been migration of people (even if those people are returning to their indigenous land)?  So, Canada is illegal.  And the US.  Mexico, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Algeria, Pakistan, Barbados, St. Maarten, Angola, Mozambique, all of Latin America, Korea.  Even the Ottoman Empire.  And it sure screws over Palestine, since they won't be able to permit the migration of "Palestinians" into the territory and still form a State there.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's make this simple. In the late 19th century the Zionists in Europe planned to conquer Palestine and create a Jewish state. That was their intended and stated goal. All during the Mandate period they imported people and weapons in preparation of this planned take over of Palestine. After Resolution 181 was approved, but never implemented by the UN Security Council, the Zionists rolled their troops across Palestine driving unarmed civilians out of their homes. On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization declared Israel on land just stolen by force from the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your point is that international law prohibits the formation of a State in territory where there has been migration of people (even if those people are returning to their indigenous land)?  So, Canada is illegal.  And the US.  Mexico, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Algeria, Pakistan, Barbados, St. Maarten, Angola, Mozambique, all of Latin America, Korea.  Even the Ottoman Empire.  And it sure screws over Palestine, since they won't be able to permit the migration of "Palestinians" into the territory and still form a State there.
Click to expand...


Tinmore will respond that all of these migrations and take-overs happened before World War 2.  After that artificial cut-off date, the world became civilized.  So the only illegal country in the whole world, as of now, is Israel.  After all these years, I know his whole crazy philosophy.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Love it when the murderous racists like MJB propose the murder of women and children because they are not Jews.



HUH??? I WANT PEACE.  Whatever it takes to achieve it.  So far Jordan's Black September was the only act that ever achieved a lasting peace from Palestinians thius saving hundreds of thousands of lives over time.  If that's the only option the Palestinians will leave for Israel,  then so be it.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's make this simple. In the late 19th century the Zionists in Europe planned to conquer Palestine and create a Jewish state. That was their intended and stated goal. All during the Mandate period they imported people and weapons in preparation of this planned take over of Palestine. After Resolution 181 was approved, but never implemented by the UN Security Council, the Zionists rolled their troops across Palestine driving unarmed civilians out of their homes. On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization declared Israel on land just stolen by force from the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your point is that international law prohibits the formation of a State in territory where there has been migration of people (even if those people are returning to their indigenous land)?  So, Canada is illegal.  And the US.  Mexico, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Algeria, Pakistan, Barbados, St. Maarten, Angola, Mozambique, all of Latin America, Korea.  Even the Ottoman Empire.  And it sure screws over Palestine, since they won't be able to permit the migration of "Palestinians" into the territory and still form a State there.
Click to expand...

Most of the settler colonial countries like the US, Australia, Canada, etc. were created back before military conquest was illegal. Israel was established when the acquisition of land by force was illegal.


----------



## Shusha

You nailed it ForeverYoung436


----------



## montelatici

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's make this simple. In the late 19th century the Zionists in Europe planned to conquer Palestine and create a Jewish state. That was their intended and stated goal. All during the Mandate period they imported people and weapons in preparation of this planned take over of Palestine. After Resolution 181 was approved, but never implemented by the UN Security Council, the Zionists rolled their troops across Palestine driving unarmed civilians out of their homes. On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization declared Israel on land just stolen by force from the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your point is that international law prohibits the formation of a State in territory where there has been migration of people (even if those people are returning to their indigenous land)?  So, Canada is illegal.  And the US.  Mexico, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Algeria, Pakistan, Barbados, St. Maarten, Angola, Mozambique, all of Latin America, Korea.  Even the Ottoman Empire.  And it sure screws over Palestine, since they won't be able to permit the migration of "Palestinians" into the territory and still form a State there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tinmore will respond that all of these migrations and take-overs happened before World War 2.  After that artificial cut-off date, the world became civilized.  So the only illegal country in the whole world, as of now, is Israel.  After all these years, I know his whole crazy philosophy.
Click to expand...



Acquisition of land by conquest was deemed illegal after WW2.  And, Israel is an illegal Apartheid state.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's make this simple. In the late 19th century the Zionists in Europe planned to conquer Palestine and create a Jewish state. That was their intended and stated goal. All during the Mandate period they imported people and weapons in preparation of this planned take over of Palestine. After Resolution 181 was approved, but never implemented by the UN Security Council, the Zionists rolled their troops across Palestine driving unarmed civilians out of their homes. On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization declared Israel on land just stolen by force from the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your point is that international law prohibits the formation of a State in territory where there has been migration of people (even if those people are returning to their indigenous land)?  So, Canada is illegal.  And the US.  Mexico, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Algeria, Pakistan, Barbados, St. Maarten, Angola, Mozambique, all of Latin America, Korea.  Even the Ottoman Empire.  And it sure screws over Palestine, since they won't be able to permit the migration of "Palestinians" into the territory and still form a State there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tinmore will respond that all of these migrations and take-overs happened before World War 2.  After that artificial cut-off date, the world became civilized.  So the only illegal country in the whole world, as of now, is Israel.  After all these years, I know his whole crazy philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Acquisition of land by conquest was deemed illegal after WW2.  And, Israel is an illegal Apartheid state.
Click to expand...


And if you don't believe Monte, just ask Tinmore, Penelope or Theliq.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's make this simple. In the late 19th century the Zionists in Europe planned to conquer Palestine and create a Jewish state. That was their intended and stated goal. All during the Mandate period they imported people and weapons in preparation of this planned take over of Palestine. After Resolution 181 was approved, but never implemented by the UN Security Council, the Zionists rolled their troops across Palestine driving unarmed civilians out of their homes. On May 15, 1948 the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization declared Israel on land just stolen by force from the Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your point is that international law prohibits the formation of a State in territory where there has been migration of people (even if those people are returning to their indigenous land)?  So, Canada is illegal.  And the US.  Mexico, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Algeria, Pakistan, Barbados, St. Maarten, Angola, Mozambique, all of Latin America, Korea.  Even the Ottoman Empire.  And it sure screws over Palestine, since they won't be able to permit the migration of "Palestinians" into the territory and still form a State there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tinmore will respond that all of these migrations and take-overs happened before World War 2.  After that artificial cut-off date, the world became civilized.  So the only illegal country in the whole world, as of now, is Israel.  After all these years, I know his whole crazy philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Acquisition of land by conquest was deemed illegal after WW2.  And, Israel is an illegal Apartheid state.
Click to expand...


Your silly "apartheid" claims reinforce your buffoonish use of slogans and clichés you don't understand.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was established when the acquisition of land by force was illegal.



Okay.  So FINALLY, after twelve pages or so, you give us your core argument as to why Israel has no legal status and is prohibited from being a State.  That is:  Israel acquired territory by military force, which is illegal in international law.

Please provide references to the language, wording and legal instruments you are using to support this claim.  (i.e. Hague Conventions, League of Nations Covenant, Geneva Conventions, UN Charter, etc). 

Please confirm exactly which territory Israel "acquired".  (i.e. do you mean the entire territory or simply portions of it?)

Please be prepared to compare and contrast other instances of "acquisition of territory by conquest" and their legality.  For examples:  Morocco/Western Sahara, Indonesia/East Timor, Ethiopia/Eritrea.  

On to the counter-arguments then:

The Jewish people had the existing right to self-determination on their ancestral territory. 

Israel was established in 1924. She was established under the same rights, conventions and legal instruments which established Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan.  These were legal instruments and treaties and not military force. 

Israel only used force to protect the Jewish inhabitants of the territory, and to defend herself from foreign invasion, which is permissible, even obligatory, in international law.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Acquisition of land by conquest was deemed illegal after WW2.  And, Israel is an illegal Apartheid state.



Israel was established between 1922-1925.  By treaty.  And not by conquest.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was established when the acquisition of land by force was illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  So FINALLY, after twelve pages or so, you give us your core argument as to why Israel has no legal status and is prohibited from being a State.  That is:  Israel acquired territory by military force, which is illegal in international law.
> 
> Please provide references to the language, wording and legal instruments you are using to support this claim.  (i.e. Hague Conventions, League of Nations Covenant, Geneva Conventions, UN Charter, etc).
> 
> Please confirm exactly which territory Israel "acquired".  (i.e. do you mean the entire territory or simply portions of it?)
> 
> Please be prepared to compare and contrast other instances of "acquisition of territory by conquest" and their legality.  For examples:  Morocco/Western Sahara, Indonesia/East Timor, Ethiopia/Eritrea.
> 
> On to the counter-arguments then:
> 
> The Jewish people had the existing right to self-determination on their ancestral territory.
> 
> Israel was established in 1924. She was established under the same rights, conventions and legal instruments which established Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan.  These were legal instruments and treaties and not military force.
> 
> Israel only used force to protect the Jewish inhabitants of the territory, and to defend herself from foreign invasion, which is permissible, even obligatory, in international law.
Click to expand...

WOW, following you is like trying to dribble a football.

Can you pull out one of my points and refute it.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> WOW, following you is like trying to dribble a football.
> 
> Can you pull out one of my points and refute it.



I'll go slow for you then.  

1.  What legal instruments, specifically, are you using to claim that it is illegal to acquire land by conquest?

2.  When discussing territory Israel has illegally required -- what territory do you mean?  (ie all of it, or just a portion of the territory defined as the Mandate for Palestine.

3.  Did the existing Jewish residents/inhabitants/indigenous peoples of Palestine have rights to self-determination, sovereignty and self-government?  Yes or no?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acquisition of land by conquest was deemed illegal after WW2.  And, Israel is an illegal Apartheid state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was established between 1922-1925.  By treaty.  And not by conquest.
Click to expand...


Israel was not established in 1922-1925.  90% of the native population was Muslim and Christian in Palestine at the time.  Why would the native Muslims and Christians sign such a treaty?


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Israel was not established in 1922-1925.  90% of the native population was Muslim and Christian in Palestine at the time.  Why would the native Muslims and Christians sign such a treaty?



Are you arguing only majorities have rights?  That doesn't seem very Christian-like of you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> 1. What legal instruments, specifically, are you using to claim that it is illegal to acquire land by conquest?


UN Charter

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> When discussing territory Israel has illegally required -- what territory do you mean? (ie all of it, or just a portion of the territory defined as the Mandate for Palestine.


Funny question. The Mandate for Palestine possessed no territory.

I cannot find any documentation of Israel legally acquiring any territory.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> When discussing territory Israel has illegally required -- what territory do you mean? (ie all of it, or just a portion of the territory defined as the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny question. The Mandate for Palestine possessed no territory.
> 
> I cannot find any documentation of Israel legally acquiring any territory.
Click to expand...


Okay, so you mean all the territory, then.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> UN Charter
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.



Israel (Palestine) already existed as a State in 1924, remember? So the formation of the State antedates the UN Charter.  The UN Charter therefore does not apply, nor does it restrict the creation of the State.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> UN Charter
> 
> All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel (Palestine) already existed as a State in 1924, remember? So the formation of the State antedates the UN Charter.  The UN Charter therefore does not apply, nor does it restrict the creation of the State.
Click to expand...

Do you have any links for that? Israel was a separate entity from Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> When discussing territory Israel has illegally required -- what territory do you mean? (ie all of it, or just a portion of the territory defined as the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny question. The Mandate for Palestine possessed no territory.
> 
> I cannot find any documentation of Israel legally acquiring any territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you mean all the territory, then.
Click to expand...

Indeed, all of Palestine. The Mandate had nothing to do with it so don't confuse the Issue.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was a separate entity from Palestine.



Do YOU have any links for that?  That they are two separate entities?  When did they separate?  Under what agreements did they separate?  How can we tell the difference between "Palestine" and "Israel"?  Palestine was intended to be the National Homeland for the Jewish people (by treaty and international agreement, aka law.)  Palestine became able to stand alone.  Palestine came under self-governing institutions. Palestine became a State.  That State is called Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was a separate entity from Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do YOU have any links for that?  That they are two separate entities?  When did they separate?  Under what agreements did they separate?  How can we tell the difference between "Palestine" and "Israel"?  Palestine was intended to be the National Homeland for the Jewish people (by treaty and international agreement, aka law.)  Palestine became able to stand alone.  Palestine came under self-governing institutions. Palestine became a State.  That State is called Israel.
Click to expand...

The military conquest of Palestine was a pre planned and stated goal of the Zionists. You can't refute that so you just blow smoke at it.


----------



## Shusha

Well, no.  Its easy enough to refute.  I have BEEN refuting it.  

By treaty and by international agreement (law), Palestine became the Jewish National Homeland (Israel).  There was no NEED for military conquest because it existed_ by right and in law_.  The need for military force came only with defending its existing rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Well, no.  Its easy enough to refute.  I have BEEN refuting it.
> 
> By treaty and by international agreement (law), Palestine became the Jewish National Homeland (Israel).  There was no NEED for military conquest because it existed_ by right and in law_.  The need for military force came only with defending its existing rights.


Not so. You need to start reading some real history.

You cannot show where any land was given to Israel.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Not so. You need to start reading some real history.
> 
> You cannot show where any land was given to Israel.



Palestine IS Israel. The territory was intended (by existing right, by treaty, by international agreement, aka law) to be the Jewish National Homeland.  

It is you who is trying to prove that a Jewish government was prohibited by international law from forming and governing a State on that territory.  My job is easy.  Its all over the treaties, agreements and documents in legal force at the time.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. You need to start reading some real history.
> 
> You cannot show where any land was given to Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine IS Israel. The territory was intended (by existing right, by treaty, by international agreement, aka law) to be the Jewish National Homeland.
> 
> It is you who is trying to prove that a Jewish government was prohibited by international law from forming and governing a State on that territory.  My job is easy.  Its all over the treaties, agreements and documents in legal force at the time.
Click to expand...

You are still trying to confuse the issue. The Jewish national Home had nothing to do with the transfer of land.


----------



## Shusha

Nothing has anything to do with the transfer of land.  That is a red herring you brought to the party and are passing around like it was caviar.  

It has to do with the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determine and self-govern.  It has to do with the rights of peoples to sovereignty.  It has to do with the rights of people to return to their ancestral homeland. 

You keep trying to assert that there are some sort of special rules for the Jewish people. The latest one being that a Jewish government over a State is somehow prohibited in international law.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Nothing has anything to do with the transfer of land.  That is a red herring you brought to the party and are passing around like it was caviar.
> 
> It has to do with the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determine and self-govern.  It has to do with the rights of peoples to sovereignty.  It has to do with the rights of people to return to their ancestral homeland.
> 
> You keep trying to assert that there are some sort of special rules for the Jewish people. The latest one being that a Jewish government over a State is somehow prohibited in international law.


My post still stands. Israel's Legal Right To Exist and I posted a link to back up my claim. Here is another: http://www.whale.to/b/Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.pdf


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing has anything to do with the transfer of land.  That is a red herring you brought to the party and are passing around like it was caviar.
> 
> It has to do with the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determine and self-govern.  It has to do with the rights of peoples to sovereignty.  It has to do with the rights of people to return to their ancestral homeland.
> 
> You keep trying to assert that there are some sort of special rules for the Jewish people. The latest one being that a Jewish government over a State is somehow prohibited in international law.
> 
> 
> 
> My post still stands. Israel's Legal Right To Exist and I posted a link to back up my claim. Here is another: http://www.whale.to/b/Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.pdf
Click to expand...


Your post has fallen down and bumped its head.

Review of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

*Pappé's Polemics*

Ilan Pappé has now seized on what the New Historians started and brought it to new heights by promoting revisionist arguments that place exclusive blame on early Zionists for victimizing Arabs and destroying opportunities for peace and reconciliation. Indeed, it has become the strategy by which Pappé has salvaged his turbulent career: He left Haifa University in 2007 after the exposure of his research errors undercut his master's thesis and his endorsement of the British boycott of Israeli universities prompted the president of the university to call for his resignation.[8]


----------



## Challenger

Oooh, a "review" by a Zionist polemicist, Seth J. Frantzman who has a PhD in Geography, and teaches American studies. Clearly he know a lot about history to be able to review Pappe's book, or is that due to his marketing background...


----------



## Hollie

Challenger said:


> Oooh, a "review" by a Zionist polemicist, Seth J. Frantzman who has a PhD in Geography, and teaches American studies. Clearly he know a lot about history to be able to review Pappe's book, or is that due to his marketing background...



Oh, my. Obviously, no ability on your part to do anything but offer a hysterical diatribe.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing has anything to do with the transfer of land.  That is a red herring you brought to the party and are passing around like it was caviar.
> 
> It has to do with the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determine and self-govern.  It has to do with the rights of peoples to sovereignty.  It has to do with the rights of people to return to their ancestral homeland.
> 
> You keep trying to assert that there are some sort of special rules for the Jewish people. The latest one being that a Jewish government over a State is somehow prohibited in international law.
> 
> 
> 
> My post still stands. Israel's Legal Right To Exist and I posted a link to back up my claim. Here is another: http://www.whale.to/b/Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post has fallen down and bumped its head.
> 
> Review of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
> 
> *Pappé's Polemics*
> 
> Ilan Pappé has now seized on what the New Historians started and brought it to new heights by promoting revisionist arguments that place exclusive blame on early Zionists for victimizing Arabs and destroying opportunities for peace and reconciliation. Indeed, it has become the strategy by which Pappé has salvaged his turbulent career: He left Haifa University in 2007 after the exposure of his research errors undercut his master's thesis and his endorsement of the British boycott of Israeli universities prompted the president of the university to call for his resignation.[8]
Click to expand...


Oh no, Ilan Pappe.  That does it.  Israel is doomed.  Heh Heh!


----------



## montelatici

MJB sabotages his own, heh heh, heh!


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB sabotages his own, heh heh, heh!



Poor Monte.  What a life he has living here in the USA with all those Christian Zionists supporting Israel.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> MJB sabotages his own, heh heh, heh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Monte.  What a life he has living here in the USA with all those Christian Zionists supporting Israel.
Click to expand...


Poor, poor MJB, his stupidity gets the best of him. Firstly, Christian support for Israel is waning in the U.S. secondly, with friends like Christian Zionists, the Jews don't need enemies.  You haven't quite figured out why those nutcases support Israel, have you?  If I actually hated Jews I would be encouraging the Christian Zionists. heh, heh



_"The most striking moment in the brief video, however, is when a Christian Zionist admits that his diehard support of Israel is ultimately rooted in a form of eschatological Christian anti-Semitism that sees Jews as future potential Christians. In this fundamentally anti-Semitic view, Christian Zionists believe Jesus will (imminently) return and, upon his Second Coming, Jews will either accept him as their savior or die and burn in Hell for all eternity."_


(Christian Zionist) “It says in the bible we need to support Israel.”
(Takruri) “So that’s important to you as a Christian?”
(Christian Zionist) “As a Christian.”
(Takruri) “Even though it’s a Jewish state?”
(Christian Zionist) “Correct. … Because in the end, they will see the light and they will become Christians.”
(Takruri) “The Jews in Israel will become Christians in the end?”
(Christian Zionist) “Yes.”

Christian Zionists Expose Their Anti-Semitism on Video


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> My post still stands. Israel's Legal Right To Exist and I posted a link to back up my claim. Here is another: http://www.whale.to/b/Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.pdf



None of this has anything to do with your claim that Israel has no legal status.  You have made a claim about law.  You need to back it up with law.  Again, Palestine (Jewish National Homeland -- Israel) became a State in 1924.  

You can't use anything which post-dates that as evidence that Palestine had no legal status in 1924.  You have to use the law of the time.  

In addition, actions of a State, even if abhorrent, do NOT remove the legal status of Statehood.  States don't become non-States through military actions.  


Israel's legal claim to Palestine is found in the documents of the time --San Remo, LoN, UN Charter, Mandate for Palestine -- they entrench Israel's legal claim in law in the 1920s.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> My post still stands. Israel's Legal Right To Exist and I posted a link to back up my claim. Here is another: http://www.whale.to/b/Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of this has anything to do with your claim that Israel has no legal status.  You have made a claim about law.  You need to back it up with law.  Again, Palestine (Jewish National Homeland -- Israel) became a State in 1924.
> 
> You can't use anything which post-dates that as evidence that Palestine had no legal status in 1924.  You have to use the law of the time.
> 
> In addition, actions of a State, even if abhorrent, do NOT remove the legal status of Statehood.  States don't become non-States through military actions.
> 
> 
> Israel's legal claim to Palestine is found in the documents of the time --San Remo, LoN, UN Charter, Mandate for Palestine -- they entrench Israel's legal claim in law in the 1920s.
Click to expand...

You are bouncing all over the place. You are not going by actual history. You are merely parroting Israeli talking points.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You are bouncing all over the place. You are not going by actual history. You are merely parroting Israeli talking points.



Oh boy.  San Remo wasn't actual history?  The League of Nations?  The Mandate for Palestine?  The UN Charter?  Come on. 


(And if I'm bouncing all of the place -- its because I'm following you who can't decide on a legal argument and stick with it for more than a post.)


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are bouncing all over the place. You are not going by actual history. You are merely parroting Israeli talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy.  San Remo wasn't actual history?  The League of Nations?  The Mandate for Palestine?  The UN Charter?  Come on.
> 
> 
> (And if I'm bouncing all of the place -- its because I'm following you who can't decide on a legal argument and stick with it for more than a post.)
Click to expand...

OK, pick one of your points and justify your conclusion.


----------



## Shusha

Here's a video to help you out.  Made by, you know, lawyers.  Experts on international law.

You like videos, right?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> OK, pick one of your points and justify your conclusion.



Oh, the irony.  My point is that you have failed to demonstrate your claim (Israel has no legal status) and have failed to justify your conclusion.  I am merely pointing that out.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Here's a video to help you out.  Made by, you know, lawyers.  Experts on international law.
> 
> You like videos, right?


Before I look at it, it isn't Grief, is it?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a video to help you out.  Made by, you know, lawyers.  Experts on international law.
> 
> You like videos, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Before I look at it, it isn't Grief, is it?
Click to expand...


Jacques Gauthier primarily.  But I can get you Dershowitz.  Or Kontorovitch.  If you'd prefer.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> But I can get you Dershowitz. Or Kontorovitch.


Oh, jeese. 

What did *you* get out of San Remo?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> What did *you* get out of San Remo?



The San Remo Resolution is a binding treaty in which the High Contracting Parties, who were responsible for the dispensation of the territories previously under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire as per Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne, resolved to put into effect the Balfour Declaration to re-constitute a National Homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did *you* get out of San Remo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The San Remo Resolution is a binding treaty in which the High Contracting Parties, who were responsible for the dispensation of the territories previously under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire as per Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne, resolved to put into effect the Balfour Declaration to re-constitute a National Homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.
Click to expand...


All legal.  But what about all the Muslim conquests of land by force?  Let's ask Tinmore if that is legal.


----------



## Shusha

MJB12741 said:


> All legal.  But what about all the Muslim conquests of land by force?  Let's ask Tinmore if that is legal.



Pssshhh.  Little things like sovereignty, borders, territorial integrity, invasion, occupation and international law?!  Those things don't apply to Muslims.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did *you* get out of San Remo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The San Remo Resolution is a binding treaty in which the High Contracting Parties, who were responsible for the dispensation of the territories previously under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire as per Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne, resolved to put into effect the Balfour Declaration to re-constitute a National Homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine.
Click to expand...

You need to look at this in context.

The Jewish National home was to be *in Palestine with the Palestinians.* There was no transfer of territory.
The Allied Powers, including the LoN and the Mandate, did not annex or otherwise claim sovereignty over any territory. They had no authority to dispose of any territory because it was not theirs to give away. None of them did. This also applies to the UN.

Inherent, universal, inalienable rights are for the people of the place. International law marries the people and the land. These rights cannot be denied nor can they be passed out like candy by people in power.
Just a few things to think about.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All legal.  But what about all the Muslim conquests of land by force?  Let's ask Tinmore if that is legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssshhh.  Little things like sovereignty, borders, territorial integrity, invasion, occupation and international law?!  Those things don't apply to Muslims.
Click to expand...


But what about the "Palestinian land" Israel is stealing when the indigenous Palestinians were Jews & not a single Muslim in existence?


----------



## montelatici

The indigenous Palestinians practiced many different religions at different times.  To continue to reside in Palestine they all converted to Christianity in 380 AD.  Most of the Jews that became Christians in 380 AD, along with those that had practiced other faiths, converted to Islam from Christianity by 1400 AD.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> The indigenous Palestinians practiced many different religions at different times.  To continue to reside in Palestine they all converted to Christianity in 380 AD.  Most of the Jews that became Christians in 380 AD, along with those that had practiced other faiths, converted to Islam from Christianity by 1400 AD.



How do you like that.  The Muslims are really Jews.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The Jewish National home was to be *in Palestine with the Palestinians.* There was no transfer of territory.


The Jewish National Home *was* Palestine. There was no need to transfer territory beyond the transfer which had already occurred with the Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne which transferred territory from the Ottomans to the Allied Powers). The disposition of the territories -- including the creation of the boundaries -- was in the hands of the Allied Powers from that point on for all the territories Turkey ceded.  The law of the time permitted (obligated) the Allied Powers to dispose of the territories. They chose the Mandate system to permit the development of self-determining, self-governing peoples.  They chose to develop one portion of the territories (Palestine) into the National Homeland for the Jewish People.  They had every legal right to do so.  They also signed a legally-binding treaty which obligated them to that course of action.  



> The Allied Powers, including the LoN and the Mandate, did not annex or otherwise claim sovereignty over any territory.


 Correct.  They could have.  They had every legal right to.  But they chose a different course of action instead, and once chosen were obligated in law to it.  



> They had no authority to dispose of any territory because it was not theirs to give away. None of them did. This also applies to the UN.


  This is not true.  Up until that point, the customary law was that the victors in war were permitted to do whatever they wanted with territory captured in war, or ceded by treaty in war.  (In fact, YOU are the one who keeps pointing out to me that until the post WWII era, it was perfectly legal to take territory by conquest.)  The Allied Powers deliberately chose to create the Mandate system.  Part of that Mandate system was to identify the Jewish People as one of the peoples to whom Article 22 and the entire Mandate system and disposition of the territories applied.    



> Inherent, universal, inalienable rights are for the people of the place. International law marries the people and the land.


  Well, yes.  You conveniently ignore the Jewish people as being one of the people of the place.  (A phrase, by the way, which has no authority in law.)  Fortunately, the Allied Powers made sure to entrench the Jewish peoples rights in law -- including identifying which people were meant to be included for the Mandate for Palestine.  They specifically included the entire Jewish people and made reference to Jewish immigration.  

And don't forget what you are arguing here.  You are trying to provide actual legal arguments for why the Jewish people are to be specifically prohibited from self-government.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The indigenous Palestinians practiced many different religions at different times.  To continue to reside in Palestine they all converted to Christianity in 380 AD.  Most of the Jews that became Christians in 380 AD, along with those that had practiced other faiths, converted to Islam from Christianity by 1400 AD.



Odd how you further the same nonsense of "indigenous Pal'istanians" when the geographic area of Pal'istan was the subject of invasions and settlement by various cultures at various times. Since when were the European Christian crusaders an "indigenous people"?


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians practiced many different religions at different times.  To continue to reside in Palestine they all converted to Christianity in 380 AD.  Most of the Jews that became Christians in 380 AD, along with those that had practiced other faiths, converted to Islam from Christianity by 1400 AD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd how you further the same nonsense of "indigenous Pal'istanians" when the geographic area of Pal'istan was the subject of invasions and settlement by various cultures at various times. Since when were the European Christian crusaders an "indigenous people"?
Click to expand...


Excellent point but we must be careful not to offend Monte with documented facts or we may lose him here.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> The Jewish National Home *was* Palestine.


That is somewhat true. The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens. Britain left Palestine without accomplishing that goal.

That is not what really happened.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The indigenous Palestinians practiced many different religions at different times.  To continue to reside in Palestine they all converted to Christianity in 380 AD.  Most of the Jews that became Christians in 380 AD, along with those that had practiced other faiths, converted to Islam from Christianity by 1400 AD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd how you further the same nonsense of "indigenous Pal'istanians" when the geographic area of Pal'istan was the subject of invasions and settlement by various cultures at various times. Since when were the European Christian crusaders an "indigenous people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent point but we must be careful not to offend Monte with documented facts or we may lose him here.
Click to expand...


Not one documented fact has been raised, dimwit.  Just restating the usual propaganda.

Before the European Zionist settler colonist invasion, rulers came and went and did not change the nature of the inhabitants.  There was no settler colonialism. The defeated ruling European Christian Crusaders eventually left Palestine and returned to Europe after Saladin's victory over the Latin Kingdom. Only the native Christians, those that had converted to Christianity from other religions (including Judaism) remained.

" The defeated Christians left the city in three columns, with the first two led by the Knights Templars and Hospitallers and the third by Balian and Patriarch Heraclius....."

The Holy City Falls: Siege of Jerusalem


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish National Home *was* Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat true. The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens.
Click to expand...


Thank you!  So, legally, there was no problem with that, right?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish National Home *was* Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat true. The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you!  So, legally, there was no problem with that, right?
Click to expand...

But that is not what happened. The Zionists did not want to share the country with the Palestinians.

What they did was to expel the Palestinians and create a separate state just for themselves. That violated everything that was the Jewish National home.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> The indigenous Palestinians practiced many different religions at different times.  To continue to reside in Palestine they all converted to Christianity in 380 AD.  Most of the Jews that became Christians in 380 AD, along with those that had practiced other faiths, converted to Islam from Christianity by 1400 AD.


How did the Christian crusaders who invaded from Europe magically transform into indigenous Pal'istanian arabs?

Gee whiz, but this magical kingdom of Disneyland I mean Pal'istan you have invented has quite the magical powers.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish National Home *was* Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat true. The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you!  So, legally, there was no problem with that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is not what happened. The Zionists did not want to share the country with the Palestinians.
> 
> What they did was to expel the Palestinians and create a separate state just for themselves. That violated everything that was the Jewish National home.
Click to expand...


Of course, because you have fallen down and bumped your head, you have forgotten that the Arabs-Moslems refused every opportunirty to participate in the process of Mandate and achieving independence. 

Those poor, helpless, shiftless, incompetent arabs. 

Feel the burn.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish National Home *was* Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat true. The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you!  So, legally, there was no problem with that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is not what happened. The Zionists did not want to share the country with the Palestinians.
> 
> What they did was to expel the Palestinians and create a separate state just for themselves. That violated everything that was the Jewish National home.
Click to expand...


The Zionists "expelled the Palestinians"???  Lets check this out.  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are just over 6 million of them left.  Yep, it's a GENOCIDE. Right Tinmore?

Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> But that is not what happened....



We weren't discussing what happened, remember?  We were discussing whether Israel has legal validity.  You now seem to agree that it does.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish National Home *was* Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat true. The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you!  So, legally, there was no problem with that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is not what happened. The Zionists did not want to share the country with the Palestinians.
> 
> What they did was to expel the Palestinians and create a separate state just for themselves. That violated everything that was the Jewish National home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists "expelled the Palestinians"???  Lets check this out.  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are just over 6 million of them left.  Yep, it's a GENOCIDE. Right Tinmore?
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
Click to expand...


You still haven't figured out what genocide is. Unbelievable. But expelling people based on their religion, race, ethnicity, etc. is "ethnic cleansing", not genocide. You are one confused puppy.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish National Home *was* Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat true. The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you!  So, legally, there was no problem with that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is not what happened. The Zionists did not want to share the country with the Palestinians.
> 
> What they did was to expel the Palestinians and create a separate state just for themselves. That violated everything that was the Jewish National home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, because you have fallen down and bumped your head, you have forgotten that the Arabs-Moslems refused every opportunirty to participate in the process of Mandate and achieving independence.
> 
> Those poor, helpless, shiftless, incompetent arabs.
> 
> Feel the burn.
Click to expand...

You are so confused.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish National Home *was* Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat true. The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you!  So, legally, there was no problem with that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is not what happened. The Zionists did not want to share the country with the Palestinians.
> 
> What they did was to expel the Palestinians and create a separate state just for themselves. That violated everything that was the Jewish National home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, because you have fallen down and bumped your head, you have forgotten that the Arabs-Moslems refused every opportunirty to participate in the process of Mandate and achieving independence.
> 
> Those poor, helpless, shiftless, incompetent arabs.
> 
> Feel the burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so confused.
Click to expand...

I know history. You don't. You can't claim ignorance as a defense for being ignorant.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish National Home *was* Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat true. The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you!  So, legally, there was no problem with that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is not what happened. The Zionists did not want to share the country with the Palestinians.
> 
> What they did was to expel the Palestinians and create a separate state just for themselves. That violated everything that was the Jewish National home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists "expelled the Palestinians"???  Lets check this out.  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are just over 6 million of them left.  Yep, it's a GENOCIDE. Right Tinmore?
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't figured out what genocide is. Unbelievable. But expelling people based on their religion, race, ethnicity, etc. is "ethnic cleansing", not genocide. You are one confused puppy.
Click to expand...


Obviously, it is you who doesn't understand the terms you are struggling over. Your silly "apartheid" and "genocide" slogans are a hoot.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat true. The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!  So, legally, there was no problem with that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is not what happened. The Zionists did not want to share the country with the Palestinians.
> 
> What they did was to expel the Palestinians and create a separate state just for themselves. That violated everything that was the Jewish National home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists "expelled the Palestinians"???  Lets check this out.  In 1948 there were approximately 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel.  And now there are just over 6 million of them left.  Yep, it's a GENOCIDE. Right Tinmore?
> 
> Population Statistics - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't figured out what genocide is. Unbelievable. But expelling people based on their religion, race, ethnicity, etc. is "ethnic cleansing", not genocide. You are one confused puppy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, it is you who doesn't understand the terms you are struggling over. Your silly "apartheid" and "genocide" slogans are a hoot.
Click to expand...


Yes but, what a relief from the real world he is.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is somewhat true. The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!  So, legally, there was no problem with that, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that is not what happened. The Zionists did not want to share the country with the Palestinians.
> 
> What they did was to expel the Palestinians and create a separate state just for themselves. That violated everything that was the Jewish National home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, because you have fallen down and bumped your head, you have forgotten that the Arabs-Moslems refused every opportunirty to participate in the process of Mandate and achieving independence.
> 
> Those poor, helpless, shiftless, incompetent arabs.
> 
> Feel the burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know history. You don't. You can't claim ignorance as a defense for being ignorant.
Click to expand...

You know Israeli talking points.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!  So, legally, there was no problem with that, right?
> 
> 
> 
> But that is not what happened. The Zionists did not want to share the country with the Palestinians.
> 
> What they did was to expel the Palestinians and create a separate state just for themselves. That violated everything that was the Jewish National home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, because you have fallen down and bumped your head, you have forgotten that the Arabs-Moslems refused every opportunirty to participate in the process of Mandate and achieving independence.
> 
> Those poor, helpless, shiftless, incompetent arabs.
> 
> Feel the burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know history. You don't. You can't claim ignorance as a defense for being ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know Israeli talking points.
Click to expand...

That's another of your worn out slogans.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that is not what happened. The Zionists did not want to share the country with the Palestinians.
> 
> What they did was to expel the Palestinians and create a separate state just for themselves. That violated everything that was the Jewish National home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, because you have fallen down and bumped your head, you have forgotten that the Arabs-Moslems refused every opportunirty to participate in the process of Mandate and achieving independence.
> 
> Those poor, helpless, shiftless, incompetent arabs.
> 
> Feel the burn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know history. You don't. You can't claim ignorance as a defense for being ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's another of your worn out slogans.
Click to expand...

Not as worn out as Israeli talking points.


----------



## Synthaholic

MJB12741 said:


> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist*



A legal right to exist don't mean shit.  You still have to defend your sovereign borders and can't rely on a world court.  Right now the Ukraine has a legal right to exist, yet Trump's PuppetMaster is invading it.  Georgia had a legal right to exist until Putin rolled his tanks in.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, because you have fallen down and bumped your head, you have forgotten that the Arabs-Moslems refused every opportunirty to participate in the process of Mandate and achieving independence.
> 
> Those poor, helpless, shiftless, incompetent arabs.
> 
> Feel the burn.
> 
> 
> 
> You are so confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know history. You don't. You can't claim ignorance as a defense for being ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's another of your worn out slogans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as worn out as Israeli talking points.
Click to expand...


It's funny to watch you retreat to silly slogans and clichés when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so confused.
> 
> 
> 
> I know history. You don't. You can't claim ignorance as a defense for being ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's another of your worn out slogans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as worn out as Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny to watch you retreat to silly slogans and clichés when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground.
Click to expand...

This reminds me about something funny. Ali Abunimah was being interviewed by a main stream news show. Of course the host started out talking about rockets, terrorism, blah, blah, blah, just like they always do. Then asked for Abunimah's response.

He said: Before we discuss Israel's talking points, let me tell you what is happening in Gaza.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know history. You don't. You can't claim ignorance as a defense for being ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> You know Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's another of your worn out slogans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as worn out as Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny to watch you retreat to silly slogans and clichés when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This reminds me about something funny. Ali Abunimah was being interviewed by a main stream news show. Of course the host started out talking about rockets, terrorism, blah, blah, blah, just like they always do. Then asked for Abunimah's response.
> 
> He said: Before we discuss Israel's talking points, let me tell you what is happening in Gaza.
Click to expand...


That's as pointless as the rest of your spam.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know Israeli talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> That's another of your worn out slogans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as worn out as Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny to watch you retreat to silly slogans and clichés when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This reminds me about something funny. Ali Abunimah was being interviewed by a main stream news show. Of course the host started out talking about rockets, terrorism, blah, blah, blah, just like they always do. Then asked for Abunimah's response.
> 
> He said: Before we discuss Israel's talking points, let me tell you what is happening in Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as pointless as the rest of your spam.
Click to expand...

It is still funny. Abunimah didn't get suckered into Israel's framework where he would have no room to move. He just kicked that crap aside and talked about what he wanted to Talk about.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's another of your worn out slogans.
> 
> 
> 
> Not as worn out as Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's funny to watch you retreat to silly slogans and clichés when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This reminds me about something funny. Ali Abunimah was being interviewed by a main stream news show. Of course the host started out talking about rockets, terrorism, blah, blah, blah, just like they always do. Then asked for Abunimah's response.
> 
> He said: Before we discuss Israel's talking points, let me tell you what is happening in Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as pointless as the rest of your spam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is still funny. Abunimah didn't get suckered into Israel's framework where he would have no room to move. He just kicked that crap aside and talked about what he wanted to Talk about.
Click to expand...

_Nice dodge_™

It's hilarious to watch you shuffle and sidestep.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as worn out as Israeli talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny to watch you retreat to silly slogans and clichés when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This reminds me about something funny. Ali Abunimah was being interviewed by a main stream news show. Of course the host started out talking about rockets, terrorism, blah, blah, blah, just like they always do. Then asked for Abunimah's response.
> 
> He said: Before we discuss Israel's talking points, let me tell you what is happening in Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as pointless as the rest of your spam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is still funny. Abunimah didn't get suckered into Israel's framework where he would have no room to move. He just kicked that crap aside and talked about what he wanted to Talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Nice dodge_™
> 
> It's hilarious to watch you shuffle and sidestep.
Click to expand...

Always dodging Israel's BS talking points.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny to watch you retreat to silly slogans and clichés when your attempt at argument crashes to the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me about something funny. Ali Abunimah was being interviewed by a main stream news show. Of course the host started out talking about rockets, terrorism, blah, blah, blah, just like they always do. Then asked for Abunimah's response.
> 
> He said: Before we discuss Israel's talking points, let me tell you what is happening in Gaza.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's as pointless as the rest of your spam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is still funny. Abunimah didn't get suckered into Israel's framework where he would have no room to move. He just kicked that crap aside and talked about what he wanted to Talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Nice dodge_™
> 
> It's hilarious to watch you shuffle and sidestep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Always dodging Israel's BS talking points.
Click to expand...


Your usual lame slogans.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> The Jewish National Home *was* Palestine.



No. Jewish people may once have lived in the area and some still did, but a "national home" for Jewish  people was to be facilitated IN Palestine. There's a difference.



Shusha said:


> They chose the Mandate system to permit the development of self-determining, self-governing peoples.



No. They created a "mandate" system" because that was the only way Britain and France could carry on builing their respective colonial Empires after their joint declaration in 1918



Shusha said:


> They chose to develop one portion of the territories (Palestine) into the National Homeland for the Jewish People.



No. The British merely facilitated Jewish immigration, there was never any intent to create a Jewish-only state.



Shusha said:


> You conveniently ignore the Jewish people as being one of the people of the place.



Religious groups are not necessarily people of the place. There is no link between Europeans and Americans with the native Jewish inhabitants of Palestine other than Religion.


----------



## MJB12741

Has anyone ever seen or heard of any Palestinian of Pali supporter complaint about Arab country treatment of Palestinians?  Wouldn't it be wonderful if those Zionists in Israel just treated the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers do?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Has anyone ever seen or heard of any Palestinian of Pali supporter complaint about Arab country treatment of Palestinians?  Wouldn't it be wonderful if those Zionists in Israel just treated the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers do?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!



Sure, go to the Middle East section.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Israel's Legal Right To Exist *

Still nothing, huh.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist *
> 
> Still nothing, huh.



Still befuddled.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist *
> 
> Still nothing, huh.



You said yourself in post #2527:

_The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens_.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist *
> 
> Still nothing, huh.



Huh?  "Nothing" applies to Palestinian contributions to peace, mankind & civilization.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist *
> 
> Still nothing, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  "Nothing" applies to Palestinian contributions to peace, mankind & civilization.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with the colonization of Palestine by the Zionists? Can't make one point that makes any sense and is germane to the conversion?


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist *
> 
> Still nothing, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said yourself in post #2527:
> 
> _The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens_.
Click to expand...


For ALL of it's citizens and only with their consent, unfortunately for that "plan" the Zionists had a different idea, a "Jews-only" settler state. Time and again the native population of Palestine was denied it's right of self determination in favour of this "plan"; one of the worst injustices ever perpetrated by the British Empire in all of it's history. We should be ashamed of ourselves, but instead we cosy up to the Zionist regime and sweep this travesty under the carpet.


----------



## Hollie

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist *
> 
> Still nothing, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said yourself in post #2527:
> 
> _The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For ALL of it's citizens and only with their consent, unfortunately for that "plan" the Zionists had a different idea, a "Jews-only" settler state. Time and again the native population of Palestine was denied it's right of self determination in favour of this "plan"; one of the worst injustices ever perpetrated by the British Empire in all of it's history. We should be ashamed of ourselves, but instead we cosy up to the Zionist regime and sweep this travesty under the carpet.
Click to expand...


Such silly melodrama and invented falsehoods. Pretty typical stuff from the Jew hating cabal. 

But, I agree you should be ashamed of yourself. You're still wasting oxygen. What a shame.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist *
> 
> Still nothing, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said yourself in post #2527:
> 
> _The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For ALL of it's citizens and only with their consent, unfortunately for that "plan" the Zionists had a different idea, a "Jews-only" settler state. Time and again the native population of Palestine was denied it's right of self determination in favour of this "plan"; one of the worst injustices ever perpetrated by the British Empire in all of it's history. We should be ashamed of ourselves, but instead we cosy up to the Zionist regime and sweep this travesty under the carpet.
Click to expand...


"Jews only" in Israel?  For your education, in all of the Middle East only Israel has citizens of virtually all living faiths.


Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist *
> 
> Still nothing, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said yourself in post #2527:
> 
> _The plan of the Mandate was to assist immigrating Jews in getting Palestinian citizenship and forming an independent state for all of its citizens_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For ALL of it's citizens and only with their consent, unfortunately for that "plan" the Zionists had a different idea, a "Jews-only" settler state. Time and again the native population of Palestine was denied it's right of self determination in favour of this "plan"; one of the worst injustices ever perpetrated by the British Empire in all of it's history. We should be ashamed of ourselves, but instead we cosy up to the Zionist regime and sweep this travesty under the carpet.
Click to expand...


"Jews only" in Israel?  For your education, in all of the Middle East only Israel has citizens of most living faiths & people of all living faiths can become citizens.


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> For ALL of it's citizens and only with their consent, unfortunately for that "plan" the Zionists had a different idea, a "Jews-only" settler state. Time and again the native population of Palestine was denied it's right of self determination in favour of this "plan"; one of the worst injustices ever perpetrated by the British Empire in all of it's history. We should be ashamed of ourselves, but instead we cosy up to the Zionist regime and sweep this travesty under the carpet.



There are so many flaws in this post, its hard to know where to begin.

1.  Appealing to emotions does not make for a valid argument.  In fact, appeals to emotion like this are a common tactic for Team Palestine when they are incapable of addressing the actual topic under discussion.  

2.  Failing to address the actions of both parties to the conflict, and laying the entire responsibility at the feet of the Jews is disingenuous.  

3.  There is no legal requirement for Arab Palestinian consent to the self-determination of the Jewish people.  (Likewise, Palestinians do not need Jewish consent for their self-determination). 

4.  Your intent to demonize the Jewish people with false charges is obvious, and obviously a projection.  There is NOT a Jew-only state.  There never has been.  There was never intended to be.  (In STARK contrast to not only the Jew-free Palestinian territories, but the nearly Jew-free Arab world.)  It astounds me that apparently intelligent people can believe something with so little basis in reality and fact.  

Now, the topic, remember, is the legal foundation of Israel's right to exist.  Its been 257 pages, if anyone has a legal argument as to why the Jewish people are prohibited from forming a State and holding a national self-determination, bring it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> 2. Failing to address the actions of both parties to the conflict, and laying the entire responsibility at the feet of the Jews is disingenuous.


I always address both sides.

Israeli side:
All through the Mandate period, the Zionists imported people and weapons for the stated purpose of removing the Palestinians and creating a Jewish state on their land.

Palestinian side:
The Palestinians always resisted this settler colonial project.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Failing to address the actions of both parties to the conflict, and laying the entire responsibility at the feet of the Jews is disingenuous.
> 
> 
> 
> I always address both sides.
> 
> Israeli side:
> All through the Mandate period, the Zionists imported people and weapons for the stated purpose of removing the Palestinians and creating a Jewish state on their land.
> 
> Palestinian side:
> The Palestinians always resisted this settler colonial project.
Click to expand...


Get Serious.

Israeli side:  UN vote establishes Israel as a country after the Holocaust & wants to be recognized as such by Palestinians for peace.

Palestinian Side.  Attack after attack on Israeli's with intent to kill all of them & take all land.  At least I give the Palestinians credit for electing Hamas to make that clear to any who doubted it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> Israeli side: UN vote establishes Israel as a country after the Holocaust & wants to be recognized as such by Palestinians for peace.


Resolution 181 was rejected and never implemented. It didn't establish anything. It is a non issue.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Failing to address the actions of both parties to the conflict, and laying the entire responsibility at the feet of the Jews is disingenuous.
> 
> 
> 
> I always address both sides.
> 
> Israeli side:
> All through the Mandate period, the Zionists imported people and weapons for the stated purpose of removing the Palestinians and creating a Jewish state on their land.
> 
> Palestinian side:
> The Palestinians always resisted this settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get Serious.
> 
> Israeli side:  UN vote establishes Israel as a country after the Holocaust & wants to be recognized as such by Palestinians for peace.
> 
> Palestinian Side.  Attack after attack on Israeli's with intent to kill all of them & take all land.  At least I give the Palestinians credit for electing Hamas to make that clear to any who doubted it.
Click to expand...


Palestinian side:  UN votes to separate one third of the Palestinian population, that with the Bedouin makes the non-Jews a slight majority in the Jew ruled area, and relegates them to Jew rule forever, never to have the right to self-determination.  

Israeli side:  Not happy with the UN giving them the right to rule over non-Jews, they attack and attack in an attempt to expel as many of the non-Jews from all of Palestine, not only they Jew sector.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> For ALL of it's citizens and only with their consent, unfortunately for that "plan" the Zionists had a different idea, a "Jews-only" settler state. Time and again the native population of Palestine was denied it's right of self determination in favour of this "plan"; one of the worst injustices ever perpetrated by the British Empire in all of it's history. We should be ashamed of ourselves, but instead we cosy up to the Zionist regime and sweep this travesty under the carpet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many flaws in this post, its hard to know where to begin.
> 
> 1.  Appealing to emotions does not make for a valid argument.  In fact, appeals to emotion like this are a common tactic for Team Palestine when they are incapable of addressing the actual topic under discussion.
> 
> 2.  Failing to address the actions of both parties to the conflict, and laying the entire responsibility at the feet of the Jews is disingenuous.
> 
> 3.  There is no legal requirement for Arab Palestinian consent to the self-determination of the Jewish people.  (Likewise, Palestinians do not need Jewish consent for their self-determination).
> 
> 4.  Your intent to demonize the Jewish people with false charges is obvious, and obviously a projection.  There is NOT a Jew-only state.  There never has been.  There was never intended to be.  (In STARK contrast to not only the Jew-free Palestinian territories, but the nearly Jew-free Arab world.)  It astounds me that apparently intelligent people can believe something with so little basis in reality and fact.
> 
> Now, the topic, remember, is the legal foundation of Israel's right to exist.  Its been 257 pages, if anyone has a legal argument as to why the Jewish people are prohibited from forming a State and holding a national self-determination, bring it.
Click to expand...


There are so many flaws in this post, its hard to know where to begin.

1. Stating fact is not an appeal to emotion, it is stating fact. the only people getting emotional about it are the Zionists.

2. Without the Zionist plan to create  a "Jews only" state there would have been no conflict. It took approximately a decade of Zionist terrorism before the native population of Palestine lost faith in the british to protect them and decided to fight fire with fire.

3. Comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless. The total population of Palestine had an inherent right of self-determination which the British consistantly thwarted and suppressed by one means or another, including military action to favour the Zionist colonial project. Palestine was the "state in waiting" and when the mandate ended the Zionists suceeded from that state to fulfill their master plan, once again thawrting Palestinian self determination by ethnically cleansing the areas they occupied. Shusha's comment pre-supposes that Jewish people worldwide form an ethnicity, rather than a religious group, and that Jewish people have always had a yearning to "return".  This is a Zionist fantasy since for centuries, especially under the Ottoman empire there was no restrictions on travel to Palestine, yet the overwhelming majority of Jewish people worldwide chose to remain Germans, French, British, Polish, Russian, etc. Even those that were expelled from their native countries, like from Spain, chose to live anywhere but Palestine.

4. Another comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless.   The Zionist plan was always to create a "Jews only" state. The reason they initially failed was due mainly to the real fear that world opinion would turn against them. They settled for an 80/205 ration and have been trying to get rid of the remaining 20% ever since by building walls and settlements to create "facts on the ground" and Palestinian "Bantustans" making life so bad for the native population that they would leave. The fact that they refuse to do so despit decades of oppression is a testiment to that remarkable people, the original Judeans, Samaritans, Edomites, etc.

As to the legal foundation for the Zionist paradise, there isn't one.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Failing to address the actions of both parties to the conflict, and laying the entire responsibility at the feet of the Jews is disingenuous.
> 
> 
> 
> I always address both sides.
> 
> Israeli side:
> All through the Mandate period, the Zionists imported people and weapons for the stated purpose of removing the Palestinians and creating a Jewish state on their land.
> 
> Palestinian side:
> The Palestinians always resisted this settler colonial project.
Click to expand...




P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Failing to address the actions of both parties to the conflict, and laying the entire responsibility at the feet of the Jews is disingenuous.
> 
> 
> 
> I always address both sides.
> 
> Israeli side:
> All through the Mandate period, the Zionists imported people and weapons for the stated purpose of removing the Palestinians and creating a Jewish state on their land.
> 
> Palestinian side:
> The Palestinians always resisted this settler colonial project.
Click to expand...


Israeli side:
The Mandate provided for establishment of the Jewish National home. The Mandate encouraged Jewish immigration. The Arabs-Moslems did not own the geographic area of Pal'istan. Your fraud of Arab-Moslem squatters "owning" some invented "country of Pal'istan" is a common fraud among people like youself.

Arab-Moslem side:
Ineptitude and incompetence on the part of Arabs-Moslems is their issue to resolve.


----------



## MJB12741

As long as the Pali's refuse to acknowledge Israel's legal right to exist, the only path for peace is for Israel to treat them like Jordan did during Black September.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> The Arabs-Moslems did not own the geographic area of Pal'istan.


Typical Israeli bullshit talking point.

Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), He always believed that the creation of a Jewish state meant imposing the will of Zionism on the Palestinian population. He stated:

*“…colonisation can continue* and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the *native population* cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. *We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…*and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.

Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through *colonisation* and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that *the native population of Palestine,* as a result of this *colonisation,* would simply *“fold their tents and slip away”* or, if they resisted, they would be *“spirited across the borders”.*

The Zionist Project - 1948​
There are a few things mentioned here: colonialism, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.

But in reference to your post, the Palestinians are the natives in Palestine. Being the people of the place and the legal citizens of Palestine, they have the inherent, inalienable right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity. (As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.)

Colonial projects do not have those rights.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs-Moslems did not own the geographic area of Pal'istan.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Israeli bullshit talking point.
> 
> Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), He always believed that the creation of a Jewish state meant imposing the will of Zionism on the Palestinian population. He stated:
> 
> *“…colonisation can continue* and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the *native population* cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. *We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…*and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.
> 
> Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through *colonisation* and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that *the native population of Palestine,* as a result of this *colonisation,* would simply *“fold their tents and slip away”* or, if they resisted, they would be *“spirited across the borders”.*
> 
> The Zionist Project - 1948​
> There are a few things mentioned here: colonialism, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.
> 
> But in reference to your post, the Palestinians are the natives in Palestine. Being the people of the place and the legal citizens of Palestine, they have the inherent, inalienable right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity. (As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.)
> 
> Colonial projects do not have those rights.
Click to expand...


Typical Islamist talking points.

Let's have a look at your what your fascist Islamist heroes define as their Islamist paradise:

*The Avalon Project : The Palestinian National Charter*

*Article 1:*
Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

*Article 3:*
The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.


There's lots more whining about what is ultimately a failure of the Arab-Moslem Death Cultists to achieve their Islamist paradise. 

Both you and they share the same propensity for failure and the willingness to embarrass yourselves with announcements of those failures and your self-created ineptitudes. 

Go complain about your inadequacies to the prayer leader at your madrassah.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs-Moslems did not own the geographic area of Pal'istan.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Israeli bullshit talking point.
> 
> Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), He always believed that the creation of a Jewish state meant imposing the will of Zionism on the Palestinian population. He stated:
> 
> *“…colonisation can continue* and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the *native population* cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. *We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…*and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.
> 
> Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through *colonisation* and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that *the native population of Palestine,* as a result of this *colonisation,* would simply *“fold their tents and slip away”* or, if they resisted, they would be *“spirited across the borders”.*
> 
> The Zionist Project - 1948​
> There are a few things mentioned here: colonialism, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.
> 
> But in reference to your post, the Palestinians are the natives in Palestine. Being the people of the place and the legal citizens of Palestine, they have the inherent, inalienable right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity. (As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.)
> 
> Colonial projects do not have those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Islamist talking points.
> 
> Let's have a look at your what your fascist Islamist heroes define as their Islamist paradise:
> 
> *The Avalon Project : The Palestinian National Charter*
> 
> *Article 1:*
> Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
> 
> *Article 3:*
> The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.
> 
> 
> There's lots more whining about what is ultimately a failure of the Arab-Moslem Death Cultists to achieve their Islamist paradise.
> 
> Both you and they share the same propensity for failure and the willingness to embarrass yourselves with announcements of those failures and your self-created ineptitudes.
> 
> Go complain about your inadequacies to the prayer leader at your madrassah.
Click to expand...


Tinmore, Please take a look at the very first item on the Palestinian agenda.  Then tell us once again that the Palestinians aren't part of the Arab people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs-Moslems did not own the geographic area of Pal'istan.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Israeli bullshit talking point.
> 
> Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), He always believed that the creation of a Jewish state meant imposing the will of Zionism on the Palestinian population. He stated:
> 
> *“…colonisation can continue* and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the *native population* cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. *We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…*and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.
> 
> Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through *colonisation* and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that *the native population of Palestine,* as a result of this *colonisation,* would simply *“fold their tents and slip away”* or, if they resisted, they would be *“spirited across the borders”.*
> 
> The Zionist Project - 1948​
> There are a few things mentioned here: colonialism, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.
> 
> But in reference to your post, the Palestinians are the natives in Palestine. Being the people of the place and the legal citizens of Palestine, they have the inherent, inalienable right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity. (As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.)
> 
> Colonial projects do not have those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Islamist talking points.
> 
> Let's have a look at your what your fascist Islamist heroes define as their Islamist paradise:
> 
> *The Avalon Project : The Palestinian National Charter*
> 
> *Article 1:*
> Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
> 
> *Article 3:*
> The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.
> 
> 
> There's lots more whining about what is ultimately a failure of the Arab-Moslem Death Cultists to achieve their Islamist paradise.
> 
> Both you and they share the same propensity for failure and the willingness to embarrass yourselves with announcements of those failures and your self-created ineptitudes.
> 
> Go complain about your inadequacies to the prayer leader at your madrassah.
Click to expand...

Is deflection all you have?

Sad.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arabs-Moslems did not own the geographic area of Pal'istan.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Israeli bullshit talking point.
> 
> Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), He always believed that the creation of a Jewish state meant imposing the will of Zionism on the Palestinian population. He stated:
> 
> *“…colonisation can continue* and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the *native population* cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. *We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…*and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.
> 
> Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through *colonisation* and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that *the native population of Palestine,* as a result of this *colonisation,* would simply *“fold their tents and slip away”* or, if they resisted, they would be *“spirited across the borders”.*
> 
> The Zionist Project - 1948​
> There are a few things mentioned here: colonialism, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.
> 
> But in reference to your post, the Palestinians are the natives in Palestine. Being the people of the place and the legal citizens of Palestine, they have the inherent, inalienable right to self determination without external interference, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity. (As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.)
> 
> Colonial projects do not have those rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical Islamist talking points.
> 
> Let's have a look at your what your fascist Islamist heroes define as their Islamist paradise:
> 
> *The Avalon Project : The Palestinian National Charter*
> 
> *Article 1:*
> Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
> 
> *Article 3:*
> The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.
> 
> 
> There's lots more whining about what is ultimately a failure of the Arab-Moslem Death Cultists to achieve their Islamist paradise.
> 
> Both you and they share the same propensity for failure and the willingness to embarrass yourselves with announcements of those failures and your self-created ineptitudes.
> 
> Go complain about your inadequacies to the prayer leader at your madrassah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is deflection all you have?
> 
> Sad.
Click to expand...


I knew you would shuffle off when confronted with the facts. Obviously, you're not willing to acknowledge that fascism is an overriding precept within Islamism. 

It seems your Islamic terrorist heroes have their muhammedan inspired view of Israel's right to exist. 

The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).



Flail your Pom Poms, sweetie.


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> As to the legal foundation for the Zionist paradise, there isn't one.



Yes.  So Team Palestine keeps saying.  Saying does not make it so.  And repeating the claim ad nauseam without providing legal arguments for the claim simply demonstrates you have no legal argument.


----------



## Shusha

Challenger said:


> 1. Stating fact is not an appeal to emotion, it is stating fact


And when you start stating facts, I'll respond appropriately.  Why don't you start with providing demonstration of the legal fact that the Jewish people are specifically prohibited from self-determination, sovereignty over territory or from forming a government or nation in Palestine.



> 2. Without the Zionist plan to create  a "Jews only" state there would have been no conflict.


  There is no "Jews only" state.  There has never been a "Jews only" state.  There was never a plan to create a "Jews only" state.  

See, you have to exaggerate your claim to make it sound vile, because otherwise, if you just said, truthfully, the Jewish people wanted a homeland just like all the other people, it would be hard not to take that as a reasonable request.

(Further, there are all sorts of examples of (insert ethnic group)-majority states -- including those created with large population transfers.  That is the basic premise of our entire global system of nationality and especially so in the first half of the 20th century. That's what happened when large empires broke up and people began to assert themselves, nationally, based on a homogeneous culture.) 



> 3. Comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless. The total population of Palestine had an inherent right of self-determination ...


ALL peoples have an inherent right of self-determination.  Thus, BOTH peoples in Palestine has an inherent right of self-determination.  There is no legal requirement for a peoples right to self-determination be approved by other peoples.  Indeed that would be both immoral and  self-defeating.  Its an inherent right.  



> Shusha's comment pre-supposes that Jewish people worldwide form an ethnicity, rather than a religious group


Yes, and this is the core of the conflict -- the diminishing of the Jewish people as though they, alone, have fewer or different rights than others.  There is absolutely no objective, reasoned criteria which would specifically exclude the Jewish people from being an ethnic group or a "people".  There is certainly no legal reason, as the legal definitions of terms such as "peoples" are quite fluid.

Even were that not so, there are plenty of examples of people building nationalities around religious distinctions. 

And even with all that, the idea that nations are legal or not legal based on some sort of rules build around the ethnic homogeneity or lack thereof is misleading and false.  Nations don't have to fit a certain ethnic profile in order to become nations.  



> 4. Another comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless.   The Zionist plan was always to create a "Jews only" state. The reason they initially failed was due mainly to the real fear that world opinion would turn against them. They settled for an 80/205 ration and have been trying to get rid of the remaining 20% ever since by building walls and settlements to create "facts on the ground" and Palestinian "Bantustans" making life so bad for the native population that they would leave.


So, your premise here is that Israel is actually trying to make life really miserable for the 20% of Arab Israelis and she is failing colossally because life in Israel just too darn wonderful for the Arabs to want to leave.  Really?  That is your argument to "prove" that Israel wants a "Jew only" state?  That the Jewish people are just too inept at creating a shitty place to live.  Wow.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Stating fact is not an appeal to emotion, it is stating fact
> 
> 
> 
> And when you start stating facts, I'll respond appropriately.  Why don't you start with providing demonstration of the legal fact that the Jewish people are specifically prohibited from self-determination, sovereignty over territory or from forming a government or nation in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Without the Zionist plan to create  a "Jews only" state there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "Jews only" state.  There has never been a "Jews only" state.  There was never a plan to create a "Jews only" state.
> 
> See, you have to exaggerate your claim to make it sound vile, because otherwise, if you just said, truthfully, the Jewish people wanted a homeland just like all the other people, it would be hard not to take that as a reasonable request.
> 
> (Further, there are all sorts of examples of (insert ethnic group)-majority states -- including those created with large population transfers.  That is the basic premise of our entire global system of nationality and especially so in the first half of the 20th century. That's what happened when large empires broke up and people began to assert themselves, nationally, based on a homogeneous culture.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless. The total population of Palestine had an inherent right of self-determination ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ALL peoples have an inherent right of self-determination.  Thus, BOTH peoples in Palestine has an inherent right of self-determination.  There is no legal requirement for a peoples right to self-determination be approved by other peoples.  Indeed that would be both immoral and  self-defeating.  Its an inherent right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha's comment pre-supposes that Jewish people worldwide form an ethnicity, rather than a religious group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and this is the core of the conflict -- the diminishing of the Jewish people as though they, alone, have fewer or different rights than others.  There is absolutely no objective, reasoned criteria which would specifically exclude the Jewish people from being an ethnic group or a "people".  There is certainly no legal reason, as the legal definitions of terms such as "peoples" are quite fluid.
> 
> Even were that not so, there are plenty of examples of people building nationalities around religious distinctions.
> 
> And even with all that, the idea that nations are legal or not legal based on some sort of rules build around the ethnic homogeneity or lack thereof is misleading and false.  Nations don't have to fit a certain ethnic profile in order to become nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Another comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless.   The Zionist plan was always to create a "Jews only" state. The reason they initially failed was due mainly to the real fear that world opinion would turn against them. They settled for an 80/205 ration and have been trying to get rid of the remaining 20% ever since by building walls and settlements to create "facts on the ground" and Palestinian "Bantustans" making life so bad for the native population that they would leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your premise here is that Israel is actually trying to make life really miserable for the 20% of Arab Israelis and she is failing colossally because life in Israel just too darn wonderful for the Arabs to want to leave.  Really?  That is your argument to "prove" that Israel wants a "Jew only" state?  That the Jewish people are just too inept at creating a shitty place to live.  Wow.
Click to expand...


Why is it that as soon as Israel turned a near wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came hoards of Palestinians to claim --- it's their land.


----------



## Indeependent

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Stating fact is not an appeal to emotion, it is stating fact
> 
> 
> 
> And when you start stating facts, I'll respond appropriately.  Why don't you start with providing demonstration of the legal fact that the Jewish people are specifically prohibited from self-determination, sovereignty over territory or from forming a government or nation in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Without the Zionist plan to create  a "Jews only" state there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "Jews only" state.  There has never been a "Jews only" state.  There was never a plan to create a "Jews only" state.
> 
> See, you have to exaggerate your claim to make it sound vile, because otherwise, if you just said, truthfully, the Jewish people wanted a homeland just like all the other people, it would be hard not to take that as a reasonable request.
> 
> (Further, there are all sorts of examples of (insert ethnic group)-majority states -- including those created with large population transfers.  That is the basic premise of our entire global system of nationality and especially so in the first half of the 20th century. That's what happened when large empires broke up and people began to assert themselves, nationally, based on a homogeneous culture.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless. The total population of Palestine had an inherent right of self-determination ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ALL peoples have an inherent right of self-determination.  Thus, BOTH peoples in Palestine has an inherent right of self-determination.  There is no legal requirement for a peoples right to self-determination be approved by other peoples.  Indeed that would be both immoral and  self-defeating.  Its an inherent right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha's comment pre-supposes that Jewish people worldwide form an ethnicity, rather than a religious group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and this is the core of the conflict -- the diminishing of the Jewish people as though they, alone, have fewer or different rights than others.  There is absolutely no objective, reasoned criteria which would specifically exclude the Jewish people from being an ethnic group or a "people".  There is certainly no legal reason, as the legal definitions of terms such as "peoples" are quite fluid.
> 
> Even were that not so, there are plenty of examples of people building nationalities around religious distinctions.
> 
> And even with all that, the idea that nations are legal or not legal based on some sort of rules build around the ethnic homogeneity or lack thereof is misleading and false.  Nations don't have to fit a certain ethnic profile in order to become nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Another comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless.   The Zionist plan was always to create a "Jews only" state. The reason they initially failed was due mainly to the real fear that world opinion would turn against them. They settled for an 80/205 ration and have been trying to get rid of the remaining 20% ever since by building walls and settlements to create "facts on the ground" and Palestinian "Bantustans" making life so bad for the native population that they would leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your premise here is that Israel is actually trying to make life really miserable for the 20% of Arab Israelis and she is failing colossally because life in Israel just too darn wonderful for the Arabs to want to leave.  Really?  That is your argument to "prove" that Israel wants a "Jew only" state?  That the Jewish people are just too inept at creating a shitty place to live.  Wow.
Click to expand...

Challenger's POV SHOCKS you?
REALLY!?


----------



## Shusha

Indeependent said:


> Challenger's POV SHOCKS you?
> REALLY!?



Well, yes and no.  I'm certainly getting used to it.  But I can't wrap my head around how apparently intelligent people can hold opinions which are so contrary to objective reality.  

I mean, I get the whole "but its Palestinian land" argument.  (Its biased, makes use of redefining words and ignores principles of law, but I get how people believe it).  I get the "we have the right to resist" argument.  (Which tends to ignore the "we get to resist back (aka defend ourselves) argument, but I get how people believe that.)  

But the idea that there is some sort of objective criteria which specifically excludes the Jewish people from being a "people" is simply ridiculous.  And the idea that the "proof" of the Jews wanting a "Jew-only" state is the desired and deliberate misery of the Arab Israelis and we are just BAD at it, is beyond comprehension.


----------



## Indeependent

Shusha said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger's POV SHOCKS you?
> REALLY!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes and no.  I'm certainly getting used to it.  But I can't wrap my head around how apparently intelligent people can hold opinions which are so contrary to objective reality.
> 
> I mean, I get the whole "but its Palestinian land" argument.  (Its biased, makes use of redefining words and ignores principles of law, but I get how people believe it).  I get the "we have the right to resist" argument.  (Which tends to ignore the "we get to resist back (aka defend ourselves) argument, but I get how people believe that.)
> 
> But the idea that there is some sort of objective criteria which specifically excludes the Jewish people from being a "people" is simply ridiculous.  And the idea that the "proof" of the Jews wanting a "Jew-only" state is the desired and deliberate misery of the Arab Israelis and we are just BAD at it, is beyond comprehension.
Click to expand...

I see you have not been studying the Parashah of the week; if you had, you would understand the Eisav archtype.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Typical Islamist talking points.


Vladimir Jabotinsky and Theodor Herzl were Islamic.

My, what you can't learn on these boards.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> ALL peoples have an inherent right of self-determination. Thus, BOTH peoples in Palestine has an inherent right of self-determination.


You keep saying that without proving it to be true. Which is typical for Israeli talking points.

There were two people there. There were the Native Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

Then there were the foreign colonial settlers.

Post one international law or one UN document mentioning any rights for colonial settlers.

I await your response.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical Islamist talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> Vladimir Jabotinsky and Theodor Herzl were Islamic.
> 
> My, what you can't learn on these boards.
Click to expand...

Yeah, strange, that. We learn from Islamic terrorist huggers that various Islamic terrorist franchises are "freedom fighters" and that base acts of savagery against civilians by Islamic terrorists are heroic acts that are to be lauded. 

It's truly a sickening pathology.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You keep saying that without proving it to be true. Which is typical for Israeli talking points.


Its a simple moral imperative.  ALL peoples have the inherent right of self-determination.  Not SOME peoples.  ALL peoples. 



> There were two people there. There were the Native Muslims, Christians, and Jews.


There were the native, indigenous Jewish people.  And the Arab people.  Two very distinct cultures. Those were and are the two peoples there.  Those were and are the two peoples in conflict with each other. 



> Then there were the foreign colonial settlers.


Self-determination for a peoples includes ALL of those peoples. Outsiders don't get to pick and choose who is part of a self-determining group.  That is up to the peoples involved.  That is part of the self-determining - self-identification.  Jews don't get to decide who considers themselves Palestinian.  Palestinians do. 



> Post one international law or one UN document mentioning any rights for colonial settlers.I await your response.


Um.  Once AGAIN.  The Mandate for Palestine.

_Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and_

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

_The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion._

_An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, _


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that without proving it to be true. Which is typical for Israeli talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a simple moral imperative.  ALL peoples have the inherent right of self-determination.  Not SOME peoples.  ALL peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were two people there. There were the Native Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were the native, indigenous Jewish people.  And the Arab people.  Two very distinct cultures. Those were and are the two peoples there.  Those were and are the two peoples in conflict with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there were the foreign colonial settlers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self-determination for a peoples includes ALL of those peoples. Outsiders don't get to pick and choose who is part of a self-determining group.  That is up to the peoples involved.  That is part of the self-determining - self-identification.  Jews don't get to decide who considers themselves Palestinian.  Palestinians do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post one international law or one UN document mentioning any rights for colonial settlers.I await your response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um.  Once AGAIN.  The Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> _Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and_
> 
> _Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;_
> 
> _The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion._
> 
> _An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> 
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
> 
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, _
Click to expand...

Indeed, the Mandate was the road map for the settler colonial project. That is why the Zionists chose Britain, the major colonial power at that time, to have the Mandate for Palestine. Britain could not implement its plan because it got too much push back from the native population. Britain left Palestine in defeat.


----------



## Shusha

Tinmore, I'm not sure how to break this to you ....  but the Jewish people implemented the f&$# out of that plan.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that without proving it to be true. Which is typical for Israeli talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> Its a simple moral imperative.  ALL peoples have the inherent right of self-determination.  Not SOME peoples.  ALL peoples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were two people there. There were the Native Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were the native, indigenous Jewish people.  And the Arab people.  Two very distinct cultures. Those were and are the two peoples there.  Those were and are the two peoples in conflict with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there were the foreign colonial settlers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self-determination for a peoples includes ALL of those peoples. Outsiders don't get to pick and choose who is part of a self-determining group.  That is up to the peoples involved.  That is part of the self-determining - self-identification.  Jews don't get to decide who considers themselves Palestinian.  Palestinians do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post one international law or one UN document mentioning any rights for colonial settlers.I await your response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um.  Once AGAIN.  The Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> _Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and_
> 
> _Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;_
> 
> _The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion._
> 
> _An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
> 
> The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
> 
> The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
> 
> The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
> 
> The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Mandate was the road map for the settler colonial project. That is why the Zionists chose Britain, the major colonial power at that time, to have the Mandate for Palestine. Britain could not implement its plan because it got too much push back from the native population. Britain left Palestine in defeat.
Click to expand...

Indeed, your re-writing of history is a laughable joke. _The Zionists_™ did not manage or direct which nation would implement the terms of the Mandate.

You befuddled little man.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to the legal foundation for the Zionist paradise, there isn't one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  So Team Palestine keeps saying.  Saying does not make it so.  And repeating the claim ad nauseam without providing legal arguments for the claim simply demonstrates you have no legal argument.
Click to expand...

...because there is no legal argument that can be made for a legal foundation of the Zionist paradise. Zionist Israel exists therefore it is...for now at least. It has no legal right to exist, period.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> And when you start stating facts, I'll respond appropriately.



No you won't; you certainly haven't so far, just the usual Zionist Hasbara BS.  



Shusha said:


> There is no "Jews only" state. There has never been a "Jews only" state. There was never a plan to create a "Jews only" state.



See post #2570



Shusha said:


> ALL peoples have an inherent right of self-determination. Thus, BOTH peoples in Palestine has an inherent right of self-determination. There is no legal requirement for a peoples right to self-determination be approved by other peoples. Indeed that would be both immoral and self-defeating. Its an inherent right.



Peoples, in the sense of indigenous poeople of the place, do. Religious groups, or at least nationalist fanatic segements of religious groups attempting to colonise an area that doesn't belong to them, don't.



Shusha said:


> the diminishing of the Jewish people



Not at all Jewish people can practice their religion anywhere they like as far as I'm concerned, ideally in their countries of origin, but I'm not fussy.



Shusha said:


> Nations don't have to fit a certain ethnic profile in order to become nations.



No they don't, true. Modern Palestinians are made up of many peoples who have lived in Palestine over the centuries, and who have adhered to many different religions including Judaism. Unlike the European colonists who came to create their own little "Jews only" state and create their own little "national" myth. 



Shusha said:


> So, your premise here is that Israel is actually trying to make life really miserable for the 20% of Arab Israelis and she is failing colossally because life in Israel just too darn wonderful for the Arabs to want to leave. Really? That is your argument to "prove" that Israel wants a "Jew only" state? That the Jewish people are just too inept at creating a shitty place to live. Wow.



Nope. See post #2570


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Stating fact is not an appeal to emotion, it is stating fact
> 
> 
> 
> And when you start stating facts, I'll respond appropriately.  Why don't you start with providing demonstration of the legal fact that the Jewish people are specifically prohibited from self-determination, sovereignty over territory or from forming a government or nation in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Without the Zionist plan to create  a "Jews only" state there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "Jews only" state.  There has never been a "Jews only" state.  There was never a plan to create a "Jews only" state.
> 
> See, you have to exaggerate your claim to make it sound vile, because otherwise, if you just said, truthfully, the Jewish people wanted a homeland just like all the other people, it would be hard not to take that as a reasonable request.
> 
> (Further, there are all sorts of examples of (insert ethnic group)-majority states -- including those created with large population transfers.  That is the basic premise of our entire global system of nationality and especially so in the first half of the 20th century. That's what happened when large empires broke up and people began to assert themselves, nationally, based on a homogeneous culture.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless. The total population of Palestine had an inherent right of self-determination ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ALL peoples have an inherent right of self-determination.  Thus, BOTH peoples in Palestine has an inherent right of self-determination.  There is no legal requirement for a peoples right to self-determination be approved by other peoples.  Indeed that would be both immoral and  self-defeating.  Its an inherent right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha's comment pre-supposes that Jewish people worldwide form an ethnicity, rather than a religious group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and this is the core of the conflict -- the diminishing of the Jewish people as though they, alone, have fewer or different rights than others.  There is absolutely no objective, reasoned criteria which would specifically exclude the Jewish people from being an ethnic group or a "people".  There is certainly no legal reason, as the legal definitions of terms such as "peoples" are quite fluid.
> 
> Even were that not so, there are plenty of examples of people building nationalities around religious distinctions.
> 
> And even with all that, the idea that nations are legal or not legal based on some sort of rules build around the ethnic homogeneity or lack thereof is misleading and false.  Nations don't have to fit a certain ethnic profile in order to become nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Another comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless.   The Zionist plan was always to create a "Jews only" state. The reason they initially failed was due mainly to the real fear that world opinion would turn against them. They settled for an 80/205 ration and have been trying to get rid of the remaining 20% ever since by building walls and settlements to create "facts on the ground" and Palestinian "Bantustans" making life so bad for the native population that they would leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your premise here is that Israel is actually trying to make life really miserable for the 20% of Arab Israelis and she is failing colossally because life in Israel just too darn wonderful for the Arabs to want to leave.  Really?  That is your argument to "prove" that Israel wants a "Jew only" state?  That the Jewish people are just too inept at creating a shitty place to live.  Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that as soon as Israel turned a near wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came hoards of Palestinians to claim --- it's their land.
Click to expand...


It was never a wasteland. That's another Zionist lie.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> I can't wrap my head around how apparently intelligent people can hold opinions which are so contrary to objective reality.



That's because you wouldn't know objective reality if it walked up and introduced itself, being so brainwashed by the long debunked Zionist narrative.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Tinmore, I'm not sure how to break this to you ....  but the Jewish people implemented the f&$# out of that plan.


No they didn't. Israel was created by foreigners in Palestine completely unrelated to the Mandate or resolution 181. They did not get any legitimacy from any of the former proposals.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Stating fact is not an appeal to emotion, it is stating fact
> 
> 
> 
> And when you start stating facts, I'll respond appropriately.  Why don't you start with providing demonstration of the legal fact that the Jewish people are specifically prohibited from self-determination, sovereignty over territory or from forming a government or nation in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Without the Zionist plan to create  a "Jews only" state there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "Jews only" state.  There has never been a "Jews only" state.  There was never a plan to create a "Jews only" state.
> 
> See, you have to exaggerate your claim to make it sound vile, because otherwise, if you just said, truthfully, the Jewish people wanted a homeland just like all the other people, it would be hard not to take that as a reasonable request.
> 
> (Further, there are all sorts of examples of (insert ethnic group)-majority states -- including those created with large population transfers.  That is the basic premise of our entire global system of nationality and especially so in the first half of the 20th century. That's what happened when large empires broke up and people began to assert themselves, nationally, based on a homogeneous culture.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless. The total population of Palestine had an inherent right of self-determination ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ALL peoples have an inherent right of self-determination.  Thus, BOTH peoples in Palestine has an inherent right of self-determination.  There is no legal requirement for a peoples right to self-determination be approved by other peoples.  Indeed that would be both immoral and  self-defeating.  Its an inherent right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha's comment pre-supposes that Jewish people worldwide form an ethnicity, rather than a religious group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and this is the core of the conflict -- the diminishing of the Jewish people as though they, alone, have fewer or different rights than others.  There is absolutely no objective, reasoned criteria which would specifically exclude the Jewish people from being an ethnic group or a "people".  There is certainly no legal reason, as the legal definitions of terms such as "peoples" are quite fluid.
> 
> Even were that not so, there are plenty of examples of people building nationalities around religious distinctions.
> 
> And even with all that, the idea that nations are legal or not legal based on some sort of rules build around the ethnic homogeneity or lack thereof is misleading and false.  Nations don't have to fit a certain ethnic profile in order to become nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Another comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless.   The Zionist plan was always to create a "Jews only" state. The reason they initially failed was due mainly to the real fear that world opinion would turn against them. They settled for an 80/205 ration and have been trying to get rid of the remaining 20% ever since by building walls and settlements to create "facts on the ground" and Palestinian "Bantustans" making life so bad for the native population that they would leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your premise here is that Israel is actually trying to make life really miserable for the 20% of Arab Israelis and she is failing colossally because life in Israel just too darn wonderful for the Arabs to want to leave.  Really?  That is your argument to "prove" that Israel wants a "Jew only" state?  That the Jewish people are just too inept at creating a shitty place to live.  Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that as soon as Israel turned a near wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came hoards of Palestinians to claim --- it's their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was never a wasteland. That's another Zionist lie.
Click to expand...


You were in Israel prior to 1948???


----------



## Shusha

I got up this morning, seeing all these alerts on this thread, hoping for some good discussion.  Yawn.  All I get, over and over and over again, is lame repetition of the same claims with no discussion or arguments to back it up.  

"The Jewish people don't count as a people.  And there is no legal right for Israel to exist."

Saying does not make it so.  You guys are boring.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> The Jewish people don't count as a people.


I have never said that.


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Stating fact is not an appeal to emotion, it is stating fact
> 
> 
> 
> And when you start stating facts, I'll respond appropriately.  Why don't you start with providing demonstration of the legal fact that the Jewish people are specifically prohibited from self-determination, sovereignty over territory or from forming a government or nation in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Without the Zionist plan to create  a "Jews only" state there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "Jews only" state.  There has never been a "Jews only" state.  There was never a plan to create a "Jews only" state.
> 
> See, you have to exaggerate your claim to make it sound vile, because otherwise, if you just said, truthfully, the Jewish people wanted a homeland just like all the other people, it would be hard not to take that as a reasonable request.
> 
> (Further, there are all sorts of examples of (insert ethnic group)-majority states -- including those created with large population transfers.  That is the basic premise of our entire global system of nationality and especially so in the first half of the 20th century. That's what happened when large empires broke up and people began to assert themselves, nationally, based on a homogeneous culture.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless. The total population of Palestine had an inherent right of self-determination ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ALL peoples have an inherent right of self-determination.  Thus, BOTH peoples in Palestine has an inherent right of self-determination.  There is no legal requirement for a peoples right to self-determination be approved by other peoples.  Indeed that would be both immoral and  self-defeating.  Its an inherent right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha's comment pre-supposes that Jewish people worldwide form an ethnicity, rather than a religious group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and this is the core of the conflict -- the diminishing of the Jewish people as though they, alone, have fewer or different rights than others.  There is absolutely no objective, reasoned criteria which would specifically exclude the Jewish people from being an ethnic group or a "people".  There is certainly no legal reason, as the legal definitions of terms such as "peoples" are quite fluid.
> 
> Even were that not so, there are plenty of examples of people building nationalities around religious distinctions.
> 
> And even with all that, the idea that nations are legal or not legal based on some sort of rules build around the ethnic homogeneity or lack thereof is misleading and false.  Nations don't have to fit a certain ethnic profile in order to become nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Another comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless.   The Zionist plan was always to create a "Jews only" state. The reason they initially failed was due mainly to the real fear that world opinion would turn against them. They settled for an 80/205 ration and have been trying to get rid of the remaining 20% ever since by building walls and settlements to create "facts on the ground" and Palestinian "Bantustans" making life so bad for the native population that they would leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your premise here is that Israel is actually trying to make life really miserable for the 20% of Arab Israelis and she is failing colossally because life in Israel just too darn wonderful for the Arabs to want to leave.  Really?  That is your argument to "prove" that Israel wants a "Jew only" state?  That the Jewish people are just too inept at creating a shitty place to live.  Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that as soon as Israel turned a near wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came hoards of Palestinians to claim --- it's their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was never a wasteland. That's another Zionist lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were in Israel prior to 1948???
Click to expand...


Zionist Israel didn't exist prior to 1948.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> "The Jewish people don't count as a people. And there is no legal right for Israel to exist."



All people count, regardless of what religion they follow, but in terms of "self-determination" only native indigenous peoples of the place "count" when determining their future, not European settler colonists that have no link to an area other that what their "holy book" tells them, and no, there is no legal right for Zionist israel to exist, no country in existance today has a legal right to exist.



Shusha said:


> I got up this morning, seeing all these alerts on this thread, hoping for some good discussion.



It must suck being you.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Stating fact is not an appeal to emotion, it is stating fact
> 
> 
> 
> And when you start stating facts, I'll respond appropriately.  Why don't you start with providing demonstration of the legal fact that the Jewish people are specifically prohibited from self-determination, sovereignty over territory or from forming a government or nation in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Without the Zionist plan to create  a "Jews only" state there would have been no conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "Jews only" state.  There has never been a "Jews only" state.  There was never a plan to create a "Jews only" state.
> 
> See, you have to exaggerate your claim to make it sound vile, because otherwise, if you just said, truthfully, the Jewish people wanted a homeland just like all the other people, it would be hard not to take that as a reasonable request.
> 
> (Further, there are all sorts of examples of (insert ethnic group)-majority states -- including those created with large population transfers.  That is the basic premise of our entire global system of nationality and especially so in the first half of the 20th century. That's what happened when large empires broke up and people began to assert themselves, nationally, based on a homogeneous culture.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless. The total population of Palestine had an inherent right of self-determination ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ALL peoples have an inherent right of self-determination.  Thus, BOTH peoples in Palestine has an inherent right of self-determination.  There is no legal requirement for a peoples right to self-determination be approved by other peoples.  Indeed that would be both immoral and  self-defeating.  Its an inherent right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha's comment pre-supposes that Jewish people worldwide form an ethnicity, rather than a religious group
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, and this is the core of the conflict -- the diminishing of the Jewish people as though they, alone, have fewer or different rights than others.  There is absolutely no objective, reasoned criteria which would specifically exclude the Jewish people from being an ethnic group or a "people".  There is certainly no legal reason, as the legal definitions of terms such as "peoples" are quite fluid.
> 
> Even were that not so, there are plenty of examples of people building nationalities around religious distinctions.
> 
> And even with all that, the idea that nations are legal or not legal based on some sort of rules build around the ethnic homogeneity or lack thereof is misleading and false.  Nations don't have to fit a certain ethnic profile in order to become nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Another comment too stupid to warrant a response, but I will nevertheless.   The Zionist plan was always to create a "Jews only" state. The reason they initially failed was due mainly to the real fear that world opinion would turn against them. They settled for an 80/205 ration and have been trying to get rid of the remaining 20% ever since by building walls and settlements to create "facts on the ground" and Palestinian "Bantustans" making life so bad for the native population that they would leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your premise here is that Israel is actually trying to make life really miserable for the 20% of Arab Israelis and she is failing colossally because life in Israel just too darn wonderful for the Arabs to want to leave.  Really?  That is your argument to "prove" that Israel wants a "Jew only" state?  That the Jewish people are just too inept at creating a shitty place to live.  Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that as soon as Israel turned a near wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came hoards of Palestinians to claim --- it's their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was never a wasteland. That's another Zionist lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were in Israel prior to 1948???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zionist Israel didn't exist prior to 1948.
Click to expand...


So is 1948 when they became known as the Israelites?


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when you start stating facts, I'll respond appropriately.  Why don't you start with providing demonstration of the legal fact that the Jewish people are specifically prohibited from self-determination, sovereignty over territory or from forming a government or nation in Palestine.
> 
> There is no "Jews only" state.  There has never been a "Jews only" state.  There was never a plan to create a "Jews only" state.
> 
> See, you have to exaggerate your claim to make it sound vile, because otherwise, if you just said, truthfully, the Jewish people wanted a homeland just like all the other people, it would be hard not to take that as a reasonable request.
> 
> (Further, there are all sorts of examples of (insert ethnic group)-majority states -- including those created with large population transfers.  That is the basic premise of our entire global system of nationality and especially so in the first half of the 20th century. That's what happened when large empires broke up and people began to assert themselves, nationally, based on a homogeneous culture.)
> 
> ALL peoples have an inherent right of self-determination.  Thus, BOTH peoples in Palestine has an inherent right of self-determination.  There is no legal requirement for a peoples right to self-determination be approved by other peoples.  Indeed that would be both immoral and  self-defeating.  Its an inherent right.
> 
> Yes, and this is the core of the conflict -- the diminishing of the Jewish people as though they, alone, have fewer or different rights than others.  There is absolutely no objective, reasoned criteria which would specifically exclude the Jewish people from being an ethnic group or a "people".  There is certainly no legal reason, as the legal definitions of terms such as "peoples" are quite fluid.
> 
> Even were that not so, there are plenty of examples of people building nationalities around religious distinctions.
> 
> And even with all that, the idea that nations are legal or not legal based on some sort of rules build around the ethnic homogeneity or lack thereof is misleading and false.  Nations don't have to fit a certain ethnic profile in order to become nations.
> 
> So, your premise here is that Israel is actually trying to make life really miserable for the 20% of Arab Israelis and she is failing colossally because life in Israel just too darn wonderful for the Arabs to want to leave.  Really?  That is your argument to "prove" that Israel wants a "Jew only" state?  That the Jewish people are just too inept at creating a shitty place to live.  Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that as soon as Israel turned a near wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came hoards of Palestinians to claim --- it's their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was never a wasteland. That's another Zionist lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were in Israel prior to 1948???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zionist Israel didn't exist prior to 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is 1948 when they became known as the Israelites?
Click to expand...

Nope, Israelis. "Israelites" are either extinct or are called Palestinians nowadays.


----------



## Rehmani

MJB12741 said:


> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks


But non of Jew's prophets born in in occupied Palestine.


----------



## Rehmani

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations.​
> The first sentence is a lie. Shall I continue?
Click to expand...

I will continue and non of jew's prophet born in occupied Palestine.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that as soon as Israel turned a near wasteland into a thriving metropolis, here came hoards of Palestinians to claim --- it's their land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was never a wasteland. That's another Zionist lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were in Israel prior to 1948???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zionist Israel didn't exist prior to 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is 1948 when they became known as the Israelites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Israelis. "Israelites" are either extinct or are called Palestinians nowadays.
Click to expand...


Well then, if as you say the Israelite's are extinct or now called Palestinians, were the Jews not in the and long before any land theft by Muslim Palestinians?


----------



## MJB12741

The land of the Israelite's belongs to the  Jews.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never a wasteland. That's another Zionist lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were in Israel prior to 1948???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zionist Israel didn't exist prior to 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is 1948 when they became known as the Israelites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Israelis. "Israelites" are either extinct or are called Palestinians nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, if as you say the Israelite's are extinct or now called Palestinians, were the Jews not in the and long before any land theft by Muslim Palestinians?
Click to expand...


How can native people that converted to Islam steal their own land?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> The land of the Israelite's belongs to the  Jews.



No it belongs to their descendants, not people from other continents.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were in Israel prior to 1948???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zionist Israel didn't exist prior to 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is 1948 when they became known as the Israelites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Israelis. "Israelites" are either extinct or are called Palestinians nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, if as you say the Israelite's are extinct or now called Palestinians, were the Jews not in the and long before any land theft by Muslim Palestinians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can native people that converted to Islam steal their own land?
Click to expand...


How can Israel steal Palestinian land when the Jews were indigenous Palestinians?


----------



## montelatici

The ancestors of the Jews that were indigenous to Palestine converted to Christianity.  In fact, they were the first Christians.  The European invaders European were converts to Judaism with little to no ancestors from Palestine.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> The ancestors of the Jews that were indigenous to Palestine converted to Christianity.  In fact, they were the first Christians.  The European invaders European were converts to Judaism with little to no ancestors from Palestine.



Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews 
Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'. 
And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
 "the vile Palestinians among us".

So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).


----------



## Rehmani

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was never a wasteland. That's another Zionist lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were in Israel prior to 1948???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Zionist Israel didn't exist prior to 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is 1948 when they became known as the Israelites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Israelis. "Israelites" are either extinct or are called Palestinians nowadays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then, if as you say the Israelite's are extinct or now called Palestinians, were the Jews not in the and long before any land theft by Muslim Palestinians?
Click to expand...

Montiletci answer is right.
MJ please tell us jews are waiting for massaya after Moses PBUH.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the Jews that were indigenous to Palestine converted to Christianity.  In fact, they were the first Christians.  The European invaders European were converts to Judaism with little to no ancestors from Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews
> Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
> Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'.
> And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
> "the vile Palestinians among us".
> 
> So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
> Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).
Click to expand...

That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the Jews that were indigenous to Palestine converted to Christianity.  In fact, they were the first Christians.  The European invaders European were converts to Judaism with little to no ancestors from Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews
> Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
> Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'.
> And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
> "the vile Palestinians among us".
> 
> So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
> Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
Click to expand...


We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.


----------



## montelatici

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the Jews that were indigenous to Palestine converted to Christianity.  In fact, they were the first Christians.  The European invaders European were converts to Judaism with little to no ancestors from Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews
> Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
> Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'.
> And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
> "the vile Palestinians among us".
> 
> So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
> Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
Click to expand...


Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the Jews that were indigenous to Palestine converted to Christianity.  In fact, they were the first Christians.  The European invaders European were converts to Judaism with little to no ancestors from Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews
> Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
> Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'.
> And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
> "the vile Palestinians among us".
> 
> So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
> Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
Click to expand...


These are not superstition but the Law of Hashem- the 10 commandments.
You spell nothing of significance, the name You call Your god spells "DOG" in reverse.


----------



## montelatici

All superstition. Get it through your thick skull, I have no reverence for other religions.  

Dio, Dio, Dio, Dio, Dio
Deus, Deus, Deus, Deus


----------



## MJB12741

How can the Christians claim the Jews are God's chosen people considering what he gave them for neighbors in Israel?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> How can the Christians claim the Jews are God's chosen people considering what he gave them for neighbors in Israel?



The Jews were living in Europe and on other continents and willingly invaded Palestine, they, not God, chose their neighbors.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the Christians claim the Jews are God's chosen people considering what he gave them for neighbors in Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were living in Europe and on other continents and willingly invaded Palestine, they, not God, chose their neighbors.
Click to expand...


Jews were native Palestinians.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the Christians claim the Jews are God's chosen people considering what he gave them for neighbors in Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were living in Europe and on other continents and willingly invaded Palestine, they, not God, chose their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews were native Palestinians.
Click to expand...


Yes, and many became Christians after the birth of Jesus Christ and all converted to Christianity in 380 AD to be able to reside in Palestine, as required by Roman law.  Palestine was Christian before the Arab conquest. Subsequently, most converted to Islam for convenience, although some remained Christian.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can the Christians claim the Jews are God's chosen people considering what he gave them for neighbors in Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews were living in Europe and on other continents and willingly invaded Palestine, they, not God, chose their neighbors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jews were native Palestinians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and many became Christians after the birth of Jesus Christ and all converted to Christianity in 380 AD to be able to reside in Palestine, as required by Roman law.  Palestine was Christian before the Arab conquest. Subsequently, most converted to Islam for convenience, although some remained Christian.
Click to expand...


Yes it is true most Christians have a Jewish bloodline in their veins & arteries.


----------



## montelatici

No, many Palestinian Muslims and Christians (as Palestine is where Jews were living) have Jewish ancestors, but they also have ancestors that were practicing Roman religions, Samaritanism and other religions in Palestine before 380 AD.  Most Christians are not of Jewish descent, very few are.


----------



## Rehmani

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the Jews that were indigenous to Palestine converted to Christianity.  In fact, they were the first Christians.  The European invaders European were converts to Judaism with little to no ancestors from Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews
> Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
> Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'.
> And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
> "the vile Palestinians among us".
> 
> So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
> Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
Click to expand...

That is exactly I am saying, you believe that you are special and what ever you will say would be holy and fact is no more holy man coming in jew, 3000 years have been passed since Moses PBUH. Get real man.


----------



## Rehmani

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the Jews that were indigenous to Palestine converted to Christianity.  In fact, they were the first Christians.  The European invaders European were converts to Judaism with little to no ancestors from Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews
> Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
> Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'.
> And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
> "the vile Palestinians among us".
> 
> So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
> Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
Click to expand...

I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the Jews that were indigenous to Palestine converted to Christianity.  In fact, they were the first Christians.  The European invaders European were converts to Judaism with little to no ancestors from Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews
> Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
> Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'.
> And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
> "the vile Palestinians among us".
> 
> So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
> Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please behave God means Alla in Hebrew and Allah in Arabic.
> 
> These are not superstition but the Law of Hashem- the 10 commandments.
> You spell nothing of significance, the name You call Your god spells "DOG" in reverse.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Still nothing on when Israel legally acquired any land, huh?


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Still nothing on when Israel legally acquired any land, huh?



HUH???  Eh, Tinmore, remember this?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing on when Israel legally acquired any land, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Eh, Tinmore, remember this?
Click to expand...

Sure, Resolution 181 was never approved or implemented by the Security Council. It was just a non binding recommendation that didn't happen.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing on when Israel legally acquired any land, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Eh, Tinmore, remember this?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Resolution 181 was never approved or implemented by the Security Council. It was just a non binding recommendation that didn't happen.
Click to expand...


Oh it happened alright.  Israel is.  And Israel is there to stay.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing on when Israel legally acquired any land, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Eh, Tinmore, remember this?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Resolution 181 was never approved or implemented by the Security Council. It was just a non binding recommendation that didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it happened alright.  Israel is.  And Israel is there to stay.
Click to expand...

You are dodging the question.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing on when Israel legally acquired any land, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Eh, Tinmore, remember this?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Resolution 181 was never approved or implemented by the Security Council. It was just a non binding recommendation that didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it happened alright.  Israel is.  And Israel is there to stay.
Click to expand...


Naw, Israel will end up like Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa. It is just a matter of time.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing on when Israel legally acquired any land, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Eh, Tinmore, remember this?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Resolution 181 was never approved or implemented by the Security Council. It was just a non binding recommendation that didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it happened alright.  Israel is.  And Israel is there to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, Israel will end up like Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa. It is just a matter of time.
Click to expand...

Actually, you have no idea what you're writing. It is your Islamist paradises which practice social, political and gender apartheid. The social and political ills that afflict Gaza'istan and the West Bank occur across the Islamist Middle East. 

Islam's theology, such as it is, is inseparable from its political program: conversion by the sword, suppression-via-oppression of all competing faiths, suppression and segregation of women as a means of explicit persecution and ultimately, subjugation of the entire world under Islamic sharia law.

Maybe if you paid attention, you might learn something beyond your pointless cutting and pasting of the same nonsense.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing on when Israel legally acquired any land, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Eh, Tinmore, remember this?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Resolution 181 was never approved or implemented by the Security Council. It was just a non binding recommendation that didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it happened alright.  Israel is.  And Israel is there to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, Israel will end up like Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa. It is just a matter of time.
Click to expand...


For over 2000 years Israel's enemies have preached Israel is doomed.  And 2000 years from now, Israel's enemies will still be preaching Israel is doomed.  Don't ya just love it?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing on when Israel legally acquired any land, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Eh, Tinmore, remember this?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Resolution 181 was never approved or implemented by the Security Council. It was just a non binding recommendation that didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it happened alright.  Israel is.  And Israel is there to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, Israel will end up like Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa. It is just a matter of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you have no idea what you're writing. It is your Islamist paradises which practice social, political and gender apartheid. The social and political ills that afflict Gaza'istan and the West Bank occur across the Islamist Middle East.
> 
> Islam's theology, such as it is, is inseparable from its political program: conversion by the sword, suppression-via-oppression of all competing faiths, suppression and segregation of women as a means of explicit persecution and ultimately, subjugation of the entire world under Islamic sharia law.
> 
> Maybe if you paid attention, you might learn something beyond your pointless cutting and pasting of the same nonsense.
Click to expand...

You are talking about the typical 1%. Those people are nutters regardless of religion.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Still nothing on when Israel legally acquired any land, huh?



Answered multiple times on this thread.  You just don't like the answer.

The San Remo Resolution and the Mandate for Palestine.

_Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,...the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, ...Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country._

Do you want it more plainly?  

The Allied Powers were obligated, by law, to establish in Palestine the re-constitution of the National Home for the Jewish people, as was their right under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing on when Israel legally acquired any land, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answered multiple times on this thread.  You just don't like the answer.
> 
> The San Remo Resolution and the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> _Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,...the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, ...Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country._
> 
> Do you want it more plainly?
> 
> The Allied Powers were obligated, by law, to establish in Palestine the re-constitution of the National Home for the Jewish people, as was their right under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League.
Click to expand...

You are still ducking the question.


----------



## Shusha

How did Jordan legally acquire territory?  Syria?  Iraq?  Lebanon?  

Israel (which is Palestine) acquired territory the same way and through the same legal documents.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> How did Jordan legally acquire territory?  Syria?  Iraq?  Lebanon?
> 
> Israel (which is Palestine) acquired territory the same way and through the same legal documents.


Israel was the only military conquest.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did Jordan legally acquire territory?  Syria?  Iraq?  Lebanon?
> 
> Israel (which is Palestine) acquired territory the same way and through the same legal documents.
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was the only military conquest.
Click to expand...


False premise.  Israel was established through the same legal channels and at the same time as the other nations.  That military conflict occurred some twenty six years later is immaterial to the time frame we are discussing. You can't use events of 1948 to retroactively deny legal instruments of 1922 and 1923.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing on when Israel legally acquired any land, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Eh, Tinmore, remember this?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, Resolution 181 was never approved or implemented by the Security Council. It was just a non binding recommendation that didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it happened alright.  Israel is.  And Israel is there to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, Israel will end up like Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa. It is just a matter of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For over 2000 years Israel's enemies have preached Israel is doomed.  And 2000 years from now, Israel's enemies will still be preaching Israel is doomed.  Don't ya just love it?
Click to expand...


Israel if it actually existed disappeared in about 700 BC.  Judea disappeared in about 100 AD.  This European colonial project named Israel will end up like many other colonial projects that were not able to eliminate the native populations, e.g. Rhodesia, Apartheid South Africa, Algeria, etc.


----------



## Mindful

Great speaker.

MUST WATCH: Straight-Talking Marco Rubio Rips PA and J Street


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Eh, Tinmore, remember this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, Resolution 181 was never approved or implemented by the Security Council. It was just a non binding recommendation that didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it happened alright.  Israel is.  And Israel is there to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, Israel will end up like Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa. It is just a matter of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you have no idea what you're writing. It is your Islamist paradises which practice social, political and gender apartheid. The social and political ills that afflict Gaza'istan and the West Bank occur across the Islamist Middle East.
> 
> Islam's theology, such as it is, is inseparable from its political program: conversion by the sword, suppression-via-oppression of all competing faiths, suppression and segregation of women as a means of explicit persecution and ultimately, subjugation of the entire world under Islamic sharia law.
> 
> Maybe if you paid attention, you might learn something beyond your pointless cutting and pasting of the same nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are talking about the typical 1%. Those people are nutters regardless of religion.
Click to expand...


You are hoping to make excuses for an ideology that in both words and actions is consistent with the fascist ideals of its inventor. 

The Western nations that have allowed Islamic immigration have hoped that the freedoms and opportunities of life in more advanced nations would seduce Moslems into abandoning the nastier bits of their creed. It was a vain hope; Islam's political commands are as much "the will of muhammud" (swish) as any of its moral ones, and are therefore, integral to its ideals of fascism..


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Eh, Tinmore, remember this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, Resolution 181 was never approved or implemented by the Security Council. It was just a non binding recommendation that didn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it happened alright.  Israel is.  And Israel is there to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, Israel will end up like Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa. It is just a matter of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For over 2000 years Israel's enemies have preached Israel is doomed.  And 2000 years from now, Israel's enemies will still be preaching Israel is doomed.  Don't ya just love it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel if it actually existed disappeared in about 700 BC.  Judea disappeared in about 100 AD.  This European colonial project named Israel will end up like many other colonial projects that were not able to eliminate the native populations, e.g. Rhodesia, Apartheid South Africa, Algeria, etc.
Click to expand...


Actually, it was the Arab-Moslem invaders and later the xtian crusaders / colonizers who spent enormous amounts of blood and piled dead bodies fighting wars of attrition intending to eliminate the earlier invader / colonizer. 

If you knew anything about political, social and gender apartheied, you would know that both xtianity and Islamism have a shared history of political, social and gender apartheid. 

You dont find it uncomfortable being a know-nothing?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Rehmani said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the Jews that were indigenous to Palestine converted to Christianity.  In fact, they were the first Christians.  The European invaders European were converts to Judaism with little to no ancestors from Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews
> Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
> Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'.
> And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
> "the vile Palestinians among us".
> 
> So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
> Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
Click to expand...


Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Rehmani said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the Jews that were indigenous to Palestine converted to Christianity.  In fact, they were the first Christians.  The European invaders European were converts to Judaism with little to no ancestors from Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews
> Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
> Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'.
> And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
> "the vile Palestinians among us".
> 
> So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
> Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly I am saying, you believe that you are special and what ever you will say would be holy and fact is no more holy man coming in jew, 3000 years have been passed since Moses PBUH. Get real man.
Click to expand...

 
You are the one who should "get real", man.  I said Gd is holy, not us Jews.  It seems that you're just looking for reasons to hate Jews.  We have different religions and you should accept that fact.


----------



## montelatici

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews
> Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
> Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'.
> And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
> "the vile Palestinians among us".
> 
> So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
> Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).
> 
> 
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
Click to expand...



Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?
Click to expand...


I'm responding to that Muslim lunatic.  He said that if Jews start calling G-d "Allah", it will bring harmony and unity.


----------



## montelatici

ahh.  I see.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm responding to that Muslim lunatic.  He said that if Jews start calling G-d "Allah", it will bring harmony and unity.
Click to expand...

Allah is not Muslim. It is Arabic. Even Arab Christians say Allah.


----------



## Rehmani

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews
> Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
> Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'.
> And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
> "the vile Palestinians among us".
> 
> So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
> Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).
> 
> 
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
Click to expand...

you are going away from your religion calling g d instead Ala.


----------



## Rehmani

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ancestors of the Jews that were indigenous to Palestine converted to Christianity.  In fact, they were the first Christians.  The European invaders European were converts to Judaism with little to no ancestors from Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many weren't even people of faith, however still Jews
> Your ancestors were constantly reminding them of their origin.
> Jews in Russia were and still are officially called 'Hebrews'.
> And Emmanuel Kant referred to the Jews as:
> "the vile Palestinians among us".
> 
> So Your brethren had 2000 years to say "go home You vile Jews".
> Now You have no say in it, especially since G-d doesn't break promises (that's also in Your bible).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is exactly I am saying, you believe that you are special and what ever you will say would be holy and fact is no more holy man coming in jew, 3000 years have been passed since Moses PBUH. Get real man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who should "get real", man.  I said Gd is holy, not us Jews.  It seems that you're just looking for reasons to hate Jews.  We have different religions and you should accept that fact.
Click to expand...

I accept that and you different from your religion too not a single prophet of jew call g d.


----------



## Rehmani

montelatici said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?
Click to expand...

I don't and it is not jew word anyway and jew try to make them selves different and thats how they are.


----------



## Rehmani

ForeverYoung436 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm responding to that Muslim lunatic.  He said that if Jews start calling G-d "Allah", it will bring harmony and unity.
Click to expand...

so whats wrong to unit people, that is how you are divide/rule.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't and it is not jew word anyway and jew try to make them selves different and thats how they are.
Click to expand...


Why is a Jew different?


----------



## Rehmani

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm responding to that Muslim lunatic.  He said that if Jews start calling G-d "Allah", it will bring harmony and unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Allah is not Muslim. It is Arabic. Even Arab Christians say Allah.
Click to expand...

even jew say this, Alla. but jew like stand alone by saying g d.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is how Jew alter thing as now they are calling God (G-D), you people alter every thing suit to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are going away from your religion calling g d instead Ala.
Click to expand...


Allah is not the name of Hashem. You're never to pronounce it as if You'd never pronounce the name of Your father.

Allah or El (Hebrew Aramaic) simply means a deity- G-d.
An Elil or Allah can also be a description of other false G-ds, idols.
Muslims are not told the true name.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't and it is not jew word anyway and jew try to make them selves different and thats how they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is a Jew different?
Click to expand...

jew are not different that is what I am trying to explain them, see my signature note.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are going away from your religion calling g d instead Ala.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allah is not the name of Hashem. You're never to pronounce it as if You'd never pronounce the name of Your father.
> 
> Allah or El (Hebrew Aramaic) simply means a deity- G-d.
> An Elil or Allah can also be a description of other false G-ds, idols.
> Muslims are not told the true name.
Click to expand...

Its mean you are not jew. If you are jew call Alla instead g d.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't and it is not jew word anyway and jew try to make them selves different and thats how they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is a Jew different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> jew are not different that is what I am trying to explain them, see my signature note.
Click to expand...



Well If You read the Quran You'll find that Jews/Israel have a specific role, in all Christianity and Islam- we're talked about in a different tone.

Of course we're different. Ishmael is different from Jacob, who's names Israel.

Ishmael- hears the word of G-d, Israel contains the word.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are going away from your religion calling g d instead Ala.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allah is not the name of Hashem. You're never to pronounce it as if You'd never pronounce the name of Your father.
> 
> Allah or El (Hebrew Aramaic) simply means a deity- G-d.
> An Elil or Allah can also be a description of other false G-ds, idols.
> Muslims are not told the true name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its mean you are not jew. If you are jew call Alla instead g d.
Click to expand...


Only english speaking communities use the term "G-d".
Jews know what the name is, but even in English afraid 
to pronounce 'G-d'.

Allah is not the name, idols were called Allah too. 
However when Jews prayed in Your mosques, Muslims and Jews had no problem calling G-d Allah or Hashem Yitbarach (Blessed Name).

Bless You.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't and it is not jew word anyway and jew try to make them selves different and thats how they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is a Jew different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> jew are not different that is what I am trying to explain them, see my signature note.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well If You read the Quran You'll find that Jews/Israel have a specific role, in all Christianity and Islam- we're talked about in a different tone.
> 
> Of course we're different. Ishmael is different from Jacob, who's names Israel.
> 
> Ishmael- hears the word of G-d, Israel contains the word.
Click to expand...

Again I will say you are not different, you pose your self different. Second we are following the religion of Allah(God) not (GD) and GD never exist in Hebrew.


----------



## MJB12741

ForeverYoung436 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that G-d's Name is too holy to be spelled out fully.  Many Gentiles have also started spelling G-d's Name in that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm responding to that Muslim lunatic.  He said that if Jews start calling G-d "Allah", it will bring harmony and unity.
Click to expand...


Correct.  Jews do not kill to honor Allah.


----------



## member

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't and it is not jew word anyway and jew try to make them selves different and thats how they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is a Jew different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> jew are not different that is what I am trying to explain them, see my signature note.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well If You read the Quran You'll find that Jews/Israel have a specific role, in all Christianity and Islam- we're talked about in a different tone.
> 
> Of course we're different. Ishmael is different from Jacob, who's names Israel.
> 
> Ishmael- hears the word of G-d, Israel contains the word.
Click to expand...



*"Well............* 

 ...*If You read the Quran....."


*



​




so -- what page in the Quaran....

 do they touch upon this, 

 ..._thi_s:  hold up your Bible and _gimme_ that menacing look ?


huh ?



No need to read 

  ......just look:













​









​



oh, that's right, they do not represent peaceful, practicing muslims in Saudi Arabia and...Yemen and afghanistan and pakistan and..libya and qatar and ....and ... and ___________________  







​



 still, i'd like to know what page this 

 _metamorphosis_ takes place ?


----------



## Shusha

Holy change of topic, Batman!

But I suppose it is for the best that this thread come to an end.  After 266 pages, there has been not one shred of evidence or legal argument or reasonable explanation for the prohibition of the Jewish people to form a state.

Rehmani, I'm not entirely sure about your point on this thread.  On the surface, it appears to be a rather silly discussion about the names of G-d.  Silly because both Judaism and Islam have many names for G-d (or more correctly the attributes G-d manifests to humanity).  The concept of G-d, I'm sure we will both agree, is one that is larger than can be encompassed with human language. He can not be fully understood, let alone described, and we must be careful not confuse the descriptions we use for Him with His actuality.  The words and terms we use are useful in understanding and discussing Her Nature, but are not Her.  The term "G-d" is nothing more than an English language way of conveying an idea.  When conversing in English, with people who are not Hebrew speakers, its seems courteous to use English terms, rather than one of the many Hebrew words which may not have meaning to those who don't speak Hebrew.  I, personally, choose to use the form G-d as a reminder that I must be conscious of the entirety of the concept when writing and not limit G-d by the words I am using.  Its a little jolt to remind me of the sanctity.  

That said, while I find your desire to "unite" the Jewish people with other people (notably in your conversations, Christians and Muslims), I find your methods and communications and the ideology behind it problematic (and I'm being exceedingly polite and generous with that term). You seem to conceive of unity as being conformity and that non-conformity is evidence of some sort of inherent or intentional wickedness.  Sadly, I believe this ideology to be endemic in the Muslim world and I believe it is harmful in the extreme, no matter how politely it is phrased, and frankly, you do not come off as polite, but as condescending and rude and vaguely threatening in an 'or else!' kind of way.  At its foundation, it places the Jewish people as "outside" or separated from humanity. And then applies a veneer of treacherous intent to it.  

Oddly enough, in a way, this brings us back to the topic of the thread.  I think this is the foundation from which people develop, argue and justify holding different standards for the Jewish people, and by extension, Israel.  And why we end up with threads like this one, where people hold the idea that a State for the Jewish people has no legal right to exist.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> Holy change of topic, Batman!
> 
> But I suppose it is for the best that this thread come to an end.  After 266 pages, there has been not one shred of evidence or legal argument or reasonable explanation for the prohibition of the Jewish people to form a state.
> 
> Rehmani, I'm not entirely sure about your point on this thread.  On the surface, it appears to be a rather silly discussion about the names of G-d.  Silly because both Judaism and Islam have many names for G-d (or more correctly the attributes G-d manifests to humanity).  The concept of G-d, I'm sure we will both agree, is one that is larger than can be encompassed with human language. He can not be fully understood, let alone described, and we must be careful not confuse the descriptions we use for Him with His actuality.  The words and terms we use are useful in understanding and discussing Her Nature, but are not Her.  The term "G-d" is nothing more than an English language way of conveying an idea.  When conversing in English, with people who are not Hebrew speakers, its seems courteous to use English terms, rather than one of the many Hebrew words which may not have meaning to those who don't speak Hebrew.  I, personally, choose to use the form G-d as a reminder that I must be conscious of the entirety of the concept when writing and not limit G-d by the words I am using.  Its a little jolt to remind me of the sanctity.
> 
> That said, while I find your desire to "unite" the Jewish people with other people (notably in your conversations, Christians and Muslims), I find your methods and communications and the ideology behind it problematic (and I'm being exceedingly polite and generous with that term). You seem to conceive of unity as being conformity and that non-conformity is evidence of some sort of inherent or intentional wickedness.  Sadly, I believe this ideology to be endemic in the Muslim world and I believe it is harmful in the extreme, no matter how politely it is phrased, and frankly, you do not come off as polite, but as condescending and rude and vaguely threatening in an 'or else!' kind of way.  At its foundation, it places the Jewish people as "outside" or separated from humanity. And then applies a veneer of treacherous intent to it.
> 
> Oddly enough, in a way, this brings us back to the topic of the thread.  I think this is the foundation from which people develop, argue and justify holding different standards for the Jewish people, and by extension, Israel.  And why we end up with threads like this one, where people hold the idea that a State for the Jewish people has no legal right to exist.



Do Muslim countries have a legal right to exist for Muslims?  Does the Vatican have a legal right t\o exist for Catholics?


----------



## Shusha

MJB12741 said:


> Do Muslim countries have a legal right to exist for Muslims?  Does the Vatican have a legal right t\o exist for Catholics?



Does France have a legal right to exist for the French?  Does Korea?  Does Palestine?

And Team Palestine will say that of course Palestine has the right to exist -- as a homeland for the Palestinians.  And who are the Palestinians?  The Arabs, and those Jews who have conformed to the Arab expectation.

See, the non-conforming Jews, the ones who wish to self-define and self-realize are not welcome.  They are "outsiders", foreigners.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Muslim countries have a legal right to exist for Muslims?  Does the Vatican have a legal right t\o exist for Catholics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does France have a legal right to exist for the French?  Does Korea?  Does Palestine?
> 
> And Team Palestine will say that of course Palestine has the right to exist -- as a homeland for the Palestinians.  And who are the Palestinians?  The Arabs, and those Jews who have conformed to the Arab expectation.
> 
> See, the non-conforming Jews, the ones who wish to self-define and self-realize are not welcome.  They are "outsiders", foreigners.
Click to expand...



I said it before & I'll say it again.  It's called Palestinian mentality.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Muslim countries have a legal right to exist for Muslims?  Does the Vatican have a legal right t\o exist for Catholics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does France have a legal right to exist for the French?  Does Korea?  Does Palestine?
> 
> And Team Palestine will say that of course Palestine has the right to exist -- as a homeland for the Palestinians.  And who are the Palestinians?  The Arabs, and those Jews who have conformed to the Arab expectation.
> 
> See, the non-conforming Jews, the ones who wish to self-define and self-realize are not welcome.  They are "outsiders", foreigners.
Click to expand...


As long as land is not stolen from the native inhabitants, in this case whose ancestors in the land go back thousands of years, then there is no problem with a people asserting self-determination.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Muslim countries have a legal right to exist for Muslims?  Does the Vatican have a legal right t\o exist for Catholics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does France have a legal right to exist for the French?  Does Korea?  Does Palestine?
> 
> And Team Palestine will say that of course Palestine has the right to exist -- as a homeland for the Palestinians.  And who are the Palestinians?  The Arabs, and those Jews who have conformed to the Arab expectation.
> 
> See, the non-conforming Jews, the ones who wish to self-define and self-realize are not welcome.  They are "outsiders", foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as land is not stolen from the native inhabitants, in this case whose ancestors in the land go back thousands of years, then there is no problem with a people asserting self-determination.
Click to expand...


What of the invading squatters in Israel's land with no titles or deeds to it whatsoever?  You want them to have self determination?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Muslim countries have a legal right to exist for Muslims?  Does the Vatican have a legal right t\o exist for Catholics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does France have a legal right to exist for the French?  Does Korea?  Does Palestine?
> 
> And Team Palestine will say that of course Palestine has the right to exist -- as a homeland for the Palestinians.  And who are the Palestinians?  The Arabs, and those Jews who have conformed to the Arab expectation.
> 
> See, the non-conforming Jews, the ones who wish to self-define and self-realize are not welcome.  They are "outsiders", foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as land is not stolen from the native inhabitants, in this case whose ancestors in the land go back thousands of years, then there is no problem with a people asserting self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What of the invading squatters in Israel's land with no titles or deeds to it whatsoever?  You want them to have self determination?
Click to expand...


They have titles, deeds and keys. The squatters are your buddies.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Muslim countries have a legal right to exist for Muslims?  Does the Vatican have a legal right t\o exist for Catholics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does France have a legal right to exist for the French?  Does Korea?  Does Palestine?
> 
> And Team Palestine will say that of course Palestine has the right to exist -- as a homeland for the Palestinians.  And who are the Palestinians?  The Arabs, and those Jews who have conformed to the Arab expectation.
> 
> See, the non-conforming Jews, the ones who wish to self-define and self-realize are not welcome.  They are "outsiders", foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as land is not stolen from the native inhabitants, in this case whose ancestors in the land go back thousands of years, then there is no problem with a people asserting self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What of the invading squatters in Israel's land with no titles or deeds to it whatsoever?  You want them to have self determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have titles, deeds and keys. The squatters are your buddies.
Click to expand...


You're forever befuddled. The major land holdings in the area of Pal'istan (aside from lands set aside by the Ottomans as an Islamist waqf), were those of absentee landlords in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria. 

When did the European xtian Crusaders / colonists become native inhabitants?


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Muslim countries have a legal right to exist for Muslims?  Does the Vatican have a legal right t\o exist for Catholics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does France have a legal right to exist for the French?  Does Korea?  Does Palestine?
> 
> And Team Palestine will say that of course Palestine has the right to exist -- as a homeland for the Palestinians.  And who are the Palestinians?  The Arabs, and those Jews who have conformed to the Arab expectation.
> 
> See, the non-conforming Jews, the ones who wish to self-define and self-realize are not welcome.  They are "outsiders", foreigners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as land is not stolen from the native inhabitants, in this case whose ancestors in the land go back thousands of years, then there is no problem with a people asserting self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What of the invading squatters in Israel's land with no titles or deeds to it whatsoever?  You want them to have self determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have titles, deeds and keys. The squatters are your buddies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forever befuddled. The major land holdings in the area of Pal'istan (aside from lands set aside by the Ottomans as an Islamist waqf), were those of absentee landlords in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
> 
> When did the European xtian Crusaders / colonists become native inhabitants?
Click to expand...


Maybe he thinks they were the natives who built Solomon's Temple.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does France have a legal right to exist for the French?  Does Korea?  Does Palestine?
> 
> And Team Palestine will say that of course Palestine has the right to exist -- as a homeland for the Palestinians.  And who are the Palestinians?  The Arabs, and those Jews who have conformed to the Arab expectation.
> 
> See, the non-conforming Jews, the ones who wish to self-define and self-realize are not welcome.  They are "outsiders", foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as land is not stolen from the native inhabitants, in this case whose ancestors in the land go back thousands of years, then there is no problem with a people asserting self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What of the invading squatters in Israel's land with no titles or deeds to it whatsoever?  You want them to have self determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have titles, deeds and keys. The squatters are your buddies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forever befuddled. The major land holdings in the area of Pal'istan (aside from lands set aside by the Ottomans as an Islamist waqf), were those of absentee landlords in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
> 
> When did the European xtian Crusaders / colonists become native inhabitants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he thinks they were the natives who built Solomon's Temple.
Click to expand...


Yes, their ancestors that practiced Judaism, before they converted to Christianity (then Islam) , would have built most things in the area now called Palestine, including Soloman's Temple if it really was built. Now you are starting learn.  Good for you.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as land is not stolen from the native inhabitants, in this case whose ancestors in the land go back thousands of years, then there is no problem with a people asserting self-determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What of the invading squatters in Israel's land with no titles or deeds to it whatsoever?  You want them to have self determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have titles, deeds and keys. The squatters are your buddies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forever befuddled. The major land holdings in the area of Pal'istan (aside from lands set aside by the Ottomans as an Islamist waqf), were those of absentee landlords in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
> 
> When did the European xtian Crusaders / colonists become native inhabitants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he thinks they were the natives who built Solomon's Temple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, their ancestors that practiced Judaism, before they converted to Christianity (then Islam) , would have built most things in the area now called Palestine, including Soloman's Temple if it really was built. Now you are starting learn.  Good for you.
Click to expand...


Sounds like the Muslim claim that Jesus was actually a Muslim.


----------



## Rehmani

MJB12741 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jews and Muslims hold to this superstition.  Both are anachronistic and frankly, disagreeable sects.  Christians spell it out God, God, God, God.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know God is English word,Roman word or Greek word, German Word, but I am sure Jesus PBUH call or pronounce Alla or Allah.
> But for jews, they always do things which is divide instead. I will advice to jews call God, you are close to Christian and if you called Alla means close to Muslim and it will bring harmony, unity instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Jews today say the word HaShem for Gd.  I suggest that you also start calling Gd by the name HaShem.  That will bring you close to Jews and will bring harmony and unity instead of strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to use the Jewish word for God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm responding to that Muslim lunatic.  He said that if Jews start calling G-d "Allah", it will bring harmony and unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  Jews do not kill to honor Allah.
Click to expand...

Because jews don't believe in Alla(Hebrew), in a way jew are responsible for killing around.
Look Moses PBUH,Jesus PBUH and Mohammad PBUH they all call Alla or Allah then whats wrong with you to call g d. Tell me ever Abraham to Moses PBUH call g d. They only Alla. this is the reason you people means jew have some mental issue and its come from that you think you are special race.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Holy change of topic, Batman!
> 
> But I suppose it is for the best that this thread come to an end.  After 266 pages, there has been not one shred of evidence or legal argument or reasonable explanation for the prohibition of the Jewish people to form a state.
> 
> Rehmani, I'm not entirely sure about your point on this thread.  On the surface, it appears to be a rather silly discussion about the names of G-d.  Silly because both Judaism and Islam have many names for G-d (or more correctly the attributes G-d manifests to humanity).  The concept of G-d, I'm sure we will both agree, is one that is larger than can be encompassed with human language. He can not be fully understood, let alone described, and we must be careful not confuse the descriptions we use for Him with His actuality.  The words and terms we use are useful in understanding and discussing Her Nature, but are not Her.  The term "G-d" is nothing more than an English language way of conveying an idea.  When conversing in English, with people who are not Hebrew speakers, its seems courteous to use English terms, rather than one of the many Hebrew words which may not have meaning to those who don't speak Hebrew.  I, personally, choose to use the form G-d as a reminder that I must be conscious of the entirety of the concept when writing and not limit G-d by the words I am using.  Its a little jolt to remind me of the sanctity.
> 
> That said, while I find your desire to "unite" the Jewish people with other people (notably in your conversations, Christians and Muslims), I find your methods and communications and the ideology behind it problematic (and I'm being exceedingly polite and generous with that term). You seem to conceive of unity as being conformity and that non-conformity is evidence of some sort of inherent or intentional wickedness.  Sadly, I believe this ideology to be endemic in the Muslim world and I believe it is harmful in the extreme, no matter how politely it is phrased, and frankly, you do not come off as polite, but as condescending and rude and vaguely threatening in an 'or else!' kind of way.  At its foundation, it places the Jewish people as "outside" or separated from humanity. And then applies a veneer of treacherous intent to it.
> 
> Oddly enough, in a way, this brings us back to the topic of the thread.  I think this is the foundation from which people develop, argue and justify holding different standards for the Jewish people, and by extension, Israel.  And why we end up with threads like this one, where people hold the idea that a State for the Jewish people has no legal right to exist.


Very simple From Abraham PBUH to Moses,Jesus and Mohammad PBUH they all use for God Alla or Allah if we all follow them it will show some kind of unity.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as land is not stolen from the native inhabitants, in this case whose ancestors in the land go back thousands of years, then there is no problem with a people asserting self-determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What of the invading squatters in Israel's land with no titles or deeds to it whatsoever?  You want them to have self determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have titles, deeds and keys. The squatters are your buddies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forever befuddled. The major land holdings in the area of Pal'istan (aside from lands set aside by the Ottomans as an Islamist waqf), were those of absentee landlords in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
> 
> When did the European xtian Crusaders / colonists become native inhabitants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he thinks they were the natives who built Solomon's Temple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, their ancestors that practiced Judaism, before they converted to Christianity (then Islam) , would have built most things in the area now called Palestine, including Soloman's Temple if it really was built. Now you are starting learn.  Good for you.
Click to expand...


Isn't it interesting how most Christians & Muslims have Jewish bloodlines in their veins & arteries?  Do you like gefilte fish?


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy change of topic, Batman!
> 
> But I suppose it is for the best that this thread come to an end.  After 266 pages, there has been not one shred of evidence or legal argument or reasonable explanation for the prohibition of the Jewish people to form a state.
> 
> Rehmani, I'm not entirely sure about your point on this thread.  On the surface, it appears to be a rather silly discussion about the names of G-d.  Silly because both Judaism and Islam have many names for G-d (or more correctly the attributes G-d manifests to humanity).  The concept of G-d, I'm sure we will both agree, is one that is larger than can be encompassed with human language. He can not be fully understood, let alone described, and we must be careful not confuse the descriptions we use for Him with His actuality.  The words and terms we use are useful in understanding and discussing Her Nature, but are not Her.  The term "G-d" is nothing more than an English language way of conveying an idea.  When conversing in English, with people who are not Hebrew speakers, its seems courteous to use English terms, rather than one of the many Hebrew words which may not have meaning to those who don't speak Hebrew.  I, personally, choose to use the form G-d as a reminder that I must be conscious of the entirety of the concept when writing and not limit G-d by the words I am using.  Its a little jolt to remind me of the sanctity.
> 
> That said, while I find your desire to "unite" the Jewish people with other people (notably in your conversations, Christians and Muslims), I find your methods and communications and the ideology behind it problematic (and I'm being exceedingly polite and generous with that term). You seem to conceive of unity as being conformity and that non-conformity is evidence of some sort of inherent or intentional wickedness.  Sadly, I believe this ideology to be endemic in the Muslim world and I believe it is harmful in the extreme, no matter how politely it is phrased, and frankly, you do not come off as polite, but as condescending and rude and vaguely threatening in an 'or else!' kind of way.  At its foundation, it places the Jewish people as "outside" or separated from humanity. And then applies a veneer of treacherous intent to it.
> 
> Oddly enough, in a way, this brings us back to the topic of the thread.  I think this is the foundation from which people develop, argue and justify holding different standards for the Jewish people, and by extension, Israel.  And why we end up with threads like this one, where people hold the idea that a State for the Jewish people has no legal right to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple From Abraham PBUH to Moses,Jesus and Mohammad PBUH they all use for God Alla or Allah if we all follow them it will show some kind of unity.
Click to expand...


No they didn't. Find one 'Alla' in the Torah.
Noone was a Muslim before Your prophet, this claim only exists in the Koran.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani 

What is the purpose of "unity"?


----------



## montelatici

rylah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What of the invading squatters in Israel's land with no titles or deeds to it whatsoever?  You want them to have self determination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have titles, deeds and keys. The squatters are your buddies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forever befuddled. The major land holdings in the area of Pal'istan (aside from lands set aside by the Ottomans as an Islamist waqf), were those of absentee landlords in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
> 
> When did the European xtian Crusaders / colonists become native inhabitants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he thinks they were the natives who built Solomon's Temple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, their ancestors that practiced Judaism, before they converted to Christianity (then Islam) , would have built most things in the area now called Palestine, including Soloman's Temple if it really was built. Now you are starting learn.  Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Muslim claim that Jesus was actually a Muslim.
Click to expand...


As a Christian, I have no idea what Muslims claim and don't give a shit what they claim. The fact that those that practiced Judaism and other religions in the Roman province of Palestine converted to Christianity is historical fact.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have titles, deeds and keys. The squatters are your buddies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're forever befuddled. The major land holdings in the area of Pal'istan (aside from lands set aside by the Ottomans as an Islamist waqf), were those of absentee landlords in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
> 
> When did the European xtian Crusaders / colonists become native inhabitants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he thinks they were the natives who built Solomon's Temple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, their ancestors that practiced Judaism, before they converted to Christianity (then Islam) , would have built most things in the area now called Palestine, including Soloman's Temple if it really was built. Now you are starting learn.  Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Muslim claim that Jesus was actually a Muslim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a Christian, I have no idea what Muslims claim and don't give a shit what they claim. The fact that those that practiced Judaism and other religions in the Roman province of Palestine converted to Christianity is historical fact.
Click to expand...


Ok agreed.
However You're still to prove that they stayed in that land en mass for 2000 years, and somehow connect them to so called modern Palestinians.

Good luck


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What of the invading squatters in Israel's land with no titles or deeds to it whatsoever?  You want them to have self determination?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have titles, deeds and keys. The squatters are your buddies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're forever befuddled. The major land holdings in the area of Pal'istan (aside from lands set aside by the Ottomans as an Islamist waqf), were those of absentee landlords in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
> 
> When did the European xtian Crusaders / colonists become native inhabitants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he thinks they were the natives who built Solomon's Temple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, their ancestors that practiced Judaism, before they converted to Christianity (then Islam) , would have built most things in the area now called Palestine, including Soloman's Temple if it really was built. Now you are starting learn.  Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it interesting how most Christians & Muslims have Jewish bloodlines in their veins & arteries?  Do you like gefilte fish?
Click to expand...


Well, most Christians have no Jewish blood, being mostly European, New World people or Asian (Philippines) , but you are correct, many of the Muslims and Christians of Palestine have Jewish ancestors.  Conversely, European Jews have Christian ancestors.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have titles, deeds and keys. The squatters are your buddies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're forever befuddled. The major land holdings in the area of Pal'istan (aside from lands set aside by the Ottomans as an Islamist waqf), were those of absentee landlords in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
> 
> When did the European xtian Crusaders / colonists become native inhabitants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he thinks they were the natives who built Solomon's Temple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, their ancestors that practiced Judaism, before they converted to Christianity (then Islam) , would have built most things in the area now called Palestine, including Soloman's Temple if it really was built. Now you are starting learn.  Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it interesting how most Christians & Muslims have Jewish bloodlines in their veins & arteries?  Do you like gefilte fish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, most Christians have no Jewish blood, being mostly European, New World people or Asian (Philippines) , but you are correct, many of the Muslims and Christians of Palestine have Jewish ancestors.  Conversely, European Jews have Christian ancestors.
Click to expand...


We get it - people don't live in a bubble.
The Palestinians btw too, especially with all the conquests throughout history.
It doesn't prove any of what You've been trying so far.


----------



## rylah

BTW how would You explain all those specific tribal and geographical surnames that are common to the Palestinians?
As well as their leader actually saying openly on TV that they're mostly of Egyptian, Syrian and SA origins?

And don't go "hasbara troll" on me, just explain how You perceive it.


----------



## montelatici

Your comment is out of the Hasbara playbook, you are following it to the letter.  This is used as part of the Palestinian delegitimization process the Hasbara has in place.   When the "a land without a people" meme proved impossible to defend, Zionist propaganda began tilting towards claiming that the inhabitants living in Palestine were somehow, from elsewhere.  Of course, that is also difficult to defend because there have always been people in Palestine.   

Those tribal and geographical surnames are in themselves fake assertions, part of the Hasbara propaganda machine.  As far as what a Hamas leader states, I would ignore and rely on genetic studies which demonstrate that Palestinian DNA is overwhelmingly indigenous to the area.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Your comment is out of the Hasbara playbook, you are following it to the letter.  This is used as part of the Palestinian delegitimization process the Hasbara has in place.   When the "a land without a people" meme proved impossible to defend, Zionist propaganda began tilting towards claiming that the inhabitants living in Palestine were somehow, from elsewhere.  Of course, that is also difficult to defend because there have always been people in Palestine.
> 
> Those tribal and geographical surnames are in themselves fake assertions, part of the Hasbara propaganda machine.  As far as what a Hamas leader states, I would ignore and rely on genetic studies which demonstrate that Palestinian DNA is overwhelmingly indigenous to the area.



No kidding? So, you're claiming the xtian Crusaders have "Pal'istanian DNA"? I hadn't realized that Pal'istanians were a specific race/ethnicity. 

Interesting what one can learn from the prayer leader at your madrassah.


----------



## rylah

montelatici said:


> Your comment is out of the Hasbara playbook, you are following it to the letter.  This is used as part of the Palestinian delegitimization process the Hasbara has in place.   When the "a land without a people" meme proved impossible to defend, Zionist propaganda began tilting towards claiming that the inhabitants living in Palestine were somehow, from elsewhere.  Of course, that is also difficult to defend because there have always been people in Palestine.
> 
> Those tribal and geographical surnames are in themselves fake assertions, part of the Hasbara propaganda machine.  As far as what a Hamas leader states, I would ignore and rely on genetic studies which demonstrate that Palestinian DNA is overwhelmingly indigenous to the area.



So "indigenous people who stayed in one place for centuries" all of a sudden began taking surnames of other geographical places.
How so, for what purpose? Is there anyone  with the surname "Filastini"?
Maybe we can find a Cohen among them...


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy change of topic, Batman!
> 
> But I suppose it is for the best that this thread come to an end.  After 266 pages, there has been not one shred of evidence or legal argument or reasonable explanation for the prohibition of the Jewish people to form a state.
> 
> Rehmani, I'm not entirely sure about your point on this thread.  On the surface, it appears to be a rather silly discussion about the names of G-d.  Silly because both Judaism and Islam have many names for G-d (or more correctly the attributes G-d manifests to humanity).  The concept of G-d, I'm sure we will both agree, is one that is larger than can be encompassed with human language. He can not be fully understood, let alone described, and we must be careful not confuse the descriptions we use for Him with His actuality.  The words and terms we use are useful in understanding and discussing Her Nature, but are not Her.  The term "G-d" is nothing more than an English language way of conveying an idea.  When conversing in English, with people who are not Hebrew speakers, its seems courteous to use English terms, rather than one of the many Hebrew words which may not have meaning to those who don't speak Hebrew.  I, personally, choose to use the form G-d as a reminder that I must be conscious of the entirety of the concept when writing and not limit G-d by the words I am using.  Its a little jolt to remind me of the sanctity.
> 
> That said, while I find your desire to "unite" the Jewish people with other people (notably in your conversations, Christians and Muslims), I find your methods and communications and the ideology behind it problematic (and I'm being exceedingly polite and generous with that term). You seem to conceive of unity as being conformity and that non-conformity is evidence of some sort of inherent or intentional wickedness.  Sadly, I believe this ideology to be endemic in the Muslim world and I believe it is harmful in the extreme, no matter how politely it is phrased, and frankly, you do not come off as polite, but as condescending and rude and vaguely threatening in an 'or else!' kind of way.  At its foundation, it places the Jewish people as "outside" or separated from humanity. And then applies a veneer of treacherous intent to it.
> 
> Oddly enough, in a way, this brings us back to the topic of the thread.  I think this is the foundation from which people develop, argue and justify holding different standards for the Jewish people, and by extension, Israel.  And why we end up with threads like this one, where people hold the idea that a State for the Jewish people has no legal right to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple From Abraham PBUH to Moses,Jesus and Mohammad PBUH they all use for God Alla or Allah if we all follow them it will show some kind of unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't. Find one 'Alla' in the Torah.
> Noone was a Muslim before Your prophet, this claim only exists in the Koran.
Click to expand...

Yes they did. Because they were all Arab.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani
> 
> What is the purpose of "unity"?


Now I will say, you are right now this thread should end.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy change of topic, Batman!
> 
> But I suppose it is for the best that this thread come to an end.  After 266 pages, there has been not one shred of evidence or legal argument or reasonable explanation for the prohibition of the Jewish people to form a state.
> 
> Rehmani, I'm not entirely sure about your point on this thread.  On the surface, it appears to be a rather silly discussion about the names of G-d.  Silly because both Judaism and Islam have many names for G-d (or more correctly the attributes G-d manifests to humanity).  The concept of G-d, I'm sure we will both agree, is one that is larger than can be encompassed with human language. He can not be fully understood, let alone described, and we must be careful not confuse the descriptions we use for Him with His actuality.  The words and terms we use are useful in understanding and discussing Her Nature, but are not Her.  The term "G-d" is nothing more than an English language way of conveying an idea.  When conversing in English, with people who are not Hebrew speakers, its seems courteous to use English terms, rather than one of the many Hebrew words which may not have meaning to those who don't speak Hebrew.  I, personally, choose to use the form G-d as a reminder that I must be conscious of the entirety of the concept when writing and not limit G-d by the words I am using.  Its a little jolt to remind me of the sanctity.
> 
> That said, while I find your desire to "unite" the Jewish people with other people (notably in your conversations, Christians and Muslims), I find your methods and communications and the ideology behind it problematic (and I'm being exceedingly polite and generous with that term). You seem to conceive of unity as being conformity and that non-conformity is evidence of some sort of inherent or intentional wickedness.  Sadly, I believe this ideology to be endemic in the Muslim world and I believe it is harmful in the extreme, no matter how politely it is phrased, and frankly, you do not come off as polite, but as condescending and rude and vaguely threatening in an 'or else!' kind of way.  At its foundation, it places the Jewish people as "outside" or separated from humanity. And then applies a veneer of treacherous intent to it.
> 
> Oddly enough, in a way, this brings us back to the topic of the thread.  I think this is the foundation from which people develop, argue and justify holding different standards for the Jewish people, and by extension, Israel.  And why we end up with threads like this one, where people hold the idea that a State for the Jewish people has no legal right to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple From Abraham PBUH to Moses,Jesus and Mohammad PBUH they all use for God Alla or Allah if we all follow them it will show some kind of unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't. Find one 'Alla' in the Torah.
> Noone was a Muslim before Your prophet, this claim only exists in the Koran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. Because they were all Arab.
Click to expand...


How old are you?  You can't be more than 12, considering your level of maturity.  Shusha wrote a whole thesis trying to explain some basic terms about the Names of Hashem, and you counter with an infantile response.  It is true that El and Allah are similar Names for Hashem.  And it's also true that Christians call Him Gd, and encompass the trinity in that concept, which Jews and Muslims do not accept.  You are just using this silly semantic game to show your opinion that Jews are children of the devil.  Grow up!


----------



## Rehmani

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy change of topic, Batman!
> 
> But I suppose it is for the best that this thread come to an end.  After 266 pages, there has been not one shred of evidence or legal argument or reasonable explanation for the prohibition of the Jewish people to form a state.
> 
> Rehmani, I'm not entirely sure about your point on this thread.  On the surface, it appears to be a rather silly discussion about the names of G-d.  Silly because both Judaism and Islam have many names for G-d (or more correctly the attributes G-d manifests to humanity).  The concept of G-d, I'm sure we will both agree, is one that is larger than can be encompassed with human language. He can not be fully understood, let alone described, and we must be careful not confuse the descriptions we use for Him with His actuality.  The words and terms we use are useful in understanding and discussing Her Nature, but are not Her.  The term "G-d" is nothing more than an English language way of conveying an idea.  When conversing in English, with people who are not Hebrew speakers, its seems courteous to use English terms, rather than one of the many Hebrew words which may not have meaning to those who don't speak Hebrew.  I, personally, choose to use the form G-d as a reminder that I must be conscious of the entirety of the concept when writing and not limit G-d by the words I am using.  Its a little jolt to remind me of the sanctity.
> 
> That said, while I find your desire to "unite" the Jewish people with other people (notably in your conversations, Christians and Muslims), I find your methods and communications and the ideology behind it problematic (and I'm being exceedingly polite and generous with that term). You seem to conceive of unity as being conformity and that non-conformity is evidence of some sort of inherent or intentional wickedness.  Sadly, I believe this ideology to be endemic in the Muslim world and I believe it is harmful in the extreme, no matter how politely it is phrased, and frankly, you do not come off as polite, but as condescending and rude and vaguely threatening in an 'or else!' kind of way.  At its foundation, it places the Jewish people as "outside" or separated from humanity. And then applies a veneer of treacherous intent to it.
> 
> Oddly enough, in a way, this brings us back to the topic of the thread.  I think this is the foundation from which people develop, argue and justify holding different standards for the Jewish people, and by extension, Israel.  And why we end up with threads like this one, where people hold the idea that a State for the Jewish people has no legal right to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple From Abraham PBUH to Moses,Jesus and Mohammad PBUH they all use for God Alla or Allah if we all follow them it will show some kind of unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't. Find one 'Alla' in the Torah.
> Noone was a Muslim before Your prophet, this claim only exists in the Koran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. Because they were all Arab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you?  You can't be more than 12, considering your level of maturity.  Shusha wrote a whole thesis trying to explain some basic terms about the Names of Hashem, and you counter with an infantile response.  It is true that El and Allah are similar Names for Hashem.  And it's also true that Christians call Him Gd, and encompass the trinity in that concept, which Jews and Muslims do not accept.  You are just using this silly semantic game to show your opinion that Jews are children of the devil.  Grow up!
Click to expand...

Ok tomorrow I will ask to your Jew Rabbi.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is out of the Hasbara playbook, you are following it to the letter.  This is used as part of the Palestinian delegitimization process the Hasbara has in place.   When the "a land without a people" meme proved impossible to defend, Zionist propaganda began tilting towards claiming that the inhabitants living in Palestine were somehow, from elsewhere.  Of course, that is also difficult to defend because there have always been people in Palestine.
> 
> Those tribal and geographical surnames are in themselves fake assertions, part of the Hasbara propaganda machine.  As far as what a Hamas leader states, I would ignore and rely on genetic studies which demonstrate that Palestinian DNA is overwhelmingly indigenous to the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No kidding? So, you're claiming the xtian Crusaders have "Pal'istanian DNA"? I hadn't realized that Pal'istanians were a specific race/ethnicity.
> 
> Interesting what one can learn from the prayer leader at your madrassah.
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks


----------



## member

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy change of topic, Batman!
> 
> But I suppose it is for the best that this thread come to an end.  After 266 pages, there has been not one shred of evidence or legal argument or reasonable explanation for the prohibition of the Jewish people to form a state.
> 
> Rehmani, I'm not entirely sure about your point on this thread.  On the surface, it appears to be a rather silly discussion about the names of G-d.  Silly because both Judaism and Islam have many names for G-d (or more correctly the attributes G-d manifests to humanity).  The concept of G-d, I'm sure we will both agree, is one that is larger than can be encompassed with human language. He can not be fully understood, let alone described, and we must be careful not confuse the descriptions we use for Him with His actuality.  The words and terms we use are useful in understanding and discussing Her Nature, but are not Her.  The term "G-d" is nothing more than an English language way of conveying an idea.  When conversing in English, with people who are not Hebrew speakers, its seems courteous to use English terms, rather than one of the many Hebrew words which may not have meaning to those who don't speak Hebrew.  I, personally, choose to use the form G-d as a reminder that I must be conscious of the entirety of the concept when writing and not limit G-d by the words I am using.  Its a little jolt to remind me of the sanctity.
> 
> That said, while I find your desire to "unite" the Jewish people with other people (notably in your conversations, Christians and Muslims), I find your methods and communications and the ideology behind it problematic (and I'm being exceedingly polite and generous with that term). You seem to conceive of unity as being conformity and that non-conformity is evidence of some sort of inherent or intentional wickedness.  Sadly, I believe this ideology to be endemic in the Muslim world and I believe it is harmful in the extreme, no matter how politely it is phrased, and frankly, you do not come off as polite, but as condescending and rude and vaguely threatening in an 'or else!' kind of way.  At its foundation, it places the Jewish people as "outside" or separated from humanity. And then applies a veneer of treacherous intent to it.
> 
> Oddly enough, in a way, this brings us back to the topic of the thread.  I think this is the foundation from which people develop, argue and justify holding different standards for the Jewish people, and by extension, Israel.  And why we end up with threads like this one, where people hold the idea that a State for the Jewish people has no legal right to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple From Abraham PBUH to Moses,Jesus and Mohammad PBUH they all use for God Alla or Allah if we all follow them it will show some kind of unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't. Find one 'Alla' in the Torah.
> Noone was a Muslim before Your prophet, this claim only exists in the Koran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. Because they were all Arab.
Click to expand...



*“please jews, let the other nations enter into the religion of Abraham PBUH and help the world become peaceful under one Allah(God) instead.”*






 doesn’t it .........




.....make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up…

 how your own brethren seem to be twisting and turning and perverting  your religion and Allah’s (PBUH)  (Gods’) word ?


*“help the world become ‘peaceful’ under one Allah (God)  instead.”*


_??? _….so many seem to be doing the opposite.  seriously, don't you think there’s something.... wrong with them (mentally) or is there something more to it ?







Instead of ...complaining about Israel/Jews…..shouldn’t muslims be up in arms about these....






 evil nutjobs hijacking your religion ?


You seem to be knowledgeable in the Quran ……….What’s with the VIOLENCE ?? it's over the top to put it mildly.






 what page is that on …..? this hi-jacking….and that perverted stuff?


*p.s:*







…did you go to one of these ? or ....(do you go at a different time on Friday's ? just curious, i dunno?) ?

(hmmm, how many madrassa's do we have...here, on American soil).....


*p.s.s:*


I’m dying to know:


What #@$! page is this on ?


----------



## montelatici

member said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy change of topic, Batman!
> 
> But I suppose it is for the best that this thread come to an end.  After 266 pages, there has been not one shred of evidence or legal argument or reasonable explanation for the prohibition of the Jewish people to form a state.
> 
> Rehmani, I'm not entirely sure about your point on this thread.  On the surface, it appears to be a rather silly discussion about the names of G-d.  Silly because both Judaism and Islam have many names for G-d (or more correctly the attributes G-d manifests to humanity).  The concept of G-d, I'm sure we will both agree, is one that is larger than can be encompassed with human language. He can not be fully understood, let alone described, and we must be careful not confuse the descriptions we use for Him with His actuality.  The words and terms we use are useful in understanding and discussing Her Nature, but are not Her.  The term "G-d" is nothing more than an English language way of conveying an idea.  When conversing in English, with people who are not Hebrew speakers, its seems courteous to use English terms, rather than one of the many Hebrew words which may not have meaning to those who don't speak Hebrew.  I, personally, choose to use the form G-d as a reminder that I must be conscious of the entirety of the concept when writing and not limit G-d by the words I am using.  Its a little jolt to remind me of the sanctity.
> 
> That said, while I find your desire to "unite" the Jewish people with other people (notably in your conversations, Christians and Muslims), I find your methods and communications and the ideology behind it problematic (and I'm being exceedingly polite and generous with that term). You seem to conceive of unity as being conformity and that non-conformity is evidence of some sort of inherent or intentional wickedness.  Sadly, I believe this ideology to be endemic in the Muslim world and I believe it is harmful in the extreme, no matter how politely it is phrased, and frankly, you do not come off as polite, but as condescending and rude and vaguely threatening in an 'or else!' kind of way.  At its foundation, it places the Jewish people as "outside" or separated from humanity. And then applies a veneer of treacherous intent to it.
> 
> Oddly enough, in a way, this brings us back to the topic of the thread.  I think this is the foundation from which people develop, argue and justify holding different standards for the Jewish people, and by extension, Israel.  And why we end up with threads like this one, where people hold the idea that a State for the Jewish people has no legal right to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple From Abraham PBUH to Moses,Jesus and Mohammad PBUH they all use for God Alla or Allah if we all follow them it will show some kind of unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't. Find one 'Alla' in the Torah.
> Noone was a Muslim before Your prophet, this claim only exists in the Koran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. Because they were all Arab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *“please jews, let the other nations enter into the religion of Abraham PBUH and help the world become peaceful under one Allah(God) instead.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesn’t it .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up…
> 
> how your own brethren seem to be twisting and turning and perverting  your religion and Allah’s (PBUH)  (Gods’) word ?
> 
> 
> *“help the world become ‘peaceful’ under one Allah (God)  instead.”*
> 
> 
> _??? _….so many seem to be doing the opposite.  seriously, don't you think there’s something.... wrong with them (mentally) or is there something more to it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of ...complaining about Israel/Jews…..shouldn’t muslims be up in arms about these....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evil nutjobs hijacking your religion ?
> 
> 
> You seem to be knowledgeable in the Quran ……….What’s with the VIOLENCE ?? it's over the top to put it mildly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what page is that on …..? this hi-jacking….and that perverted stuff?
> 
> 
> *p.s:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …did you go to one of these ? or ....(do you go at a different time on Friday's ? just curious, i dunno?) ?
> 
> (hmmm, how many madrassa's do we have...here, on American soil).....
> 
> 
> *p.s.s:*
> 
> 
> I’m dying to know:
> 
> 
> What #@$! page is this on ?
Click to expand...


Why would I go to a Madrasa?  I did attend Catechism on Thursdays.  Does that help?


----------



## member

montelatici said:


> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy change of topic, Batman!
> 
> But I suppose it is for the best that this thread come to an end.  After 266 pages, there has been not one shred of evidence or legal argument or reasonable explanation for the prohibition of the Jewish people to form a state.
> 
> Rehmani, I'm not entirely sure about your point on this thread.  On the surface, it appears to be a rather silly discussion about the names of G-d.  Silly because both Judaism and Islam have many names for G-d (or more correctly the attributes G-d manifests to humanity).  The concept of G-d, I'm sure we will both agree, is one that is larger than can be encompassed with human language. He can not be fully understood, let alone described, and we must be careful not confuse the descriptions we use for Him with His actuality.  The words and terms we use are useful in understanding and discussing Her Nature, but are not Her.  The term "G-d" is nothing more than an English language way of conveying an idea.  When conversing in English, with people who are not Hebrew speakers, its seems courteous to use English terms, rather than one of the many Hebrew words which may not have meaning to those who don't speak Hebrew.  I, personally, choose to use the form G-d as a reminder that I must be conscious of the entirety of the concept when writing and not limit G-d by the words I am using.  Its a little jolt to remind me of the sanctity.
> 
> That said, while I find your desire to "unite" the Jewish people with other people (notably in your conversations, Christians and Muslims), I find your methods and communications and the ideology behind it problematic (and I'm being exceedingly polite and generous with that term). You seem to conceive of unity as being conformity and that non-conformity is evidence of some sort of inherent or intentional wickedness.  Sadly, I believe this ideology to be endemic in the Muslim world and I believe it is harmful in the extreme, no matter how politely it is phrased, and frankly, you do not come off as polite, but as condescending and rude and vaguely threatening in an 'or else!' kind of way.  At its foundation, it places the Jewish people as "outside" or separated from humanity. And then applies a veneer of treacherous intent to it.
> 
> Oddly enough, in a way, this brings us back to the topic of the thread.  I think this is the foundation from which people develop, argue and justify holding different standards for the Jewish people, and by extension, Israel.  And why we end up with threads like this one, where people hold the idea that a State for the Jewish people has no legal right to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple From Abraham PBUH to Moses,Jesus and Mohammad PBUH they all use for God Alla or Allah if we all follow them it will show some kind of unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't. Find one 'Alla' in the Torah.
> Noone was a Muslim before Your prophet, this claim only exists in the Koran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. Because they were all Arab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *“please jews, let the other nations enter into the religion of Abraham PBUH and help the world become peaceful under one Allah(God) instead.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesn’t it .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up…
> 
> how your own brethren seem to be twisting and turning and perverting  your religion and Allah’s (PBUH)  (Gods’) word ?
> 
> 
> *“help the world become ‘peaceful’ under one Allah (God)  instead.”*
> 
> 
> _??? _….so many seem to be doing the opposite.  seriously, don't you think there’s something.... wrong with them (mentally) or is there something more to it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of ...complaining about Israel/Jews…..shouldn’t muslims be up in arms about these....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evil nutjobs hijacking your religion ?
> 
> 
> You seem to be knowledgeable in the Quran ……….What’s with the VIOLENCE ?? it's over the top to put it mildly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what page is that on …..? this hi-jacking….and that perverted stuff?
> 
> 
> *p.s:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …did you go to one of these ? or ....(do you go at a different time on Friday's ? just curious, i dunno?) ?
> 
> (hmmm, how many madrassa's do we have...here, on American soil).....
> 
> 
> *p.s.s:*
> 
> 
> I’m dying to know:
> 
> 
> What #@$! page is this on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I go to a Madrasa?  I did attend Catechism on Thursdays.  Does that help?
Click to expand...






i asked you in another post if you were a practicing muslim...you didn't answer...unless i missed it ??

how come you can't come right out with it ?  .........so ...you _used to_ go to church ?

how come....it's taking forever to a @#!$ straight answer...........

or..........you don't have to be any of the above - but, still - it's.... (you're) confusing ?

you forget ...."dhimwit."  remember?


----------



## member

montelatici said:


> member said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy change of topic, Batman!
> 
> But I suppose it is for the best that this thread come to an end.  After 266 pages, there has been not one shred of evidence or legal argument or reasonable explanation for the prohibition of the Jewish people to form a state.
> 
> Rehmani, I'm not entirely sure about your point on this thread.  On the surface, it appears to be a rather silly discussion about the names of G-d.  Silly because both Judaism and Islam have many names for G-d (or more correctly the attributes G-d manifests to humanity).  The concept of G-d, I'm sure we will both agree, is one that is larger than can be encompassed with human language. He can not be fully understood, let alone described, and we must be careful not confuse the descriptions we use for Him with His actuality.  The words and terms we use are useful in understanding and discussing Her Nature, but are not Her.  The term "G-d" is nothing more than an English language way of conveying an idea.  When conversing in English, with people who are not Hebrew speakers, its seems courteous to use English terms, rather than one of the many Hebrew words which may not have meaning to those who don't speak Hebrew.  I, personally, choose to use the form G-d as a reminder that I must be conscious of the entirety of the concept when writing and not limit G-d by the words I am using.  Its a little jolt to remind me of the sanctity.
> 
> That said, while I find your desire to "unite" the Jewish people with other people (notably in your conversations, Christians and Muslims), I find your methods and communications and the ideology behind it problematic (and I'm being exceedingly polite and generous with that term). You seem to conceive of unity as being conformity and that non-conformity is evidence of some sort of inherent or intentional wickedness.  Sadly, I believe this ideology to be endemic in the Muslim world and I believe it is harmful in the extreme, no matter how politely it is phrased, and frankly, you do not come off as polite, but as condescending and rude and vaguely threatening in an 'or else!' kind of way.  At its foundation, it places the Jewish people as "outside" or separated from humanity. And then applies a veneer of treacherous intent to it.
> 
> Oddly enough, in a way, this brings us back to the topic of the thread.  I think this is the foundation from which people develop, argue and justify holding different standards for the Jewish people, and by extension, Israel.  And why we end up with threads like this one, where people hold the idea that a State for the Jewish people has no legal right to exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Very simple From Abraham PBUH to Moses,Jesus and Mohammad PBUH they all use for God Alla or Allah if we all follow them it will show some kind of unity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't. Find one 'Alla' in the Torah.
> Noone was a Muslim before Your prophet, this claim only exists in the Koran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. Because they were all Arab.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *“please jews, let the other nations enter into the religion of Abraham PBUH and help the world become peaceful under one Allah(God) instead.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesn’t it .........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up…
> 
> how your own brethren seem to be twisting and turning and perverting  your religion and Allah’s (PBUH)  (Gods’) word ?
> 
> 
> *“help the world become ‘peaceful’ under one Allah (God)  instead.”*
> 
> 
> _??? _….so many seem to be doing the opposite.  seriously, don't you think there’s something.... wrong with them (mentally) or is there something more to it ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of ...complaining about Israel/Jews…..shouldn’t muslims be up in arms about these....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evil nutjobs hijacking your religion ?
> 
> 
> You seem to be knowledgeable in the Quran ……….What’s with the VIOLENCE ?? it's over the top to put it mildly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what page is that on …..? this hi-jacking….and that perverted stuff?
> 
> 
> *p.s:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …did you go to one of these ? or ....(do you go at a different time on Friday's ? just curious, i dunno?) ?
> 
> (hmmm, how many madrassa's do we have...here, on American soil).....
> 
> 
> *p.s.s:*
> 
> 
> I’m dying to know:
> 
> 
> What #@$! page is this on ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I go to a Madrasa?  I did attend Catechism on Thursdays.  Does that help?
Click to expand...


*p.s*:  that wasn't your post i was quoting...that was...Raja Rehamini

i was talkin to Rehminni....(unless...that's  you as well)


----------



## montelatici

No, I am not Rehmini. Pardon the intrusion.


----------



## member

montelatici said:


> No, I am not Rehmini. Pardon the intrusion.








_ok..._







...not like those..."guys on motorcycles" by the paki/afghani border, eh ?  you know which GUYS i ean right.....he looks like he'll enjoy his ride.  cool.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani
> 
> What is the purpose of "unity"?
> 
> 
> 
> Now I will say, you are right now this thread should end.
Click to expand...


And why is that?  See you think its an odd question, but I'm quite serious about asking it.  There could be lots of reasons why "unity" would be a good thing.  Anything from, "because G-d says so" to "because it would bring peace" to "because respect for one's neighbor is the ultimate measure of human interaction".  

See, I suspect when you say "unity", you mean conversion.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

A great source of information on Israel is  Jewish Virtual Library - Israel Wing


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani
> 
> What is the purpose of "unity"?
> 
> 
> 
> Now I will say, you are right now this thread should end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why is that?  See you think its an odd question, but I'm quite serious about asking it.  There could be lots of reasons why "unity" would be a good thing.  Anything from, "because G-d says so" to "because it would bring peace" to "because respect for one's neighbor is the ultimate measure of human interaction".
> 
> See, I suspect when you say "unity", you mean conversion.
Click to expand...

Regardless, Jew, Christian and Muslim all Prophets used word Ala in Hebrew and Allah in Arabic. If we able to use this word Ala or Allah at least we are agreed on one word despite differences and this one word will help us to be unite by the grace of Ala or Allah.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani
> 
> What is the purpose of "unity"?
> 
> 
> 
> Now I will say, you are right now this thread should end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And why is that?  See you think its an odd question, but I'm quite serious about asking it.  There could be lots of reasons why "unity" would be a good thing.  Anything from, "because G-d says so" to "because it would bring peace" to "because respect for one's neighbor is the ultimate measure of human interaction".
> 
> See, I suspect when you say "unity", you mean conversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless, Jew, Christian and Muslim all Prophets used word Ala in Hebrew and Allah in Arabic. If we able to use this word Ala or Allah at least we are agreed on one word despite differences and this one word will help us to be unite by the grace of Ala or Allah.
Click to expand...


Well fine then.  If you think it is so important to have unity, let's all use the same word for G-d. But instead of Allah let's go back to the original language the He spoke to humanity. Why not use the four letters?  Or perhaps simply El. Or perhaps El Shaddai?


----------



## montelatici

Brahma


----------



## Challenger

montelatici said:


> Brahma


or Ahura Mazda or Marduk?


----------



## Deleted member 61768

*Is Allah the God of the Bible? Not even close.*

*IS ALLAH THE GOD OF BIBLE? - *Is Allah the God of the Bible?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Paparock said:


> *Is Allah the God of the Bible? Not even close.*
> 
> *IS ALLAH THE GOD OF BIBLE? - *Is Allah the God of the Bible?


----------



## montelatici

*"Allah Does not Belong to Islam*

Arabic-speaking Coptic, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Maronite, evangelical, and Reformed Christians worship _Allah_, which is simply the word or term for God in another language. Islam does not hold a copyright to the term. In fact, Arab Christians existed before Islam appeared on the scene. "

Allah Does not Belong to Islam - Christian Research Institute


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is Allah the God of the Bible? Not even close.*
> 
> *IS ALLAH THE GOD OF BIBLE? - *Is Allah the God of the Bible?
Click to expand...


Many Muslims believe the Bible is just a book of fairy tales, first written by Jews & then by Christians.  And it has no historical significance.  Right Tinmore?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is Allah the God of the Bible? Not even close.*
> 
> *IS ALLAH THE GOD OF BIBLE? - *Is Allah the God of the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many Muslims believe the Bible is just a book of fairy tales, first written by Jews & then by Christians.  And it has no historical significance.  Right Tinmore?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant and off topic. This is not a religious conflict.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is Allah the God of the Bible? Not even close.*
> 
> *IS ALLAH THE GOD OF BIBLE? - *Is Allah the God of the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many Muslims believe the Bible is just a book of fairy tales, first written by Jews & then by Christians.  And it has no historical significance.  Right Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and off topic. This is not a religious conflict.
Click to expand...


Right on. Thanks so much. So back we go to Israel's legal right to exist.  Enjoy!


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is Allah the God of the Bible? Not even close.*
> 
> *IS ALLAH THE GOD OF BIBLE? - *Is Allah the God of the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many Muslims believe the Bible is just a book of fairy tales, first written by Jews & then by Christians.  And it has no historical significance.  Right Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and off topic. This is not a religious conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on. Thanks so much. So back we go to Israel's legal right to exist.  Enjoy!
Click to expand...


Can someone explain to me the Palestinian squatters legal right to exist on Israel's land?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is Allah the God of the Bible? Not even close.*
> 
> *IS ALLAH THE GOD OF BIBLE? - *Is Allah the God of the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many Muslims believe the Bible is just a book of fairy tales, first written by Jews & then by Christians.  And it has no historical significance.  Right Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and off topic. This is not a religious conflict.
Click to expand...


From the perspective of Islamics, it certainly is a religious conflict. You're either profoundly ignorant or just another taqiyya sputtering apologist.... or maybe both.


The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988
Introduction

Praise be unto Allah, to whom we resort for help, and whose forgiveness, guidance and support we seek; Allah bless the Prophet and grant him salvation, his companions and supporters, and to those who carried out his message and adopted his laws - everlasting prayers and salvation as long as the earth and heaven will last. Hereafter:


----------



## Eloy

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paparock said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is Allah the God of the Bible? Not even close.*
> 
> *IS ALLAH THE GOD OF BIBLE? - *Is Allah the God of the Bible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many Muslims believe the Bible is just a book of fairy tales, first written by Jews & then by Christians.  And it has no historical significance.  Right Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and off topic. This is not a religious conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on. Thanks so much. So back we go to Israel's legal right to exist.  Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me the Palestinian squatters legal right to exist on Israel's land?
Click to expand...

Indigenous people have a birthright to live in their homeland.
Quite different from a Russian's right to live in Palestine.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Eloy said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Muslims believe the Bible is just a book of fairy tales, first written by Jews & then by Christians.  And it has no historical significance.  Right Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and off topic. This is not a religious conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on. Thanks so much. So back we go to Israel's legal right to exist.  Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me the Palestinian squatters legal right to exist on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indigenous people have a birthright to live in their homeland.
> Quite different from a Russian's right to live in Palestine.
Click to expand...


But the Arabs of Palestine aren't the indigenous people.  Churchill said Arabs from neighboring countries flooded into Palestine to take advantage of work opportunities provided by the Jews.


----------



## MJB12741

Eloy said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many Muslims believe the Bible is just a book of fairy tales, first written by Jews & then by Christians.  And it has no historical significance.  Right Tinmore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant and off topic. This is not a religious conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on. Thanks so much. So back we go to Israel's legal right to exist.  Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me the Palestinian squatters legal right to exist on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indigenous people have a birthright to live in their homeland.
> Quite different from a Russian's right to live in Palestine.
Click to expand...


YES!  Finally even you got it.  Good boy.  Jews are native, or indigenous Palestinians who have every right to live in their native homeland.  But how would you explain any right of Muslim Palestinian squatters now living in Israel?


----------



## Eloy

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many Muslims believe the Bible is just a book of fairy tales, first written by Jews & then by Christians.  And it has no historical significance.  Right Tinmore?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and off topic. This is not a religious conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on. Thanks so much. So back we go to Israel's legal right to exist.  Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me the Palestinian squatters legal right to exist on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indigenous people have a birthright to live in their homeland.
> Quite different from a Russian's right to live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Arabs of Palestine aren't the indigenous people.  Churchill said Arabs from neighboring countries flooded into Palestine to take advantage of work opportunities provided by the Jews.
Click to expand...

Without question the Arab Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine.
Someone born in Belarus whose great grandparents are from there, have no right to be taking the Palestinian land as their own.
What makes you think Winston Churchill ia any authority on Palestine, I wonder.


----------



## MJB12741

Eloy said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and off topic. This is not a religious conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right on. Thanks so much. So back we go to Israel's legal right to exist.  Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me the Palestinian squatters legal right to exist on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indigenous people have a birthright to live in their homeland.
> Quite different from a Russian's right to live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Arabs of Palestine aren't the indigenous people.  Churchill said Arabs from neighboring countries flooded into Palestine to take advantage of work opportunities provided by the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without question the Arab Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine.
> Someone born in Belarus whose great grandparents are from there, have no right to be taking the Palestinian land as their own.
> What makes you think Winston Churchill ia any authority on Palestine, I wonder.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't it be funny if the Siberians started claiming -- "Russia is stealing our land."  Heh Heh!


----------



## Eloy

MJB12741 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many Muslims believe the Bible is just a book of fairy tales, first written by Jews & then by Christians.  And it has no historical significance.  Right Tinmore?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and off topic. This is not a religious conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on. Thanks so much. So back we go to Israel's legal right to exist.  Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me the Palestinian squatters legal right to exist on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indigenous people have a birthright to live in their homeland.
> Quite different from a Russian's right to live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!  Finally even you got it.  Good boy.  Jews are native, or indigenous Palestinians who have every right to live in their native homeland.  But how would you explain any right of Muslim Palestinian squatters now living in Israel?
Click to expand...

Indeed, MJB12741. May I call you MJB12 for short?
Well, MJB12, Some Jews are indigenous to Palestine but Jews from Ukraine or Queens, New York, certainly aren't.


----------



## Eloy

MJB12741 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right on. Thanks so much. So back we go to Israel's legal right to exist.  Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me the Palestinian squatters legal right to exist on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indigenous people have a birthright to live in their homeland.
> Quite different from a Russian's right to live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Arabs of Palestine aren't the indigenous people.  Churchill said Arabs from neighboring countries flooded into Palestine to take advantage of work opportunities provided by the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without question the Arab Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine.
> Someone born in Belarus whose great grandparents are from there, have no right to be taking the Palestinian land as their own.
> What makes you think Winston Churchill ia any authority on Palestine, I wonder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be funny if the Siberians started claiming -- "Russia is stealing our land."  Heh Heh!
Click to expand...

The Zionists are more familiar with theft of land than most.


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> Someone born in (...) whose great grandparents are from there, have no right to be taking the Palestinian land as their own.
> 
> Some Jews are indigenous to Palestine but Jews from Ukraine or Queens, New York, certainly aren't.



Cool.  So I assume you apply this equally to all peoples, yes?  

So Palestinians born in Syria, Jordan, or Queens, New York certainly aren't indigenous to "Palestine".  And those people have no right to be taking "Palestinian" land as their own and aren't indigenous to "Palestine".  

Further, those with grandparents who were born in Israel are definitely indigenous, right?


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone born in (...) whose great grandparents are from there, have no right to be taking the Palestinian land as their own.
> 
> Some Jews are indigenous to Palestine but Jews from Ukraine or Queens, New York, certainly aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  So I assume you apply this equally to all peoples, yes?
> 
> So Palestinians born in Syria, Jordan, or Queens, New York certainly aren't indigenous to "Palestine".  And those people have no right to be taking "Palestinian" land as their own and aren't indigenous to "Palestine".
> 
> Further, those with grandparents who were born in Israel are definitely indigenous, right?
Click to expand...

Children born in Egypt could be the children or grandchildren of indigenous Palestinian refugees with a claim to return to their homeland.


----------



## Hollie

Eloy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone born in (...) whose great grandparents are from there, have no right to be taking the Palestinian land as their own.
> 
> Some Jews are indigenous to Palestine but Jews from Ukraine or Queens, New York, certainly aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool.  So I assume you apply this equally to all peoples, yes?
> 
> So Palestinians born in Syria, Jordan, or Queens, New York certainly aren't indigenous to "Palestine".  And those people have no right to be taking "Palestinian" land as their own and aren't indigenous to "Palestine".
> 
> Further, those with grandparents who were born in Israel are definitely indigenous, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Children born in Egypt could be the children or grandchildren of indigenous Palestinian refugees with a claim to return to their homeland.
Click to expand...

The Christian children, grandchildren and great- grandchildren of the formerly Christian majority Egypt want their right of return.

Make that happen, sweetie.


----------



## montelatici

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many Muslims believe the Bible is just a book of fairy tales, first written by Jews & then by Christians.  And it has no historical significance.  Right Tinmore?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant and off topic. This is not a religious conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on. Thanks so much. So back we go to Israel's legal right to exist.  Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me the Palestinian squatters legal right to exist on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indigenous people have a birthright to live in their homeland.
> Quite different from a Russian's right to live in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Arabs of Palestine aren't the indigenous people.  Churchill said Arabs from neighboring countries flooded into Palestine to take advantage of work opportunities provided by the Jews.
Click to expand...


The Palestinian Arabs, Muslim and Christians, are the indigenous people of Palestine.

Churchill was attempting to justify the establishment of a European settler colony, it was the day's alternative fact.  The facts were stated in official survey reports, specifically page 185 of the Survey of Palestine, commissioned by the UN prior to partition.  Out of 414, 456 migrants, 376,415 were Jews.





A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> Children born in Egypt could be the children or grandchildren of indigenous Palestinian refugees with a claim to return to their homeland.



So that would be a "no".  You do not apply it equally to all peoples.


----------



## Eloy

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Children born in Egypt could be the children or grandchildren of indigenous Palestinian refugees with a claim to return to their homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that would be a "no".  You do not apply it equally to all peoples.
Click to expand...

The children of refugees do have a claim on their country of birth without forfeiting a claim on their ancestral land surely.


----------



## Shusha

Eloy said:


> The children of refugees do have a claim on their country of birth without forfeiting a claim on their ancestral land surely.



I could not possibly agree with you more.  You have no idea how much I agree with you on this.  See, I believe in the right of return for ALL peoples, not just some.  My view is consistent.  Yours is not.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The children of refugees do have a claim on their country of birth without forfeiting a claim on their ancestral land surely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not possibly agree with you more.  You have no idea how much I agree with you on this.  See, I believe in the right of return for ALL peoples, not just some.  My view is consistent.  Yours is not.
Click to expand...


But the European Zionists were not returning, they were invading.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The children of refugees do have a claim on their country of birth without forfeiting a claim on their ancestral land surely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not possibly agree with you more.  You have no idea how much I agree with you on this.  See, I believe in the right of return for ALL peoples, not just some.  My view is consistent.  Yours is not.
Click to expand...


No Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  How blessed they feel to let Israel have to deal with them.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The children of refugees do have a claim on their country of birth without forfeiting a claim on their ancestral land surely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not possibly agree with you more.  You have no idea how much I agree with you on this.  See, I believe in the right of return for ALL peoples, not just some.  My view is consistent.  Yours is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  How blessed they feel to let Israel have to deal with them.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians are the native inhabitants of Palestine, how could they "return" to a place they or their ancestors do not come from?  They can only "return" to Palestine.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The children of refugees do have a claim on their country of birth without forfeiting a claim on their ancestral land surely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not possibly agree with you more.  You have no idea how much I agree with you on this.  See, I believe in the right of return for ALL peoples, not just some.  My view is consistent.  Yours is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No Arab country will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  How blessed they feel to let Israel have to deal with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are the native inhabitants of Palestine, how could they "return" to a place they or their ancestors do not come from?  They can only "return" to Palestine.
Click to expand...


Tell that to king Abdullah.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The children of refugees do have a claim on their country of birth without forfeiting a claim on their ancestral land surely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not possibly agree with you more.  You have no idea how much I agree with you on this.  See, I believe in the right of return for ALL peoples, not just some.  My view is consistent.  Yours is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the European Zionists were not returning, they were invading.
Click to expand...

Your silly "invasion" nonsense is not supported by the historical record. Obviously, yours is "hysterical" history.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The children of refugees do have a claim on their country of birth without forfeiting a claim on their ancestral land surely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not possibly agree with you more.  You have no idea how much I agree with you on this.  See, I believe in the right of return for ALL peoples, not just some.  My view is consistent.  Yours is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the European Zionists were not returning, they were invading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your silly "invasion" nonsense is not supported by the historical record. Obviously, yours is "hysterical" history.
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The children of refugees do have a claim on their country of birth without forfeiting a claim on their ancestral land surely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not possibly agree with you more.  You have no idea how much I agree with you on this.  See, I believe in the right of return for ALL peoples, not just some.  My view is consistent.  Yours is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the European Zionists were not returning, they were invading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your silly "invasion" nonsense is not supported by the historical record. Obviously, yours is "hysterical" history.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

Alnakba.  Yep, that makes it all official.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The children of refugees do have a claim on their country of birth without forfeiting a claim on their ancestral land surely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not possibly agree with you more.  You have no idea how much I agree with you on this.  See, I believe in the right of return for ALL peoples, not just some.  My view is consistent.  Yours is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the European Zionists were not returning, they were invading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your silly "invasion" nonsense is not supported by the historical record. Obviously, yours is "hysterical" history.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


What legal right do Palestinian squatters have to exist in Israel?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The children of refugees do have a claim on their country of birth without forfeiting a claim on their ancestral land surely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not possibly agree with you more.  You have no idea how much I agree with you on this.  See, I believe in the right of return for ALL peoples, not just some.  My view is consistent.  Yours is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the European Zionists were not returning, they were invading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your silly "invasion" nonsense is not supported by the historical record. Obviously, yours is "hysterical" history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What legal right do Palestinian squatters have to exist in Israel?
Click to expand...


The Palestinian Muslims and Christians are the native inhabitants, it is their legal right as the native inhabitants to reside in their homeland .  The Zionists were invaders from Europe and are now squatting on the native inhabitant's land. As confirmed and validated by Britain's first official report as the Mandatory for Palestine.  Please stop making things up.

*"AN INTERIM REPORT*
*ON THE*
*CIVIL ADMINISTRATION*
*OF*

*PALESTINE,*

*during the period*
*1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*


*AN INTERIM REPORT*
*ON THE*
*CIVIL ADMINISTRATION*
*OF*
*PALESTINE.*

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

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

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


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not possibly agree with you more.  You have no idea how much I agree with you on this.  See, I believe in the right of return for ALL peoples, not just some.  My view is consistent.  Yours is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the European Zionists were not returning, they were invading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your silly "invasion" nonsense is not supported by the historical record. Obviously, yours is "hysterical" history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What legal right do Palestinian squatters have to exist in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Muslims and Christians are the native inhabitants, it is their legal right as the native inhabitants to reside in their homeland .  The Zionists were invaders from Europe and are now squatting on the native inhabitant's land. As confirmed and validated by Britain's first official report as the Mandatory for Palestine.  Please stop making things up.
> 
> *"AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF*
> 
> *PALESTINE,*
> 
> *during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*
> 
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.*
> 
> *I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.
> *
> There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems*. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some *77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000.* Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.*
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
Click to expand...


Aha.  So how many Muslim & Christian Palestinians were there prior to 1850 that were native to the Jewish land?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the European Zionists were not returning, they were invading.
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly "invasion" nonsense is not supported by the historical record. Obviously, yours is "hysterical" history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What legal right do Palestinian squatters have to exist in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Muslims and Christians are the native inhabitants, it is their legal right as the native inhabitants to reside in their homeland .  The Zionists were invaders from Europe and are now squatting on the native inhabitant's land. As confirmed and validated by Britain's first official report as the Mandatory for Palestine.  Please stop making things up.
> 
> *"AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF*
> 
> *PALESTINE,*
> 
> *during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*
> 
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.*
> 
> *I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.
> *
> There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems*. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some *77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000.* Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.*
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aha.  So how many Muslim & Christian Palestinians were there prior to 1850 that were native to the Jewish land?
Click to expand...


About 550,000 Muslim and Christian natives and Ottoman citizens plus that handful of Jews, who were mostly descendants of Jews that came from Spain after the Christian Reconquista of Spain. 

Kemal H.karpat, Ottoman Population, 1830-1914


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The children of refugees do have a claim on their country of birth without forfeiting a claim on their ancestral land surely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could not possibly agree with you more.  You have no idea how much I agree with you on this.  See, I believe in the right of return for ALL peoples, not just some.  My view is consistent.  Yours is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the European Zionists were not returning, they were invading.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your silly "invasion" nonsense is not supported by the historical record. Obviously, yours is "hysterical" history.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Here's some al-knocking.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your silly "invasion" nonsense is not supported by the historical record. Obviously, yours is "hysterical" history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What legal right do Palestinian squatters have to exist in Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinian Muslims and Christians are the native inhabitants, it is their legal right as the native inhabitants to reside in their homeland .  The Zionists were invaders from Europe and are now squatting on the native inhabitant's land. As confirmed and validated by Britain's first official report as the Mandatory for Palestine.  Please stop making things up.
> 
> *"AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF*
> 
> *PALESTINE,*
> 
> *during the period
> 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*
> 
> 
> *AN INTERIM REPORT
> ON THE
> CIVIL ADMINISTRATION
> OF
> PALESTINE.*
> 
> *I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.
> *
> There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*_See_ Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. *Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems*. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some *77,000 of the population are Christians*, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.
> 
> The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000.* Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews.*
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aha.  So how many Muslim & Christian Palestinians were there prior to 1850 that were native to the Jewish land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About 550,000 Muslim and Christian natives and Ottoman citizens plus that handful of Jews, who were mostly descendants of Jews that came from Spain after the Christian Reconquista of Spain.
> 
> Kemal H.karpat, Ottoman Population, 1830-1914
Click to expand...



And then, we have this:

The Arabs in Palestine

*A Population Boom *
As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947. 

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943. 

The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

MJB12741 said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice summation.    Could have been lengthened a bit more with facts to make the obvious even more obvious, i.e. Arab nations do not want peace with Israel, they want to destroy Israel.   Nor do any of these nations have a legitimate historical case for why Jews cannot be in that land.    The hatred and blame towards Israel by the West and by the U.N. defies right judgement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Koran itself says Israel belongs to the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  And even Medina first belonged to the Jews before Mohammed & his hoards stole it from them.
> 
> Medina, Islam's second holiest city, was originally a Jewish "settlement"
Click to expand...

.........and beheaded 900 Jews who refused to acknowledge Mohammad as a genuine Prophet.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me it is the Palestinians that are being killed by Jews.  Haven't heard of Palestinians killing infidels all over the world.  But, thanks for the laughs, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you never heard of 9/11  or the Glasgow airport bombing  how about the London transport bombings.
> 
> I haven't heard of Jews killing goyim all over the wotld, just arab muslim scum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians did all that?
Click to expand...

He said Arab Muslim not Palestinians.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Tinmore.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuh......they were like me,MAGNIFICENT
> 
> 
> 
> Statistically unlikely...3rd generation self hating Jews usually convert to another religion, let alone 4th generation self hating Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense........my ancestors could be Jewish for all I know,what I do know is that our family unlike yours probably are not haters to anyone,as for myself I am not anti-semetic because I love Shepardic Jews and Palestinians,for they are the only Semetic Peoples on Earth......What I despise(and this is where you and others err) is the Terrorist Organization The Zionists.....a mixture of Ashkenazi and God knows who else....These SYNTHETIC JEWS mainly are part of this Organization that were CREATED back in the late 1880's by an Athiest Jew called Hertzel,moreover this Organization The Zionists collaborated with the Nazis,sending Jews to their DEATH,May they Rest In Peace.
> 
> When You start SPEWING about me and my Ancestors you want to Watch Your Mouth,because you are a two bit LIAR,like the rest of your Horde....It is people like You who have diminished other Jews,and You give Jews a Bad name........Your HYPOCRICY knows NO BOUNDS,you just think you can come on here and Smear anyone who disagrees with your rampant Zionist NON SENSE.
> 
> I realize you have no sembalence sic of Jewish history or other peoples history......yet you believe in that pin-brain of yours you can say what you like...you have pruefrock in your head.I THE MAGNIFICENT keep you honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *AAAAAARRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just it Hoss....I was born a Winner and Non Zionist..steve
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were born a whiner and a LIAR, and you should be sectioned because you are a danger to yourself and others.
Click to expand...

Sectioned?  What is that?


----------



## montelatici

Book of Jeremiah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me it is the Palestinians that are being killed by Jews.  Haven't heard of Palestinians killing infidels all over the world.  But, thanks for the laughs, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you never heard of 9/11  or the Glasgow airport bombing  how about the London transport bombings.
> 
> I haven't heard of Jews killing goyim all over the wotld, just arab muslim scum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians did all that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said Arab Muslim not Palestinians.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Tinmore.
Click to expand...


Of course there are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian.  As has been proven over and over again.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me it is the Palestinians that are being killed by Jews.  Haven't heard of Palestinians killing infidels all over the world.  But, thanks for the laughs, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you never heard of 9/11  or the Glasgow airport bombing  how about the London transport bombings.
> 
> I haven't heard of Jews killing goyim all over the wotld, just arab muslim scum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians did all that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said Arab Muslim not Palestinians.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian.  As has been proven over and over again.
Click to expand...


You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan". 

Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.


----------



## theliq

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me it is the Palestinians that are being killed by Jews.  Haven't heard of Palestinians killing infidels all over the world.  But, thanks for the laughs, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you never heard of 9/11  or the Glasgow airport bombing  how about the London transport bombings.
> 
> I haven't heard of Jews killing goyim all over the wotld, just arab muslim scum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians did all that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said Arab Muslim not Palestinians.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian.  As has been proven over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan".
> 
> Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.
Click to expand...

Really Hollie....Naughty


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you never heard of 9/11  or the Glasgow airport bombing  how about the London transport bombings.
> 
> I haven't heard of Jews killing goyim all over the wotld, just arab muslim scum
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians did all that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said Arab Muslim not Palestinians.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian.  As has been proven over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan".
> 
> Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really Hollie....Naughty
Click to expand...


----------



## theliq

Hossfly said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians did all that?
> 
> 
> 
> He said Arab Muslim not Palestinians.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian.  As has been proven over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan".
> 
> Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really Hollie....Naughty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 114087
Click to expand...

Crikey Hoss where on earth did you  get  that photo of me LOL,....steve


----------



## Hossfly

theliq said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said Arab Muslim not Palestinians.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Tinmore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian.  As has been proven over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan".
> 
> Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really Hollie....Naughty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 114087
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crikey Hoss where on earth did you  get  that photo of me LOL,....steve
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me it is the Palestinians that are being killed by Jews.  Haven't heard of Palestinians killing infidels all over the world.  But, thanks for the laughs, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you never heard of 9/11  or the Glasgow airport bombing  how about the London transport bombings.
> 
> I haven't heard of Jews killing goyim all over the wotld, just arab muslim scum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians did all that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said Arab Muslim not Palestinians.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian.  As has been proven over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan".
> 
> Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.
Click to expand...


So true.  And what legal right do the Pali squatters have to live on Israel's land?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you never heard of 9/11  or the Glasgow airport bombing  how about the London transport bombings.
> 
> I haven't heard of Jews killing goyim all over the wotld, just arab muslim scum
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians did all that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said Arab Muslim not Palestinians.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian.  As has been proven over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan".
> 
> Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  And what legal right do the Pali squatters have to live on Israel's land?
Click to expand...



*The Covenant of the League of Nations*

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

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

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians did all that?
> 
> 
> 
> He said Arab Muslim not Palestinians.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian.  As has been proven over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan".
> 
> Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  And what legal right do the Pali squatters have to live on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Covenant of the League of Nations*
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Certain *communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."*
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
Click to expand...


However, we know that "certain communities" (Arab colonizers / squatters), were never able to "stand alone". Their incompetence and ineptitude was never intended to block a more modern, educated society from seeking self-determination. 

You're letting your bias and ignorance of history, and your rabid Jew hatreds, be a vehicle to promote your inability to do anything but cut and paste the same articles across multiple threads without understanding the underlying context.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians did all that?
> 
> 
> 
> He said Arab Muslim not Palestinians.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Tinmore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian.  As has been proven over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan".
> 
> Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  And what legal right do the Pali squatters have to live on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Covenant of the League of Nations*
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Certain *communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."*
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
Click to expand...


 As pertaining to Israel & the Palestinians, the Avalon Project was a declaration of Israel's independence.  Do you have a problem with that?

The Avalon Project : Declaration of Israel's Independence 1948


----------



## montelatici

What does a unilateral declaration by one party in 1948 have to do with the legal right of the inhabitants of Palestine, as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations of 1919, specifically "....inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation.."?

A non sequitur from you as usual.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> What does a unilateral declaration by one party in 1948 have to do with the legal right of the inhabitants of Palestine, as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations of 1919, specifically "....inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation.."?
> 
> A non sequitur from you as usual.



Across the Islamist world, we see a pattern of (Islamist) "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world".

That's not surprising as the Islamist world has never been able to claw its way out of its 7th century world view.

There is no reason to expect that the rest of the relevant, 1st world should now, or in the past, expect Islamism to be anything other than a yoke around the neck of humanity.

Pointless apologetics from you for Islamist incompetence.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a unilateral declaration by one party in 1948 have to do with the legal right of the inhabitants of Palestine, as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations of 1919, specifically "....inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation.."?
> 
> A non sequitur from you as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Across the Islamist world, we see a pattern of (Islamist) "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world".
> 
> That's not surprising as the Islamist world has never been able to claw its way out of its 7th century world view.
> 
> There is no reason to expect that the rest of the relevant, 1st world should now, or in the past, expect Islamism to be anything other than a yoke around the neck of humanity.
> 
> Pointless apologetics from you for Islamist incompetence.
Click to expand...


There was a time when Muslim contributions to mankind & civilization were enormous.  Who in their right mind can deny the brilliant minds & writings of Avicenna, Averroes & the Mu'tazilites of centuries ago?  And today we have Palestinians to replace them.


----------



## theliq

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said Arab Muslim not Palestinians.  There is no such thing as a Palestinian, Tinmore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian.  As has been proven over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan".
> 
> Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  And what legal right do the Pali squatters have to live on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Covenant of the League of Nations*
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Certain *communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."*
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, we know that "certain communities" (Arab colonizers / squatters), were never able to "stand alone". Their incompetence and ineptitude was never intended to block a more modern, educated society from seeking self-determination.
> 
> You're letting your bias and ignorance of history, and your rabid Jew hatreds, be a vehicle to promote your inability to do anything but cut and paste the same articles across multiple threads without understanding the underlying context.
Click to expand...

What a Delusional Little Creature You Are,Hollie


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a unilateral declaration by one party in 1948 have to do with the legal right of the inhabitants of Palestine, as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations of 1919, specifically "....inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation.."?
> 
> A non sequitur from you as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Across the Islamist world, we see a pattern of (Islamist) "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world".
> 
> That's not surprising as the Islamist world has never been able to claw its way out of its 7th century world view.
> 
> There is no reason to expect that the rest of the relevant, 1st world should now, or in the past, expect Islamism to be anything other than a yoke around the neck of humanity.
> 
> Pointless apologetics from you for Islamist incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a time when Muslim contributions to mankind & civilization were enormous.  Who in their right mind can deny the brilliant minds & writings of Avicenna, Averroes & the Mu'tazilites of centuries ago?  And today we have Palestinians to replace them.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians...WHO DISPITE THEIR DIRE SITUATION AND DISPOSSION,AND ANTI-SEMITISIM(as Palestinians are a semitic people...UNLIKE MOST JEWS/SYNTHETICS IN ISRAEL...HAVE ONE OF THE HIGHEST MATRICULATION RATES TO UNIVERSITY...Dumbo Zionist Hater


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

theliq said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there are Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian.  As has been proven over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan".
> 
> Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So true.  And what legal right do the Pali squatters have to live on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Covenant of the League of Nations*
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Certain *communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."*
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, we know that "certain communities" (Arab colonizers / squatters), were never able to "stand alone". Their incompetence and ineptitude was never intended to block a more modern, educated society from seeking self-determination.
> 
> You're letting your bias and ignorance of history, and your rabid Jew hatreds, be a vehicle to promote your inability to do anything but cut and paste the same articles across multiple threads without understanding the underlying context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a Delusional Little Creature You Are,Hollie
Click to expand...

I don't see that at all.  I see an educated person who knows what they are talking about.  As for you.  Socrates said that when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.


----------



## montelatici

Book of Jeremiah said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan".
> 
> Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true.  And what legal right do the Pali squatters have to live on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Covenant of the League of Nations*
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Certain *communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."*
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, we know that "certain communities" (Arab colonizers / squatters), were never able to "stand alone". Their incompetence and ineptitude was never intended to block a more modern, educated society from seeking self-determination.
> 
> You're letting your bias and ignorance of history, and your rabid Jew hatreds, be a vehicle to promote your inability to do anything but cut and paste the same articles across multiple threads without understanding the underlying context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a Delusional Little Creature You Are,Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that at all.  I see an educated person who knows what they are talking about.  As for you.  Socrates said that when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.
Click to expand...


Educate


MJB12741 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a unilateral declaration by one party in 1948 have to do with the legal right of the inhabitants of Palestine, as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations of 1919, specifically "....inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation.."?
> 
> A non sequitur from you as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Across the Islamist world, we see a pattern of (Islamist) "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world".
> 
> That's not surprising as the Islamist world has never been able to claw its way out of its 7th century world view.
> 
> There is no reason to expect that the rest of the relevant, 1st world should now, or in the past, expect Islamism to be anything other than a yoke around the neck of humanity.
> 
> Pointless apologetics from you for Islamist incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a time when Muslim contributions to mankind & civilization were enormous.  Who in their right mind can deny the brilliant minds & writings of Avicenna, Averroes & the Mu'tazilites of centuries ago?  And today we have Palestinians to replace them.
Click to expand...


So, the Palestinians, living under Jew occupation are expected to not only struggle for their freedom, but also make Nobel Prize winning advancements.  Good one MJ.  You truly are a master at idiocy.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

montelatici said:


> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So true.  And what legal right do the Pali squatters have to live on Israel's land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Covenant of the League of Nations*
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Certain *communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."*
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, we know that "certain communities" (Arab colonizers / squatters), were never able to "stand alone". Their incompetence and ineptitude was never intended to block a more modern, educated society from seeking self-determination.
> 
> You're letting your bias and ignorance of history, and your rabid Jew hatreds, be a vehicle to promote your inability to do anything but cut and paste the same articles across multiple threads without understanding the underlying context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a Delusional Little Creature You Are,Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that at all.  I see an educated person who knows what they are talking about.  As for you.  Socrates said that when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a unilateral declaration by one party in 1948 have to do with the legal right of the inhabitants of Palestine, as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations of 1919, specifically "....inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation.."?
> 
> A non sequitur from you as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Across the Islamist world, we see a pattern of (Islamist) "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world".
> 
> That's not surprising as the Islamist world has never been able to claw its way out of its 7th century world view.
> 
> There is no reason to expect that the rest of the relevant, 1st world should now, or in the past, expect Islamism to be anything other than a yoke around the neck of humanity.
> 
> Pointless apologetics from you for Islamist incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a time when Muslim contributions to mankind & civilization were enormous.  Who in their right mind can deny the brilliant minds & writings of Avicenna, Averroes & the Mu'tazilites of centuries ago?  And today we have Palestinians to replace them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Palestinians, living under Jew occupation are expected to not only struggle for their freedom, but also make Nobel Prize winning advancements.  Good one MJ.  You truly are a master at idiocy.
Click to expand...

The Arabs in Gaza are struggling for their freedom?  Who is keeping them from their freedom?  Why can't they leave and go back to the lands they came from, their parents came from, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.......who's keeping them from their freedom?  It certainly isn't the Israelis.


----------



## theliq

Book of Jeremiah said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been shown to make fraudulent claims over and over again. Pal'istan was a geographic area, not your silly, invented "country of Disney.., Pal'istan".
> 
> Here in the Great Satan we have a geographic area called the "Bible Belt". It's nothing more than a geographic area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true.  And what legal right do the Pali squatters have to live on Israel's land?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The Covenant of the League of Nations*
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Certain *communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."*
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, we know that "certain communities" (Arab colonizers / squatters), were never able to "stand alone". Their incompetence and ineptitude was never intended to block a more modern, educated society from seeking self-determination.
> 
> You're letting your bias and ignorance of history, and your rabid Jew hatreds, be a vehicle to promote your inability to do anything but cut and paste the same articles across multiple threads without understanding the underlying context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a Delusional Little Creature You Are,Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that at all.  I see an educated person who knows what they are talking about.  As for you.  Socrates said that when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.
Click to expand...

What a Delusional Little Ass  You are Jere=Jerry=Gerald/Jeremiah=Good Jewish name,all I can say to you..."You Can Lead A Horse To Water,But You Can't Make It Drink"....Slander I don't do....Facts Only...theliq


----------



## theliq

Book of Jeremiah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Covenant of the League of Nations*
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Certain *communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."*
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, we know that "certain communities" (Arab colonizers / squatters), were never able to "stand alone". Their incompetence and ineptitude was never intended to block a more modern, educated society from seeking self-determination.
> 
> You're letting your bias and ignorance of history, and your rabid Jew hatreds, be a vehicle to promote your inability to do anything but cut and paste the same articles across multiple threads without understanding the underlying context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a Delusional Little Creature You Are,Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that at all.  I see an educated person who knows what they are talking about.  As for you.  Socrates said that when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a unilateral declaration by one party in 1948 have to do with the legal right of the inhabitants of Palestine, as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations of 1919, specifically "....inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation.."?
> 
> A non sequitur from you as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Across the Islamist world, we see a pattern of (Islamist) "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world".
> 
> That's not surprising as the Islamist world has never been able to claw its way out of its 7th century world view.
> 
> There is no reason to expect that the rest of the relevant, 1st world should now, or in the past, expect Islamism to be anything other than a yoke around the neck of humanity.
> 
> Pointless apologetics from you for Islamist incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a time when Muslim contributions to mankind & civilization were enormous.  Who in their right mind can deny the brilliant minds & writings of Avicenna, Averroes & the Mu'tazilites of centuries ago?  And today we have Palestinians to replace them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Palestinians, living under Jew occupation are expected to not only struggle for their freedom, but also make Nobel Prize winning advancements.  Good one MJ.  You truly are a master at idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arabs in Gaza are struggling for their freedom?  Who is keeping them from their freedom?  Why can't they leave and go back to the lands they came from, their parents came from, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.......who's keeping them from their freedom?  It certainly isn't the Israelis.
Click to expand...

Considering the Palestinians have been in Palestine for 5000 years rather makes your post Irrelevent,how is downtown Tel-Aviv these days,theliq...ps there is such irony in your last post...because The Palestinians were the only people who gave Jews,compassion and a safe haven for generations....until they realised too late the Synthetic Jews like you and the rest of the Zionist Terrorists intended to eliminate them...YOU TRIED SO HARD TO DO...BUT FAILED THANKFULLY.....not forgetting that Christians tried to eliminate Jews for millennia,yet you suck up to them ....Forget Socrates.......I say ...Once a LIAR  always a LIAR,hey Jere,and what's it like to be a Complete TOOL...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Book of Jeremiah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Covenant of the League of Nations*
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Certain *communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."*
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, we know that "certain communities" (Arab colonizers / squatters), were never able to "stand alone". Their incompetence and ineptitude was never intended to block a more modern, educated society from seeking self-determination.
> 
> You're letting your bias and ignorance of history, and your rabid Jew hatreds, be a vehicle to promote your inability to do anything but cut and paste the same articles across multiple threads without understanding the underlying context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a Delusional Little Creature You Are,Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that at all.  I see an educated person who knows what they are talking about.  As for you.  Socrates said that when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a unilateral declaration by one party in 1948 have to do with the legal right of the inhabitants of Palestine, as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations of 1919, specifically "....inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation.."?
> 
> A non sequitur from you as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Across the Islamist world, we see a pattern of (Islamist) "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world".
> 
> That's not surprising as the Islamist world has never been able to claw its way out of its 7th century world view.
> 
> There is no reason to expect that the rest of the relevant, 1st world should now, or in the past, expect Islamism to be anything other than a yoke around the neck of humanity.
> 
> Pointless apologetics from you for Islamist incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a time when Muslim contributions to mankind & civilization were enormous.  Who in their right mind can deny the brilliant minds & writings of Avicenna, Averroes & the Mu'tazilites of centuries ago?  And today we have Palestinians to replace them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Palestinians, living under Jew occupation are expected to not only struggle for their freedom, but also make Nobel Prize winning advancements.  Good one MJ.  You truly are a master at idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arabs in Gaza are struggling for their freedom?  Who is keeping them from their freedom?  Why can't they leave and go back to the lands they came from, their parents came from, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.......who's keeping them from their freedom?  It certainly isn't the Israelis.
Click to expand...

Oh jeese.  Stupid post of the day.


----------



## MJB12741

theliq said:


> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, we know that "certain communities" (Arab colonizers / squatters), were never able to "stand alone". Their incompetence and ineptitude was never intended to block a more modern, educated society from seeking self-determination.
> 
> You're letting your bias and ignorance of history, and your rabid Jew hatreds, be a vehicle to promote your inability to do anything but cut and paste the same articles across multiple threads without understanding the underlying context.
> 
> 
> 
> What a Delusional Little Creature You Are,Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that at all.  I see an educated person who knows what they are talking about.  As for you.  Socrates said that when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a unilateral declaration by one party in 1948 have to do with the legal right of the inhabitants of Palestine, as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations of 1919, specifically "....inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation.."?
> 
> A non sequitur from you as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Across the Islamist world, we see a pattern of (Islamist) "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world".
> 
> That's not surprising as the Islamist world has never been able to claw its way out of its 7th century world view.
> 
> There is no reason to expect that the rest of the relevant, 1st world should now, or in the past, expect Islamism to be anything other than a yoke around the neck of humanity.
> 
> Pointless apologetics from you for Islamist incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a time when Muslim contributions to mankind & civilization were enormous.  Who in their right mind can deny the brilliant minds & writings of Avicenna, Averroes & the Mu'tazilites of centuries ago?  And today we have Palestinians to replace them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Palestinians, living under Jew occupation are expected to not only struggle for their freedom, but also make Nobel Prize winning advancements.  Good one MJ.  You truly are a master at idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arabs in Gaza are struggling for their freedom?  Who is keeping them from their freedom?  Why can't they leave and go back to the lands they came from, their parents came from, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.......who's keeping them from their freedom?  It certainly isn't the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering the Palestinians have been in Palestine for 5000 years rather makes your post Irrelevent,how is downtown Tel-Aviv these days,theliq...ps there is such irony in your last post...because The Palestinians were the only people who gave Jews,compassion and a safe haven for generations....until they realised too late the Synthetic Jews like you and the rest of the Zionist Terrorists intended to eliminate them...YOU TRIED SO HARD TO DO...BUT FAILED THANKFULLY.....not forgetting that Christians tried to eliminate Jews for millennia,yet you suck up to them ....Forget Socrates.......I say ...Once a LIAR  always a LIAR,hey Jere,and what's it like to be a Complete TOOL...
Click to expand...


Eh Theliq, 5000 years ago Palestinians were Jews.  Thank you for acknowledging Israel's legal right to exist.


----------



## theliq

MJB12741 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a Delusional Little Creature You Are,Hollie
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see that at all.  I see an educated person who knows what they are talking about.  As for you.  Socrates said that when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Across the Islamist world, we see a pattern of (Islamist) "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world".
> 
> That's not surprising as the Islamist world has never been able to claw its way out of its 7th century world view.
> 
> There is no reason to expect that the rest of the relevant, 1st world should now, or in the past, expect Islamism to be anything other than a yoke around the neck of humanity.
> 
> Pointless apologetics from you for Islamist incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a time when Muslim contributions to mankind & civilization were enormous.  Who in their right mind can deny the brilliant minds & writings of Avicenna, Averroes & the Mu'tazilites of centuries ago?  And today we have Palestinians to replace them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Palestinians, living under Jew occupation are expected to not only struggle for their freedom, but also make Nobel Prize winning advancements.  Good one MJ.  You truly are a master at idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arabs in Gaza are struggling for their freedom?  Who is keeping them from their freedom?  Why can't they leave and go back to the lands they came from, their parents came from, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.......who's keeping them from their freedom?  It certainly isn't the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering the Palestinians have been in Palestine for 5000 years rather makes your post Irrelevent,how is downtown Tel-Aviv these days,theliq...ps there is such irony in your last post...because The Palestinians were the only people who gave Jews,compassion and a safe haven for generations....until they realised too late the Synthetic Jews like you and the rest of the Zionist Terrorists intended to eliminate them...YOU TRIED SO HARD TO DO...BUT FAILED THANKFULLY.....not forgetting that Christians tried to eliminate Jews for millennia,yet you suck up to them ....Forget Socrates.......I say ...Once a LIAR  always a LIAR,hey Jere,and what's it like to be a Complete TOOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh Theliq, 5000 years ago Palestinians were Jews.  Thank you for acknowledging Israel's legal right to exist.
Click to expand...

I know MJ that Jews originated as part Arab,but that aside,your last sentence should read "I,MJ,ACKNOWLEDGE PALESTINE'S LEGAL RIGHT TO EXIST"

I don't believe anyone on here really believes that Israel should not exist....the problem you have is that Israel is full of Barbarous SYNTHETIC ZIONIST JEWS and SETTLERS who have no real claim to this Land as they are JUST A LOAD OF CONVERTS TO JUDIASM....but the first priority is to the Semitic PALESTINIANS TO HAVE THE FREEDOM OF A FREE PALESTINE.st


----------



## P F Tinmore

277 pages and nobody has yet to show where Israel legally acquired any land.


----------



## theliq

P F Tinmore said:


> 277 pages and nobody has yet to show where Israel legally acquired any land.


And Tinnie my Friend...There could be another 234,567,890.000,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000recurring posts. 

NO ONE COULD SHOW ANY LEGALITY, Tinnie because it was ALL STOLEN...steve,trust you and the family are well Tinnie.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> 277 pages and nobody has yet to show where Israel legally acquired any land.



Its been demonstrated half a dozen times.  You just don't like the answer. 

Israel legally "acquired land" the exact same way Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon did.  Treaties of Lausanne and Sevres.  San Remo Resolution.  Mandate for Palestine.  

If you want to argue that Israel couldn't have "acquired land" through those legal instruments, then you have to argue that the others didn't either. 

There is no possible legal argument to claim that the others all did and Israel did not.  If you had one you would have brought it by now.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> 277 pages and nobody has yet to show where Israel legally acquired any land.



HUH???  Good luck with your reading disorder.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

theliq said:


> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So true.  And what legal right do the Pali squatters have to live on Israel's land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Covenant of the League of Nations*
> 
> *ARTICLE 22.*
> To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples *not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
> 
> Certain *communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized *subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."*
> 
> Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, we know that "certain communities" (Arab colonizers / squatters), were never able to "stand alone". Their incompetence and ineptitude was never intended to block a more modern, educated society from seeking self-determination.
> 
> You're letting your bias and ignorance of history, and your rabid Jew hatreds, be a vehicle to promote your inability to do anything but cut and paste the same articles across multiple threads without understanding the underlying context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a Delusional Little Creature You Are,Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that at all.  I see an educated person who knows what they are talking about.  As for you.  Socrates said that when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a Delusional Little Ass  You are Jere=Jerry=Gerald/Jeremiah=Good Jewish name,all I can say to you..."You Can Lead A Horse To Water,But You Can't Make It Drink"....Slander I don't do....Facts Only...theliq
Click to expand...

Try to stay on topic, Liq. I realize it will reduce your input substantially but that might just be a good thing all things considered...


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 277 pages and nobody has yet to show where Israel legally acquired any land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Good luck with your reading disorder.
Click to expand...

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 277 pages and nobody has yet to show where Israel legally acquired any land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its been demonstrated half a dozen times.  You just don't like the answer.
> 
> Israel legally "acquired land" the exact same way Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon did.  Treaties of Lausanne and Sevres.  San Remo Resolution.  Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> If you want to argue that Israel couldn't have "acquired land" through those legal instruments, then you have to argue that the others didn't either.
> 
> There is no possible legal argument to claim that the others all did and Israel did not.  If you had one you would have brought it by now.
Click to expand...


No, the inhabitants of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon acquired land. The land of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, who represented 95% of the population in 1921, was not acquired by the inhabitants, but by people living in Europe and other continents and territories.  It was a colonial venture for non-resident colonists who replaced the native inhabitants. Much different.


----------



## montelatici

Book of Jeremiah said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 277 pages and nobody has yet to show where Israel legally acquired any land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH???  Good luck with your reading disorder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Click to expand...


No kidding, you are the prime example of someone blind to the facts.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

theliq said:


> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, we know that "certain communities" (Arab colonizers / squatters), were never able to "stand alone". Their incompetence and ineptitude was never intended to block a more modern, educated society from seeking self-determination.
> 
> You're letting your bias and ignorance of history, and your rabid Jew hatreds, be a vehicle to promote your inability to do anything but cut and paste the same articles across multiple threads without understanding the underlying context.
> 
> 
> 
> What a Delusional Little Creature You Are,Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that at all.  I see an educated person who knows what they are talking about.  As for you.  Socrates said that when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a unilateral declaration by one party in 1948 have to do with the legal right of the inhabitants of Palestine, as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations of 1919, specifically "....inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation.."?
> 
> A non sequitur from you as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Across the Islamist world, we see a pattern of (Islamist) "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world".
> 
> That's not surprising as the Islamist world has never been able to claw its way out of its 7th century world view.
> 
> There is no reason to expect that the rest of the relevant, 1st world should now, or in the past, expect Islamism to be anything other than a yoke around the neck of humanity.
> 
> Pointless apologetics from you for Islamist incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a time when Muslim contributions to mankind & civilization were enormous.  Who in their right mind can deny the brilliant minds & writings of Avicenna, Averroes & the Mu'tazilites of centuries ago?  And today we have Palestinians to replace them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Palestinians, living under Jew occupation are expected to not only struggle for their freedom, but also make Nobel Prize winning advancements.  Good one MJ.  You truly are a master at idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arabs in Gaza are struggling for their freedom?  Who is keeping them from their freedom?  Why can't they leave and go back to the lands they came from, their parents came from, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.......who's keeping them from their freedom?  It certainly isn't the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering the Palestinians have been in Palestine for 5000 years rather makes your post Irrelevent,how is downtown Tel-Aviv these days,theliq...ps there is such irony in your last post...because The Palestinians were the only people who gave Jews,compassion and a safe haven for generations....until they realised too late the Synthetic Jews like you and the rest of the Zionist Terrorists intended to eliminate them...YOU TRIED SO HARD TO DO...BUT FAILED THANKFULLY.....not forgetting that Christians tried to eliminate Jews for millennia,yet you suck up to them ....Forget Socrates.......I say ...Once a LIAR  always a LIAR,hey Jere,and what's it like to be a Complete TOOL...
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a Palestinian. Those people are Arab and Egyptian invaders who don't belong in Israel.  I do not say that to provoke you to anger but the truth does prove to anger those who hate the truth.  The greater question should be, Why do you hate the truth so much?  Why try to rewrite history that anyone with a minimal amount of research can uncover as propaganda?  Don't you see the futility of what you are doing?

Why not redeem the time, buy a KJV Bible and work out your salvation, Liq?  What you are doing isn't working for you and you know it.  Israel is a sovereign nation and a Jewish State and while your Arab school books may deny this reality and even refuse to put Israel on their maps (in their school books), Israel is a reality!

Your Islamic school teachers did you no favors by keeping the truth from you.  You owe it to yourself to learn the truth so that you can stop what you are doing and move on with your life.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

P F Tinmore said:


> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theliq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, we know that "certain communities" (Arab colonizers / squatters), were never able to "stand alone". Their incompetence and ineptitude was never intended to block a more modern, educated society from seeking self-determination.
> 
> You're letting your bias and ignorance of history, and your rabid Jew hatreds, be a vehicle to promote your inability to do anything but cut and paste the same articles across multiple threads without understanding the underlying context.
> 
> 
> 
> What a Delusional Little Creature You Are,Hollie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't see that at all.  I see an educated person who knows what they are talking about.  As for you.  Socrates said that when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Educate
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does a unilateral declaration by one party in 1948 have to do with the legal right of the inhabitants of Palestine, as stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations of 1919, specifically "....inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation.."?
> 
> A non sequitur from you as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Across the Islamist world, we see a pattern of (Islamist) "peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world".
> 
> That's not surprising as the Islamist world has never been able to claw its way out of its 7th century world view.
> 
> There is no reason to expect that the rest of the relevant, 1st world should now, or in the past, expect Islamism to be anything other than a yoke around the neck of humanity.
> 
> Pointless apologetics from you for Islamist incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a time when Muslim contributions to mankind & civilization were enormous.  Who in their right mind can deny the brilliant minds & writings of Avicenna, Averroes & the Mu'tazilites of centuries ago?  And today we have Palestinians to replace them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Palestinians, living under Jew occupation are expected to not only struggle for their freedom, but also make Nobel Prize winning advancements.  Good one MJ.  You truly are a master at idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Arabs in Gaza are struggling for their freedom?  Who is keeping them from their freedom?  Why can't they leave and go back to the lands they came from, their parents came from, Saudi Arabia, Egypt.......who's keeping them from their freedom?  It certainly isn't the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh jeese.  Stupid post of the day.
Click to expand...


So you don't want to admit that the Muslim nations / Hamas and other terror groups are responsible for holding their own people there in order to continue to use them as political pawns?  That is understandable considering it shifts the blame from Israel to your own people.  It's called failure to take responsibility.  Stupid post of the day?  Only to those who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 277 pages and nobody has yet to show where Israel legally acquired any land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its been demonstrated half a dozen times.  You just don't like the answer.
> 
> Israel legally "acquired land" the exact same way Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon did.  Treaties of Lausanne and Sevres.  San Remo Resolution.  Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> If you want to argue that Israel couldn't have "acquired land" through those legal instruments, then you have to argue that the others didn't either.
> 
> There is no possible legal argument to claim that the others all did and Israel did not.  If you had one you would have brought it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the inhabitants of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon acquired land. The land of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, who represented 95% of the population in 1921, was not acquired by the inhabitants, but by people living in Europe and other continents and territories.  It was a colonial venture for non-resident colonists who replaced the native inhabitants. Much different.
Click to expand...

Acquired?  You meant acquired by murder and theft, didn't you?  Can you read?  Read this sign from the Jewish Community of Hebron:


----------



## fanger

barenakedislam. photo jeremiah?


----------



## montelatici

Book of Jeremiah said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 277 pages and nobody has yet to show where Israel legally acquired any land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its been demonstrated half a dozen times.  You just don't like the answer.
> 
> Israel legally "acquired land" the exact same way Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon did.  Treaties of Lausanne and Sevres.  San Remo Resolution.  Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> If you want to argue that Israel couldn't have "acquired land" through those legal instruments, then you have to argue that the others didn't either.
> 
> There is no possible legal argument to claim that the others all did and Israel did not.  If you had one you would have brought it by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the inhabitants of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon acquired land. The land of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, who represented 95% of the population in 1921, was not acquired by the inhabitants, but by people living in Europe and other continents and territories.  It was a colonial venture for non-resident colonists who replaced the native inhabitants. Much different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Acquired?  You meant acquired by murder and theft, didn't you?  Can you read?  Read this sign from the Jewish Community of Hebron:
Click to expand...


Inform yourself before posting nonsense:

" It is legally owned by Haim Hanegbi, one of the founders of _Matzpen_, a revolutionary socialist and anti-Zionist organization. Hanegbi inherited the land from his grandfather, Rabbi Haim Bajayo, the Sephardi rabbi of the Jewish community in Hebron. Hanegbi, needless to say, opposes the Jewish settlement in Hebron. *He does not want his grandfather’s land back and most certainly does not want to give it to Hebron’s settlers."

Conflicting Property Rights in Hebron & Jerusalem*


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

fanger said:


> barenakedislam. photo jeremiah?


Nope.  Photo is not from barenakedislam.com 

Netanyahu: UN Silent About Jews Being Massacred, Expelled from West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem - Never Again Canada

*Netanyahu: UN Silent About Jews Being Massacred, Expelled from West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem*




Not to mention the nearly one million Jews who were killed or forced out of Arab lands in 1948 and had all their property stolen from them.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to Facebook to provide context regarding the historical, religious and legal Jewish connections to the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, lands baselessly declared occupied Palestinian territory in the text of last week’s anti-Israel UN  Security Council resolution.

Netanyahu slammed the UN for its “silence” in the face of Arab massacres and expulsions of Jews from the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, events that, he wrote, explain why no Jews were living in those territories when Israel was founded in 1948.








Some of the holiest sites in Judaism are located in those areas, including the Western Wall and Temple Mount in Jerusalem’s Old City; the Cave of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron, which was home to the oldest continuous Jewish community in the world until the Jews of Hebron were massacred and expelled; the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem; and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus or biblical Shechem.

Netanyahu accused the UN of having “no legal justification for its decisions” on the status of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. Instead, he argued, the UN possessed “only ignorance and malice” in its designation of those territories.

He explained the British Mandate for Palestine, later adopted by the UN and still legally binding, called for the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”
______________
Thanks for asking!


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

The matter of Israel's right to exist is not even a question.  Perhaps the real question that should be posed is, "Does the UN have a right to exist?"  To that I respond with an unequivocal no.  The UN has been used as a weapon against Israel. The UN has no right to exist.  It should be abandoned immediately.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Book of Jeremiah said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> barenakedislam. photo jeremiah?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Photo is not from barenakedislam.com
> 
> Netanyahu: UN Silent About Jews Being Massacred, Expelled from West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem - Never Again Canada
> 
> *Netanyahu: UN Silent About Jews Being Massacred, Expelled from West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the nearly one million Jews who were killed or forced out of Arab lands in 1948 and had all their property stolen from them.
> 
> Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to Facebook to provide context regarding the historical, religious and legal Jewish connections to the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, lands baselessly declared occupied Palestinian territory in the text of last week’s anti-Israel UN  Security Council resolution.
> 
> Netanyahu slammed the UN for its “silence” in the face of Arab massacres and expulsions of Jews from the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, events that, he wrote, explain why no Jews were living in those territories when Israel was founded in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the holiest sites in Judaism are located in those areas, including the Western Wall and Temple Mount in Jerusalem’s Old City; the Cave of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron, which was home to the oldest continuous Jewish community in the world until the Jews of Hebron were massacred and expelled; the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem; and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus or biblical Shechem.
> 
> Netanyahu accused the UN of having “no legal justification for its decisions” on the status of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. Instead, he argued, the UN possessed “only ignorance and malice” in its designation of those territories.
> 
> He explained the British Mandate for Palestine, later adopted by the UN and still legally binding, called for the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”
> ______________
> Thanks for asking!
Click to expand...

Israeli bullshit. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> No, the inhabitants of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon acquired land. The land of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, who represented 95% of the population in 1921, was not acquired by the inhabitants, but by people living in Europe and other continents and territories.  ...



All perfectly legal and in accordance with the treaties of the time.  In fact, the treaties of the time all expressly permitted it, but actively obligated it.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Israeli bullshit. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.



Don't be ridiculous.  Every one of the attacking nations had existing international borders and crossed them with the intention of using military action against the ruling government of territory which did not belong to them.  Two of those nations occupied territory which was OUTSIDE their own international borders.


----------



## fanger

Book of Jeremiah said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> barenakedislam. photo jeremiah?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Photo is not from barenakedislam.com
> 
> Netanyahu: UN Silent About Jews Being Massacred, Expelled from West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem - Never Again Canada
> 
> *Netanyahu: UN Silent About Jews Being Massacred, Expelled from West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the nearly one million Jews who were killed or forced out of Arab lands in 1948 and had all their property stolen from them.
> 
> Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to Facebook to provide context regarding the historical, religious and legal Jewish connections to the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, lands baselessly declared occupied Palestinian territory in the text of last week’s anti-Israel UN  Security Council resolution.
> 
> Netanyahu slammed the UN for its “silence” in the face of Arab massacres and expulsions of Jews from the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, events that, he wrote, explain why no Jews were living in those territories when Israel was founded in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the holiest sites in Judaism are located in those areas, including the Western Wall and Temple Mount in Jerusalem’s Old City; the Cave of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron, which was home to the oldest continuous Jewish community in the world until the Jews of Hebron were massacred and expelled; the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem; and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus or biblical Shechem.
> 
> Netanyahu accused the UN of having “no legal justification for its decisions” on the status of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. Instead, he argued, the UN possessed “only ignorance and malice” in its designation of those territories.
> 
> He explained the British Mandate for Palestine, later adopted by the UN and still legally binding, called for the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”
> ______________
> Thanks for asking!
Click to expand...

Click on the photo to get the URL http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/6a0120a610bec4970c01b7c8797eb5970b.png


----------



## fanger

Book of Jeremiah said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> barenakedislam. photo jeremiah?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Photo is not from barenakedislam.com
> 
> Netanyahu: UN Silent About Jews Being Massacred, Expelled from West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem - Never Again Canada
> 
> *Netanyahu: UN Silent About Jews Being Massacred, Expelled from West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the nearly one million Jews who were killed or forced out of Arab lands in 1948 and had all their property stolen from them.
> 
> Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to Facebook to provide context regarding the historical, religious and legal Jewish connections to the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, lands baselessly declared occupied Palestinian territory in the text of last week’s anti-Israel UN  Security Council resolution.
> 
> Netanyahu slammed the UN for its “silence” in the face of Arab massacres and expulsions of Jews from the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, events that, he wrote, explain why no Jews were living in those territories when Israel was founded in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the holiest sites in Judaism are located in those areas, including the Western Wall and Temple Mount in Jerusalem’s Old City; the Cave of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron, which was home to the oldest continuous Jewish community in the world until the Jews of Hebron were massacred and expelled; the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem; and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus or biblical Shechem.
> 
> Netanyahu accused the UN of having “no legal justification for its decisions” on the status of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. Instead, he argued, the UN possessed “only ignorance and malice” in its designation of those territories.
> 
> He explained the British Mandate for Palestine, later adopted by the UN and still legally binding, called for the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”
> ______________
> Thanks for asking!
Click to expand...

http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/6a0120a610bec4970c01b7c8797eb5970b.png


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.  Every one of the attacking nations had existing international borders and crossed them with the intention of using military action against the ruling government of territory which did not belong to them.  Two of those nations occupied territory which was OUTSIDE their own international borders.
Click to expand...


No, quit lying,  the Arab League intervention did not take place until the Jews had invaded for some time the Arab part of the partition and had actually conquered Arab cities within the Arab section of the partition. Jaffa had been under siege by the Jews for over a month and was forced to surrender to the Jews prior to the Arab League intervention and before Israel declared independence.

Furthermore, the Arab League entered the Arab partition and the international sector to try to save Muslims and Christians that were being massacred by the Zionists.


----------



## MJB12741

Book of Jeremiah said:


> The matter of Israel's right to exist is not even a question.  Perhaps the real question that should be posed is, "Does the UN have a right to exist?"  To that I respond with an unequivocal no.  The UN has been used as a weapon against Israel. The UN has no right to exist.  It should be abandoned immediately.



A very valid point ever since so many Muslim countries entered the UN.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Book of Jeremiah said:


> Arab school books may deny this reality and even refuse to put Israel on their maps


Maps are drawings of borders. The 1949 armistice lines are specifically not to be political or territorial borders so they do not use them.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.  Every one of the attacking nations had existing international borders and crossed them with the intention of using military action against the ruling government of territory which did not belong to them.  Two of those nations occupied territory which was OUTSIDE their own international borders.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

fanger said:


> Book of Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fanger said:
> 
> 
> 
> barenakedislam. photo jeremiah?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Photo is not from barenakedislam.com
> 
> Netanyahu: UN Silent About Jews Being Massacred, Expelled from West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem - Never Again Canada
> 
> *Netanyahu: UN Silent About Jews Being Massacred, Expelled from West Bank, Eastern Jerusalem*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the nearly one million Jews who were killed or forced out of Arab lands in 1948 and had all their property stolen from them.
> 
> Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to Facebook to provide context regarding the historical, religious and legal Jewish connections to the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, lands baselessly declared occupied Palestinian territory in the text of last week’s anti-Israel UN  Security Council resolution.
> 
> Netanyahu slammed the UN for its “silence” in the face of Arab massacres and expulsions of Jews from the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, events that, he wrote, explain why no Jews were living in those territories when Israel was founded in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the holiest sites in Judaism are located in those areas, including the Western Wall and Temple Mount in Jerusalem’s Old City; the Cave of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron, which was home to the oldest continuous Jewish community in the world until the Jews of Hebron were massacred and expelled; the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem; and Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus or biblical Shechem.
> 
> Netanyahu accused the UN of having “no legal justification for its decisions” on the status of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. Instead, he argued, the UN possessed “only ignorance and malice” in its designation of those territories.
> 
> He explained the British Mandate for Palestine, later adopted by the UN and still legally binding, called for the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”
> ______________
> Thanks for asking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Click on the photo to get the URL http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/6a0120a610bec4970c01b7c8797eb5970b.png
Click to expand...

I told you I didn't get the photograph from BarenakeIslam.  There is more than one news source that used that photograph.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.  Every one of the attacking nations had existing international borders and crossed them with the intention of using military action against the ruling government of territory which did not belong to them.  Two of those nations occupied territory which was OUTSIDE their own international borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
Click to expand...


Oh give me a break.  Jordan crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Egypt crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq crossed international boundaries and used military force.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.  Every one of the attacking nations had existing international borders and crossed them with the intention of using military action against the ruling government of territory which did not belong to them.  Two of those nations occupied territory which was OUTSIDE their own international borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh give me a break.  Jordan crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Egypt crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq crossed international boundaries and used military force.
Click to expand...


The Arab League intervention forces entered territory assigned to the non-Jews or international sector territory where Jews were carrying out massacres and mass eviction of the non-Jewish inhabitants, the forces did not enter the area designated for the Jews. The intervention forces saved a part of Palestine from falling under Israeli occupation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.  Every one of the attacking nations had existing international borders and crossed them with the intention of using military action against the ruling government of territory which did not belong to them.  Two of those nations occupied territory which was OUTSIDE their own international borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh give me a break.  Jordan crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Egypt crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq crossed international boundaries and used military force.
Click to expand...

OK, but nobody invaded Israel.


----------



## Juicin

MJB12741 said:


> Lets just consider documented facts.  Fair enough?
> 
> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks



Israel has no right to exist without the right of return

It's not a democracy without the right of return (you can't disenfranchise large swathes of your population then call yourself a democracy lol) and it's in violation of international law

Doesn't even have any borders


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.  Every one of the attacking nations had existing international borders and crossed them with the intention of using military action against the ruling government of territory which did not belong to them.  Two of those nations occupied territory which was OUTSIDE their own international borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh give me a break.  Jordan crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Egypt crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq crossed international boundaries and used military force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but nobody invaded Israel.
Click to expand...


Ok, that's because the Arab invasion forces suffered a humiliating defeat.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli bullshit. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.  Every one of the attacking nations had existing international borders and crossed them with the intention of using military action against the ruling government of territory which did not belong to them.  Two of those nations occupied territory which was OUTSIDE their own international borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh give me a break.  Jordan crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Egypt crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq crossed international boundaries and used military force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but nobody invaded Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, that's because the Arab invasion forces suffered a humiliating defeat.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge. Israel *lies* about being attacked.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.  Every one of the attacking nations had existing international borders and crossed them with the intention of using military action against the ruling government of territory which did not belong to them.  Two of those nations occupied territory which was OUTSIDE their own international borders.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh give me a break.  Jordan crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Egypt crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq crossed international boundaries and used military force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but nobody invaded Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, that's because the Arab invasion forces suffered a humiliating defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge. Israel *lies* about being attacked.
Click to expand...


Right. However,  the piles of dead Arabs/Moslems as the result of various wars initiated by Arabs/Moslems might disagree with you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge. Nobody invaded Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh give me a break.  Jordan crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Egypt crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq crossed international boundaries and used military force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but nobody invaded Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, that's because the Arab invasion forces suffered a humiliating defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge. Israel *lies* about being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. However,  the piles of dead Arabs/Moslems as the result of various wars initiated by Arabs/Moslems might disagree with you.
Click to expand...

More Israeli bullshit.

The Zionist's settler colonial project was the initial aggression. That aggression continues today.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh give me a break.  Jordan crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Egypt crossed her international boundary and used military force and then occupied territory that did not belong to her.  Syria, Lebanon and Iraq crossed international boundaries and used military force.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but nobody invaded Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, that's because the Arab invasion forces suffered a humiliating defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge. Israel *lies* about being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. However,  the piles of dead Arabs/Moslems as the result of various wars initiated by Arabs/Moslems might disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> The Zionist's settler colonial project was the initial aggression. That aggression continues today.
Click to expand...


What a hoot. As your attempts at argument fail, you abandon them and move on to more spam.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but nobody invaded Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, that's because the Arab invasion forces suffered a humiliating defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge. Israel *lies* about being attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. However,  the piles of dead Arabs/Moslems as the result of various wars initiated by Arabs/Moslems might disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> The Zionist's settler colonial project was the initial aggression. That aggression continues today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a hoot. As your attempts at argument fail, you abandon them and move on to more spam.
Click to expand...

Duck and deflect are not valid arguments. You need to pick up your game.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> The Zionist's settler colonial project was the initial aggression. That aggression continues today.



Once again, your argument is that the mere presence of Jews is licence to attack and kill them. 

Let's put this in perspective. It's like saying the US has a right to kill Arab Muslims for immigrating to the US.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> The Zionist's settler colonial project was the initial aggression. That aggression continues today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, your argument is that the mere presence of Jews is licence to attack and kill them.
> 
> Let's put this in perspective. It's like saying the US has a right to kill Arab Muslims for immigrating to the US.
Click to expand...

Not so. It was the settler colonial project.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> The Zionist's settler colonial project was the initial aggression. That aggression continues today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, your argument is that the mere presence of Jews is licence to attack and kill them.
> 
> Let's put this in perspective. It's like saying the US has a right to kill Arab Muslims for immigrating to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so. It was the settler colonial project.
Click to expand...


Which does nothing to refute my post. 

The presence of Jews is an "aggression" is what you said. You are saying the presence of Jews alone is justification for war and terrorism. And while I agree wholeheartedly that this is the Palestinian mentality, it's morally vile to believe it's okay to kill people for moving in next door. 

Shall we go after Chinatown and Little Italy next?


----------



## MJB12741

What legal rights do Palestinian squatters have to remain living in Israel?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> The Zionist's settler colonial project was the initial aggression. That aggression continues today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, your argument is that the mere presence of Jews is licence to attack and kill them.
> 
> Let's put this in perspective. It's like saying the US has a right to kill Arab Muslims for immigrating to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so. It was the settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which does nothing to refute my post.
> 
> The presence of Jews is an "aggression" is what you said. You are saying the presence of Jews alone is justification for war and terrorism. And while I agree wholeheartedly that this is the Palestinian mentality, it's morally vile to believe it's okay to kill people for moving in next door.
> 
> Shall we go after Chinatown and Little Italy next?
Click to expand...



Only if Little Italy and Chinatown newcomers seek to set up their own state for Italians and Chinese and invite Italians and Chinese from all over the world to immigrate to the Little Italy and Chinatown while expelling the native residents to make room for them.


----------



## Shusha

So, monte, the presence of Jews is not the problem, in your mind. It's the Jewish desire for sovereighty and self-determination in their ancestral homeland that is the problem. The Jewish people must not be permitted to have self-determination in their ancient homeland.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> The Zionist's settler colonial project was the initial aggression. That aggression continues today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, your argument is that the mere presence of Jews is licence to attack and kill them.
> 
> Let's put this in perspective. It's like saying the US has a right to kill Arab Muslims for immigrating to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so. It was the settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which does nothing to refute my post.
> 
> The presence of Jews is an "aggression" is what you said. You are saying the presence of Jews alone is justification for war and terrorism. And while I agree wholeheartedly that this is the Palestinian mentality, it's morally vile to believe it's okay to kill people for moving in next door.
> 
> Shall we go after Chinatown and Little Italy next?
Click to expand...

Not so. Settler colonialism is aggressive by its very nature.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> So, monte, the presence of Jews is not the problem, in your mind. It's the Jewish desire for sovereighty and self-determination in their ancestral homeland that is the problem. The Jewish people must not be permitted to have self-determination in their ancient homeland.



No, the desire for self-determination is fine.  But, Palestine is not the ancestral homeland of the Zionists.The Zionists were Europeans, an average Christian Southern European has as much ancestry from the Middle East as European Jews, usually more.   If these European descendants of European converts to Judaism wanted to establish a religious state, they could have established it somewhere else, without going to a place populated with 700,000 Muslims and Christians, with the intention of expelling them to make room for Europeans with little to no ancestral ties to the area.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> No, the desire for self-determination is fine.  But, Palestine is not the ancestral homeland of the Zionists. ...



Don't be ridiculous.  "Palestine" is the ancestral home of ALL the Jewish people.  The argument that there are "true" Jews and "synthetic" ones is just a bit silly.  No one applies that sort of rule to any other group of people.

Further, removing a people from a land does not remove their ancestry from them.  The Palestinians living in Chile are still, Palestinians, aren't they?  And their children are Palestinian, and their grandchildren, right?

But let's leave that aside for the moment.  Did the Jewish people living in Palestine have the right to self-determination?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the desire for self-determination is fine.  But, Palestine is not the ancestral homeland of the Zionists. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be ridiculous.  "Palestine" is the ancestral home of ALL the Jewish people.  The argument that there are "true" Jews and "synthetic" ones is just a bit silly.  No one applies that sort of rule to any other group of people.
> 
> Further, removing a people from a land does not remove their ancestry from them.  The Palestinians living in Chile are still, Palestinians, aren't they?  And their children are Palestinian, and their grandchildren, right?
> 
> But let's leave that aside for the moment.  Did the Jewish people living in Palestine have the right to self-determination?
Click to expand...


Palestine is the ancestral home of people who had ancestors in Palestine.  Not Europeans, Eastern European, Russian, Spanish etc., whose ancestors converted to Judaism.  A European, one of whose ancestor converted to Judaism does not suddenly acquire ancestors in the Middle East.  

You are nuts.  A convert to Roman Catholicism from Africa doesn't suddenly acquire ancestors in Rome.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Palestine is the ancestral home of people who had ancestors in Palestine.



Over time, how can you tell that an individual does or does not belong to the people of ancestral home? ( I'm assuming you are not arguing with the idea that the Jewish ancestral home is *cough cough* Palestine.) 

I mean, how can you tell that the Palestinians in Chile are Palestinian?  How do you propose to measure that, over time?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine is the ancestral home of people who had ancestors in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over time, how can you tell that an individual does or does not belong to the people of ancestral home? ( I'm assuming you are not arguing with the idea that the Jewish ancestral home is *cough cough* Palestine.)
> 
> I mean, how can you tell that the Palestinians in Chile are Palestinian?  How do you propose to measure that, over time?
Click to expand...


DNA demonstrates where one's ancestors come from.  The Muslim and Christian Palestinian DNA markers are conclusively from the Levant.  The European Jews DNA markers are mostly from Europe. The DNA markers of the Palestinians in Chile are the same as  those of the Palestinians in Palestine.  Changing religion doesn't change DNA.

*"European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree"*

Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> DNA demonstrates where one's ancestors come from.



So, to be absolutely clear, you believe that measuring DNA should be the guideline for assigning sovereignty over territory of ancestral lands?


----------



## MJB12741

"And G-d shall scatter you among all the peoples from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth…" _Devorim_ 28:64

"And G-d shall return your captivity and be merciful to you, and will return and gather you from all the nations whither G-d has scattered you." _Devorim_30:3

"As the natural laws are set before Me, so shall the seed of Israel never cease from being a nation before Me, forever." _Yirmiyahu_ 31:36


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA demonstrates where one's ancestors come from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be absolutely clear, you believe that measuring DNA should be the guideline for assigning sovereignty over territory of ancestral lands?
Click to expand...


No, I believe false claims of ancestry should not have been used to evict native inhabitants as happened in Palestine who actually had ancestral links to the land.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> "And G-d shall scatter you among all the peoples from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth…" _Devorim_ 28:64
> 
> "And G-d shall return your captivity and be merciful to you, and will return and gather you from all the nations whither G-d has scattered you." _Devorim_30:3
> 
> "As the natural laws are set before Me, so shall the seed of Israel never cease from being a nation before Me, forever." _Yirmiyahu_ 31:36



So, with the lack of scientific proof MJ resorts to fairy tales.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA demonstrates where one's ancestors come from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be absolutely clear, you believe that measuring DNA should be the guideline for assigning sovereignty over territory of ancestral lands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I believe false claims of ancestry should not have been used to evict native inhabitants as happened in Palestine who actually had ancestral links to the land.
Click to expand...


Yes, but how can you measure "false claims of ancestry"?  What is your criteria for true or false claims "ancestry"?  When I asked you that a few posts ago, you said it was DNA.  Is it?  Or are you now deciding it is something else?


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> "And G-d shall scatter you among all the peoples from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth…" _Devorim_ 28:64
> 
> "And G-d shall return your captivity and be merciful to you, and will return and gather you from all the nations whither G-d has scattered you." _Devorim_30:3
> 
> "As the natural laws are set before Me, so shall the seed of Israel never cease from being a nation before Me, forever." _Yirmiyahu_ 31:36



Oh Me oh my.  I forgot.  You maggots believe the Bible is just a book of fairy tales, first written by Jews & then by Christians.  No place for God with you.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA demonstrates where one's ancestors come from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be absolutely clear, you believe that measuring DNA should be the guideline for assigning sovereignty over territory of ancestral lands?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I believe false claims of ancestry should not have been used to evict native inhabitants as happened in Palestine who actually had ancestral links to the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but how can you measure "false claims of ancestry"?  What is your criteria for true or false claims "ancestry"?  When I asked you that a few posts ago, you said it was DNA.  Is it?  Or are you now deciding it is something else?
Click to expand...


When DNA markers demonstrate that people claiming ancestry in the Middle East have overwhelming European ancestry, it is a false claim.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> When DNA markers demonstrate that people claiming ancestry in the Middle East have overwhelming European ancestry, it is a false claim.



Well, DNA markers overwhelmingly support ME ancestry in all Jewish populations.

BUT...again, you are claiming DNA as the definitive measure of rights to ancestral territory, then.  Okay.  How much DNA would any particular person have to test positive for in order to have a right to self-determination on their ancestral land?  I mean, just how would we go about testing for this?  Do we hold clinics?


----------



## montelatici

DNA markers overwhelming support European ancestry of European Jews.  Southern Europeans have as much ME ancestry as European Jews, Spanish (1492) Jews included. The funniest thing is that the latest genome study used Palestinians and Druze genomes to see how close European Jews were to the indigenous people of the area. LOL  So, the best we can say that the indigenous people are the Palestinians and that the Zionists had some indigenous genes of the indigenous people.  So, did these Europeans have the right to expel the indigenous people?


----------



## Shusha

Alright then.  I accept your parameters.  Sovereignty is to be determined by DNA.

So, paternal or maternal?  

Percentage?  

How do we differentiate between close groups?

If you have ancestry from more than one group are you excluded from all of them?  Any of them?  Is it highest-percentage-wins?

Should people be required to move from their place of residence based on their DNA?  I mean if it turns out I am Irish and Scots and German, does that mean I am only permitted to live in Germany or Scotland or Ireland? 

How do we determine nationalities like American or Canadian?

Are immigrants excepted?  When?  Which ones?  What about immigrant children.  I mean, their DNA will be wrong, right?  So how do we protect their rights?

-


----------



## Shusha

zsdcx


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> Alright then.  I accept your parameters.  Sovereignty is to be determined by DNA.
> 
> So, paternal or maternal?
> 
> Percentage?
> 
> How do we differentiate between close groups?
> 
> If you have ancestry from more than one group are you excluded from all of them?  Any of them?  Is it highest-percentage-wins?
> 
> Should people be required to move from their place of residence based on their DNA?  I mean if it turns out I am Irish and Scots and German, does that mean I am only permitted to live in Germany or Scotland or Ireland?
> 
> How do we determine nationalities like American or Canadian?
> 
> Are immigrants excepted?  When?  Which ones?  What about immigrant children.  I mean, their DNA will be wrong, right?  So how do we protect their rights?
> 
> -




Well the Hasbara troll questioning bullshit is getting tiring.  The fact is, people from Europe went to Palestine, expelled the native people and took over.  That's the problem. Or, more specifically, the Europeans were unable to eliminate the native people completely as they planned to do.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Alright then.  I accept your parameters.  Sovereignty is to be determined by DNA.
> 
> So, paternal or maternal?
> 
> Percentage?
> 
> How do we differentiate between close groups?
> 
> If you have ancestry from more than one group are you excluded from all of them?  Any of them?  Is it highest-percentage-wins?
> 
> Should people be required to move from their place of residence based on their DNA?  I mean if it turns out I am Irish and Scots and German, does that mean I am only permitted to live in Germany or Scotland or Ireland?
> 
> How do we determine nationalities like American or Canadian?
> 
> Are immigrants excepted?  When?  Which ones?  What about immigrant children.  I mean, their DNA will be wrong, right?  So how do we protect their rights?
> 
> -


What a stupid argument. The question of who is a Palestinian and their rights as citizens was established by international law long ago.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright then.  I accept your parameters.  Sovereignty is to be determined by DNA.
> 
> So, paternal or maternal?
> 
> Percentage?
> 
> How do we differentiate between close groups?
> 
> If you have ancestry from more than one group are you excluded from all of them?  Any of them?  Is it highest-percentage-wins?
> 
> Should people be required to move from their place of residence based on their DNA?  I mean if it turns out I am Irish and Scots and German, does that mean I am only permitted to live in Germany or Scotland or Ireland?
> 
> How do we determine nationalities like American or Canadian?
> 
> Are immigrants excepted?  When?  Which ones?  What about immigrant children.  I mean, their DNA will be wrong, right?  So how do we protect their rights?
> 
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Hasbara troll questioning bullshit is getting tiring.  The fact is, people from Europe went to Palestine, expelled the native people and took over.  That's the problem. Or, more specifically, the Europeans were unable to eliminate the native people completely as they planned to do.
Click to expand...

You're referring to the European xtian Crusaders, correct?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright then.  I accept your parameters.  Sovereignty is to be determined by DNA.
> 
> So, paternal or maternal?
> 
> Percentage?
> 
> How do we differentiate between close groups?
> 
> If you have ancestry from more than one group are you excluded from all of them?  Any of them?  Is it highest-percentage-wins?
> 
> Should people be required to move from their place of residence based on their DNA?  I mean if it turns out I am Irish and Scots and German, does that mean I am only permitted to live in Germany or Scotland or Ireland?
> 
> How do we determine nationalities like American or Canadian?
> 
> Are immigrants excepted?  When?  Which ones?  What about immigrant children.  I mean, their DNA will be wrong, right?  So how do we protect their rights?
> 
> -
> 
> 
> 
> What a stupid argument. The question of who is a Palestinian and their rights as citizens was established by international law long ago.
Click to expand...


Of course it's a stupid argument. Will you inform monte of that, please. And I agree we know who the Palestinians are. You and I agree on this point. It was all the residents in 1925 plus all the Jewish people who wanted to return and make their homes there.


----------



## MJB12741

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> When DNA markers demonstrate that people claiming ancestry in the Middle East have overwhelming European ancestry, it is a false claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, DNA markers overwhelmingly support ME ancestry in all Jewish populations.
> 
> BUT...again, you are claiming DNA as the definitive measure of rights to ancestral territory, then.  Okay.  How much DNA would any particular person have to test positive for in order to have a right to self-determination on their ancestral land?  I mean, just how would we go about testing for this?  Do we hold clinics?
Click to expand...


OK, DNA.  How about all Muslim kohanim Palestinians can stay in Israel


----------



## montelatici

*"European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree"*

*Genes Suggest European Women at Root of Ashkenazi Family Tree*


----------



## montelatici

*Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews*
AUGUST 21, 2016, 10:07 AM 

Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> *Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews*
> AUGUST 21, 2016, 10:07 AM
> 
> Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews



Good boy Monte.  Thank you for finally realizing most Palestinians are genetically similar to "Ashkanazi" Jews who you & your ilk claim ARE NOT indigenous to the land of Israel.  The DNA findings back this up. 

From your article.  "The Palestinian Arabs, who are descendants of Jews, are very close to Ashkenazi Jews in their gene makeup."


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews*
> AUGUST 21, 2016, 10:07 AM
> 
> Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good boy Monte.  Thank you for finally realizing most Palestinians are genetically similar to "Ashkanazi" Jews who you & your ilk claim ARE NOT indigenous to the land of Israel.  The DNA findings back this up.
> 
> From your article.  "The Palestinian Arabs, who are descendants of Jews, are very close to Ashkenazi Jews in their gene makeup."
Click to expand...


So are Italians, heh, heh, heh. 

You don't have a clue about genetics, do you. The Palestinians are the purest, in terms of having genes similar to those of  the ancient people of the area.  

The Ashkenazi are Europeans with some Middle Eastern genes, about the same as Greeks, Italians, Spanish gentiles. 

"It has been noted in many studies that there is a close genetic similarity between Ashkenazi Jews and Southern Italians/Greeks. 

The four major founders of the Ashkenazi Jew population have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, and not the Caucus or the Near East. The four minor founders share a deep European ancestry. So with genetic testing, we can see that the majority of the Ashkenazi population didn’t have its origins in the Caucus or Levant, but through assimilation of Roman women who converted to Judaism."

Southern Italians and Ashkenazi Jews: What Is the Connection?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews*
> AUGUST 21, 2016, 10:07 AM
> 
> Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good boy Monte.  Thank you for finally realizing most Palestinians are genetically similar to "Ashkanazi" Jews who you & your ilk claim ARE NOT indigenous to the land of Israel.  The DNA findings back this up.
> 
> From your article.  "The Palestinian Arabs, who are descendants of Jews, are very close to Ashkenazi Jews in their gene makeup."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are Italians, heh, heh, heh.
> 
> You don't have a clue about genetics, do you. The Palestinians are the purest, in terms of having genes similar to those of  the ancient people of the area.
> 
> The Ashkenazi are Europeans with some Middle Eastern genes, about the same as Greeks, Italians, Spanish gentiles.
> 
> "It has been noted in many studies that there is a close genetic similarity between Ashkenazi Jews and Southern Italians/Greeks.
> 
> The four major founders of the Ashkenazi Jew population have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, and not the Caucus or the Near East. The four minor founders share a deep European ancestry. So with genetic testing, we can see that the majority of the Ashkenazi population didn’t have its origins in the Caucus or Levant, but through assimilation of Roman women who converted to Judaism."
> 
> Southern Italians and Ashkenazi Jews: What Is the Connection?
Click to expand...


Eh Monte.  Southern Italians don't claim Israel's land as their indigenous homeland like Muslim Palestinian squatters do.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> ... The Palestinians are the purest, in terms of having genes similar to those of  the ancient people of the area.




Wait.  Wait.  Did the notion of racial purity actually just become part of this conversation?


----------



## montelatici

No, the European Jews who have the same amount of Middle East DNA as southern Europeans stole the land under false pretenses and are squatting on the land of the indigenous people of  Palestine.


----------



## Shusha

Hmmmmm.  Racial purity as a basis for sovereignty and territorial control.  Now, where have I heard that before?


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews*
> AUGUST 21, 2016, 10:07 AM
> 
> Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good boy Monte.  Thank you for finally realizing most Palestinians are genetically similar to "Ashkanazi" Jews who you & your ilk claim ARE NOT indigenous to the land of Israel.  The DNA findings back this up.
> 
> From your article.  "The Palestinian Arabs, who are descendants of Jews, are very close to Ashkenazi Jews in their gene makeup."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are Italians, heh, heh, heh.
> 
> You don't have a clue about genetics, do you. The Palestinians are the purest, in terms of having genes similar to those of  the ancient people of the area.
> 
> The Ashkenazi are Europeans with some Middle Eastern genes, about the same as Greeks, Italians, Spanish gentiles.
> 
> "It has been noted in many studies that there is a close genetic similarity between Ashkenazi Jews and Southern Italians/Greeks.
> 
> The four major founders of the Ashkenazi Jew population have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, and not the Caucus or the Near East. The four minor founders share a deep European ancestry. So with genetic testing, we can see that the majority of the Ashkenazi population didn’t have its origins in the Caucus or Levant, but through assimilation of Roman women who converted to Judaism."
> 
> Southern Italians and Ashkenazi Jews: What Is the Connection?
Click to expand...


That's fascinating. The invented Pal'istanians have the.purest genes of the invading European Crusaders, Turk and Mongol invaders?

I have an urge to point and laugh whenever Monty launches into one of his "race" tirades.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews*
> AUGUST 21, 2016, 10:07 AM
> 
> Most Palestinians Are Descendants Of Jews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good boy Monte.  Thank you for finally realizing most Palestinians are genetically similar to "Ashkanazi" Jews who you & your ilk claim ARE NOT indigenous to the land of Israel.  The DNA findings back this up.
> 
> From your article.  "The Palestinian Arabs, who are descendants of Jews, are very close to Ashkenazi Jews in their gene makeup."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are Italians, heh, heh, heh.
> 
> You don't have a clue about genetics, do you. The Palestinians are the purest, in terms of having genes similar to those of  the ancient people of the area.
> 
> The Ashkenazi are Europeans with some Middle Eastern genes, about the same as Greeks, Italians, Spanish gentiles.
> 
> "It has been noted in many studies that there is a close genetic similarity between Ashkenazi Jews and Southern Italians/Greeks.
> 
> The four major founders of the Ashkenazi Jew population have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, and not the Caucus or the Near East. The four minor founders share a deep European ancestry. So with genetic testing, we can see that the majority of the Ashkenazi population didn’t have its origins in the Caucus or Levant, but through assimilation of Roman women who converted to Judaism."
> 
> Southern Italians and Ashkenazi Jews: What Is the Connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's fascinating. The invented Pal'istanians have the.purest genes of the invading European Crusaders, Turk and Mongol invaders?
> 
> I have an urge to point and laugh whenever Monty launches into one of his "race" tirades.
Click to expand...


Yes, he is fun to  play with.


----------



## Challenger

Shusha said:


> Hmmmmm.  Racial purity as a basis for sovereignty and territorial control.  Now, where have I heard that before?



Zionism.


----------



## MJB12741

There is no "racial purity" for any White person.


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> There is no "racial purity" for any White person.


There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "racial purity" for any White person.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.
Click to expand...


Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?


----------



## Challenger

Mindful said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "racial purity" for any White person.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
Click to expand...


Define "Jewish people"?


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "racial purity" for any White person.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
Click to expand...


Avoidance. The labyrinth of prevarication.

I should have known better. lol.


----------



## Eloy

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "racial purity" for any White person.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
Click to expand...

I believe Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. I could be wrong.


----------



## Mindful

Eloy said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "racial purity" for any White person.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...


Not funny. Really.


----------



## Eloy

Mindful said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "racial purity" for any White person.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. I could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not funny. Really.
Click to expand...

I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?


----------



## Mindful

Eloy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. I could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not funny. Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?
Click to expand...


No you don't. You're a windup merchant.


----------



## Challenger

Mindful said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "racial purity" for any White person.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoidance. The labyrinth of prevarication.
> 
> I should have known better. lol.
Click to expand...


For your information I was merely seeking clarification of the premise behind your question, but I really don't think it matters how I'd have answered the question, you'd have responded in a similar fashion, it's what Hasbara trolls do.


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "racial purity" for any White person.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoidance. The labyrinth of prevarication.
> 
> I should have known better. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For your information I was merely seeking clarification of the premise behind your question, but I really don't think it matters how I'd have answered the question, you'd have responded in a similar fashion, it's what Hasbara trolls do.
Click to expand...


You obviously want to engage ........in partisan nothingness.

Not being an honest debater, you fall back into petulant name calling, when you are losing.

Whatever a Hasbara troll is. You do so love that word.


----------



## Challenger

Mindful said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoidance. The labyrinth of prevarication.
> 
> I should have known better. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For your information I was merely seeking clarification of the premise behind your question, but I really don't think it matters how I'd have answered the question, you'd have responded in a similar fashion, it's what Hasbara trolls do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously want to engage ........in partisan nothingness.
> 
> Not being an honest debater, you fall back into petulant name calling, when you are losing.
> 
> Whatever a Hasbara troll is. You do so love that word.
Click to expand...


*sigh* Another "Mindless" post, nevertheless, always happy to help a lady in distress. A Guide To HASBARA TROLLS


----------



## Mindful

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoidance. The labyrinth of prevarication.
> 
> I should have known better. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For your information I was merely seeking clarification of the premise behind your question, but I really don't think it matters how I'd have answered the question, you'd have responded in a similar fashion, it's what Hasbara trolls do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously want to engage ........in partisan nothingness.
> 
> Not being an honest debater, you fall back into petulant name calling, when you are losing.
> 
> Whatever a Hasbara troll is. You do so love that word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *sigh* Another "Mindless" post, nevertheless, always happy to help a lady in distress. A Guide To HASBARA TROLLS
Click to expand...


I beat you to it. I already looked.

Just another site for terminal cases of JDS. Jew derangement syndrome.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "racial purity" for any White person.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avoidance. The labyrinth of prevarication.
> 
> I should have known better. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For your information I was merely seeking clarification of the premise behind your question, but I really don't think it matters how I'd have answered the question, you'd have responded in a similar fashion, it's what Hasbara trolls do.
Click to expand...


Can I be a hasbara troll?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's bullshit machine.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's bullshit machine.



Wonderful post for support of Israel. Thanks. I will pass it on to others who are neutral on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.


----------



## Eloy

Odd that students at the University of Texas want to be advocates on *USMessageBoard* for a foreign country half the world away. What's going on?


----------



## rhodescholar

Challenger said:


> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.



Of course this fucking worthless c-nt makes no mention of things like the "arab" league, or the OIC, or how many of the muslim countries' entire legal systems are built upon islam, or how non-muslim minorites are ethnically cleansed from muslim-majority countries, etc.

Takes quite a special fucking idiot to whine about the practices of 6 MM jews trying to defend themselves while ignoring the far more heinous ones of 400 MM arab muslims.


----------



## rhodescholar

Eloy said:


> Odd that students st the University of Texas want to be advocates on *USMessageBoard* for a foreign country half the world away. What's going on?



Odd that saudi arabia has implanted "professors" into mideast studies departments all over the US, oh but then it isn't.

Even odder is how the arab oil lobby - representing an illegal cartel - is allowed to operate inside the US.


----------



## rhodescholar

Eloy said:


> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?



How come the arab muslims are ethnically cleansing all of the non-muslim minorities out of their countries?

Why are the arab muslim filth slaughtering/genociding the Yazidis, Coptics, and so many other minorities?


----------



## Mindful

rhodescholar said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that students st the University of Texas want to be advocates on *USMessageBoard* for a foreign country half the world away. What's going on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that saudi arabia has implanted "professors" into mideast studies departments all over the US, oh but then it isn't.
> 
> Even odder is how the arab oil lobby - representing an illegal cartel - is allowed to operate inside the US.
Click to expand...


You can't have anything resembling a realistic debate with these creatures.

Their anti semitism is so deeply ingrained, it's deranged.


----------



## rhodescholar

Eloy said:


> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?



He has the same right as the 3rd and 4th generation arab muslims living in the west bank whose grandparents/great-grandparents moved there from Syria and Jordan in the 1920s/30s/40s, yet claim to be "indigenous."


----------



## rhodescholar

Mindful said:


> You can't have anything resembling a realistic debate with these creatures.  Their anti semitism is so deeply ingrained, it's deranged.



Most of them fall into 2 categories:

1-arab muslims - who have been lied to their entire lives about the history of the mideast, especially about the hideous violence and mass slaughters by their kind

2-unrepentant anti-semite western christians, who were either taught to hate jews in sunday school or came to blaming them for their failures in life so they need a convenient scapegoat to explain their lack of success/status at the bottom of the economic ladder.  Its easier to blame the jews than accept one's intelligence limitations or lack of discipline/work ethic.


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has the same right as the 3rd and 4th generation arab muslims living in the west bank whose grandparents/great-grandparents moved there from Syria and Jordan in the 1920s/30s/40s, yet claim to be "indigenous."
Click to expand...


That's bullshit Zionist propaganda.  We have immigration records that prove you are full of crap.


Of 414,456 immigrants 376,415 were Jews between 1920 and 1946,






A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University

And from the same survey:

*"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."*

A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59


A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University


----------



## Mindful

Israel.

The only place on earth where defending yourself is a crime against humanity.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Eloy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no racial "purity", full stop. Unfortunately political dogmas like Nazism, Turanism, and Zionism keep on pushing this myth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. I could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not funny. Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?
Click to expand...


Many black Ethiopian Jews were lucky enough to come to Israel to escape famine.  I believe 14,000 came in one shot.


----------



## Eloy

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. I could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not funny. Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many black Ethiopian Jews were lucky enough to come to Israel to escape famine.  I believe 14,000 came in one shot.
Click to expand...

So Sammy Davis Jr, did have a right to return to Hebron. Good to know. Thanks.


----------



## MJB12741

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me. Would you like to see the destruction of the Jewish people? Both physically and spiritually?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. I could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not funny. Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many black Ethiopian Jews were lucky enough to come to Israel to escape famine.  I believe 14,000 came in one shot.
Click to expand...


In all of the Middle East, only Israel has citizens from all over the world of numerous living faiths, including Muslim Palestinians who even have equal voting rights in the Knesset.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. I could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not funny. Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many black Ethiopian Jews were lucky enough to come to Israel to escape famine.  I believe 14,000 came in one shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all of the Middle East, only Israel has citizens from all over the world of numerous living faiths, including Muslim Palestinians who even have equal voting rights in the Knesset.
Click to expand...


And has anyone heard of any Muslim Palestinian citizen of Israel who wants to leave to go live in some Arab country?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Eloy said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. I could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not funny. Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many black Ethiopian Jews were lucky enough to come to Israel to escape famine.  I believe 14,000 came in one shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Sammy Davis Jr, did have a right to return to Hebron. Good to know. Thanks.
Click to expand...


I don't think he was interested in doing that.  He was about as Jewish as Ivanka Trump.  But anyone should have a right to live in Hebron, and especially Jews.  About Hebron per se:  After the riots of 1929, when 67 Jews were axed to death and the rest driven out of that holy city, no Jews lived there.  After 1967, Israel kept it that way.  But Jews built a settlement outside the city called Kiryat Arba.  Still, Jews would venture into the city, on the Sabbath, to pray at Abraham's Tomb.  Well, this was too much for the Arabs, and in 1980 they killed six students who came there to pray on the Sabbath.  After that, just to get back at the bloodthirsty Arabs, Israel allowed Jews to move back into Hebron, the birthplace of Judaism.  So if Jews live in Hebron today (horror of horrors!), the Arabs only have themselves to blame.


----------



## Eloy

MJB12741 said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define "Jewish people"?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. I could be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not funny. Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many black Ethiopian Jews were lucky enough to come to Israel to escape famine.  I believe 14,000 came in one shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all of the Middle East, only Israel has citizens from all over the world of numerous living faiths, including Muslim Palestinians who even have equal voting rights in the Knesset.
Click to expand...

Israel is increasingly a multi-faith and multi-cultural country.


----------



## Eloy

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. I could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not funny. Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many black Ethiopian Jews were lucky enough to come to Israel to escape famine.  I believe 14,000 came in one shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Sammy Davis Jr, did have a right to return to Hebron. Good to know. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think he was interested in doing that.  He was about as Jewish as Ivanka Trump.  But anyone should have a right to live in Hebron, and especially Jews.  About Hebron per se:  After the riots of 1929, when 67 Jews were axed to death and the rest driven out of that holy city, no Jews lived there.  After 1967, Israel kept it that way.  But Jews built a settlement outside the city called Kiryat Arba.  Still, Jews would venture into the city, on the Sabbath, to pray at Abraham's Tomb.  Well, this was too much for the Arabs, and in 1980 they killed six students who came there to pray on the Sabbath.  After that, just to get back at the bloodthirsty Arabs, Israel allowed Jews to move back into Hebron, the birthplace of Judaism.  So if Jews live in Hebron today (horror of horrors!), the Arabs only have themselves to blame.
Click to expand...

Well, Sammy Davis Jr. according to Israeli law could have "returned" to Hebron to live. I accept this although I see how bogus it really is.


----------



## fanger

On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel.
Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian

not by "a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations".
Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks


----------



## fanger

"It was not created out of Palestinian lands, but rather out of the Ottoman Empire, which had been ruled for 400 years by the Turks who lost it when they, fighting alongside Germany, were defeated in World War I. There were no “Palestinian” lands at the time because there were no people claiming to be Palestinians, but rather simply Arabs who lived in the region of Palestine."
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia


----------



## rhodescholar

MJB12741 said:


> And has anyone heard of any Muslim Palestinian citizen of Israel who wants to leave to go live in some Arab country?



They are regularly polled about this and have repeatedly said they would never live in an arab muslim country because they know how much better the quality of life is under jewish Israeli rule - even in the WB they don't even want to live under PA/arab muslim rule.

So funny how much the leftist shit around the world, plus the arab muslims outside of Israel/WB/gaza want to control the political existence of the pals, except they themselves are quite happy on their own.  Too fucking funny.


----------



## rhodescholar

montelatici said:


> That's bullshit (garbage deleted)



Here's reality:

Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia

"Martin Gilbert estimated that 50,000 Arabs immigrated to Mandatory Palestine from neighboring lands between 1919 and 1939 "attracted by the improving agricultural conditions and growing job opportunities, most of them created by the Jews".[45] According to Itzhak Galnoor, although most of the local Palestinian community's growth was the result of natural increase, Arab immigration to Palestine was significant. Based on his estimates, approximately 100,000 Arabs immigrated to Palestine between 1922 and 1948.[46]"

"It has been suggested that the British turned a blind eye to large-scale Arab illegal immigration, and instead disproportionately focused on Jewish illegal immigration. In particular, Freddy Liebreich claimed that significant undocumented Arab immigration, much of it from the Hauran region of Syria, did take place during the Mandate era, and that the British authorities largely ignored it. According to Liebreich: "Jewish illegal immigration was minutely detailed and meticulously recorded but all references to Arab illegal immigration were, perhaps deliberately, obscured.""

Debunking the claim that “Palestinians” are the indigenous people of Israel - Blogs - Jerusalem Post

"Meanwhile, there are no records to support the Palestinian narrative. In history, art and literature there is no trace at all of any Muslim people referred to by anybody as “Palestinians.”

Despite the substantial documentation assembled by Peters, demonstrating massive Arab immigration into Palestine, anti-Israel propagandists continue to deny it. Based on what we know today, and the simple truths of basic math, the issue has become clear and unambiguous. All historic records indicate that only insignificant number of long-term settled Muslims were present in Palestine before 1882, when the large Jewish immigration began. Muslim Arab numbers increased dramatically as Jewish settlements developed infrastructure and provided work opportunities to Arabs from the neighboring countries.  Also worth noting is that the “indigenous” 4.3% comprised many non-Arab nationalities. All of them were swamped by the Arab immigrants and within a few generations largely lost their identity. 

*Given the complete absence of any historical record to the contrary, we can authoritatively say that the “Palestinian people” never existed until they were invented in the 1960s as a tool for continuing the Arab war against Israel."*

Fuck off idiot asshole.


----------



## rhodescholar

2nd response:



montelatici said:


> That's bullshit



1) Your link mentions nothing about illegal arab muslim immigration, nor does it discuss immigration prior to 1920.  

2) That link does not discuss rural arab territory, idiot asshole.  Next time read what you post, fucking turd.

"34. Arab rural areas. There are no data available as to the amount of building construction in Arab rural areas;"

You lose, yet again, fuckbrain retard.


----------



## MJB12741

rhodescholar said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And has anyone heard of any Muslim Palestinian citizen of Israel who wants to leave to go live in some Arab country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are regularly polled about this and have repeatedly said they would never live in an arab muslim country because they know how much better the quality of life is under jewish Israeli rule - even in the WB they don't even want to live under PA/arab muslim rule.
> 
> So funny how much the leftist shit around the world, plus the arab muslims outside of Israel/WB/gaza want to control the political existence of the pals, except they themselves are quite happy on their own.  Too fucking funny.
Click to expand...


I think we all agree the Muslim Arab country treatment of Palestinians is hard to forgive.  And yet has anyone heard a single Palestinian supporter complaint about that?  Let us all join together & pray Israel will end its Zionist agenda of peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to Palestinians to provoke them & start treating them like their Arab brothers do to end their criticism of Israel.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## rhodescholar

MJB12741 said:


> I think we all agree the Muslim Arab country treatment of Palestinians is hard to forgive.  And yet has anyone heard a single Palestinian supporter complaint about that?  Let us all join together & pray Israel will end its Zionist agenda of peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to Palestinians to provoke them & start treating them like their Arab brothers do to end their criticism of Israel.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!



I especially laughed when one of their so-called brothers - a true, blue protector indeed - assad in syria, bombed the living crap out of them in Latakia.

As a result, did we see the arab muslim filth and their leftist trash marching down main streets across the world like that vermin did after Israel killed the 9 terrorist pieces of shit on the Turkish ship?  Of course not.  

The arab muslim dogs are incredibly fortunate it is the jews they are dealing with; ANY, and I do mean ANY other people in the position of the jews, after having endured centuries of massacres and relentless terrorism by the arab muslim filth would have obliterated them for over 1,000 miles.


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And has anyone heard of any Muslim Palestinian citizen of Israel who wants to leave to go live in some Arab country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are regularly polled about this and have repeatedly said they would never live in an arab muslim country because they know how much better the quality of life is under jewish Israeli rule - even in the WB they don't even want to live under PA/arab muslim rule.
> 
> So funny how much the leftist shit around the world, plus the arab muslims outside of Israel/WB/gaza want to control the political existence of the pals, except they themselves are quite happy on their own.  Too fucking funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all agree the Muslim Arab country treatment of Palestinians is hard to forgive.  And yet has anyone heard a single Palestinian supporter complaint about that?  Let us all join together & pray Israel will end its Zionist agenda of peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to Palestinians to provoke them & start treating them like their Arab brothers do to end their criticism of Israel.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
Click to expand...


You do realise this forum is about the conflict between Zionist Israel and Palestine? If people want to complain about how Palestinians are treated elsewhere in the world, they should post in the appropriate forum, do keep up.


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew. I could be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not funny. Really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many black Ethiopian Jews were lucky enough to come to Israel to escape famine.  I believe 14,000 came in one shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all of the Middle East, only Israel has citizens from all over the world of numerous living faiths, including Muslim Palestinians who even have equal voting rights in the Knesset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And has anyone heard of any Muslim Palestinian citizen of Israel who wants to leave to go live in some Arab country?
Click to expand...

Staying put is an act of resistance against the Zionist colonisation of their lands, to leave would mean surrender.


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit (garbage deleted)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's reality:
> 
> Demographic history of Palestine (region) - Wikipedia
> 
> "Martin Gilbert estimated that 50,000 Arabs immigrated to Mandatory Palestine from neighboring lands between 1919 and 1939 "attracted by the improving agricultural conditions and growing job opportunities, most of them created by the Jews".[45] According to Itzhak Galnoor, although most of the local Palestinian community's growth was the result of natural increase, Arab immigration to Palestine was significant. Based on his estimates, approximately 100,000 Arabs immigrated to Palestine between 1922 and 1948.[46]"
> 
> "It has been suggested that the British turned a blind eye to large-scale Arab illegal immigration, and instead disproportionately focused on Jewish illegal immigration. In particular, Freddy Liebreich claimed that significant undocumented Arab immigration, much of it from the Hauran region of Syria, did take place during the Mandate era, and that the British authorities largely ignored it. According to Liebreich: "Jewish illegal immigration was minutely detailed and meticulously recorded but all references to Arab illegal immigration were, perhaps deliberately, obscured.""
> 
> Debunking the claim that “Palestinians” are the indigenous people of Israel - Blogs - Jerusalem Post
> 
> "Meanwhile, there are no records to support the Palestinian narrative. In history, art and literature there is no trace at all of any Muslim people referred to by anybody as “Palestinians.”
> 
> Despite the substantial documentation assembled by Peters, demonstrating massive Arab immigration into Palestine, anti-Israel propagandists continue to deny it. Based on what we know today, and the simple truths of basic math, the issue has become clear and unambiguous. All historic records indicate that only insignificant number of long-term settled Muslims were present in Palestine before 1882, when the large Jewish immigration began. Muslim Arab numbers increased dramatically as Jewish settlements developed infrastructure and provided work opportunities to Arabs from the neighboring countries.  Also worth noting is that the “indigenous” 4.3% comprised many non-Arab nationalities. All of them were swamped by the Arab immigrants and within a few generations largely lost their identity.
> 
> *Given the complete absence of any historical record to the contrary, we can authoritatively say that the “Palestinian people” never existed until they were invented in the 1960s as a tool for continuing the Arab war against Israel."*
> 
> Fuck off idiot asshole.
Click to expand...



Wiki.  You are hilarious.  We have historical fact from official surveys and census data and you post Zionist propaganda propagated by Hasbara Wiki editors.  Your wiki article is bullshit that is debunked by facts from census and survey data.  The only swamping was that of the Zionist colonists.  As the facts confirm.  Before 1862 Palestine was close to 100% Muslim and Christian. Only a handful of Jews were in Palestine before 1850. 

*"30 July 1921*

*AN INTERIM REPORT*
*ON THE*
*CIVIL ADMINISTRATION*
*OF*

*PALESTINE,*

*during the period*
*1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.*


*AN INTERIM REPORT*
*ON THE*
*CIVIL ADMINISTRATION*
*OF*
*PALESTINE.*

*I.--THE CONDITION OF PALESTINE AFTER THE WAR.*

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

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


----------



## rhodescholar

Challenger said:


> Staying put is an act of resistance against the Zionist colonisation of their lands, to leave would mean surrender.



How is it "their" lands, XXXX ?  What the fuck is "arab land"?

Scumbags like you scream "racism!" whenever someone besides an arab muslim extends sovereignty in the mideast, but guess what fucking retard, there are A LOT of people other than the arab muslims with far more legitimate claims to sovereignty in the region.


----------



## rhodescholar

Hey, what happened to monte the turd?  Guess that POS lying filth didn't think anyone would actually read the long article in her link, which hilariously proved her wrong.

Gotta love the lying, jew-hating dogshit like that that permeates this forum, they are like hanging pinatas and I'm wielding a 3-feet wide bat.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And has anyone heard of any Muslim Palestinian citizen of Israel who wants to leave to go live in some Arab country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are regularly polled about this and have repeatedly said they would never live in an arab muslim country because they know how much better the quality of life is under jewish Israeli rule - even in the WB they don't even want to live under PA/arab muslim rule.
> 
> So funny how much the leftist shit around the world, plus the arab muslims outside of Israel/WB/gaza want to control the political existence of the pals, except they themselves are quite happy on their own.  Too fucking funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we all agree the Muslim Arab country treatment of Palestinians is hard to forgive.  And yet has anyone heard a single Palestinian supporter complaint about that?  Let us all join together & pray Israel will end its Zionist agenda of peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to Palestinians to provoke them & start treating them like their Arab brothers do to end their criticism of Israel.  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realise this forum is about the conflict between Zionist Israel and Palestine? If people want to complain about how Palestinians are treated elsewhere in the world, they should post in the appropriate forum, do keep up.
Click to expand...


Right on.  That is why I despise the Zionists for provoking the Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions instead of helping to free them back to their native homelands.


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Staying put is an act of resistance against the Zionist colonisation of their lands, to leave would mean surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it "their" lands, c-nt?  What the fuck is "arab land"?
> 
> Scumbags like you scream "racism!" whenever someone besides an arab muslim extends sovereignty in the mideast, but guess what fucking retard, there are A LOT of people other than the arab muslims with far more legitimate claims to sovereignty in the region.
Click to expand...


And who would these people be that have "more legitimate claims to sovereignty in the region" over the native inhabitants who happened to have adopted Arabic as a language and for the most part converted to Christianity and Islam centuries ago?  Surely not Europeans, they of course were colonizers.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Staying put is an act of resistance against the Zionist colonisation of their lands, to leave would mean surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it "their" lands, c-nt?  What the fuck is "arab land"?
> 
> Scumbags like you scream "racism!" whenever someone besides an arab muslim extends sovereignty in the mideast, but guess what fucking retard, there are A LOT of people other than the arab muslims with far more legitimate claims to sovereignty in the region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who would these people be that have "more legitimate claims to sovereignty in the region" over the native inhabitants who happened to have adopted Arabic as a language and for the most part converted to Christianity and Islam centuries ago?  Surely not Europeans, they of course were colonizers.
Click to expand...


Since when did the xtian Crusaders become "native inhabitants"? 

Why would "native inhabitants" need to have "adopted Arabic"?


----------



## Eloy

Challenger said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eloy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not funny. Really.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to know if Sammy Davis Jr. had a right to return to his homeland in Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many black Ethiopian Jews were lucky enough to come to Israel to escape famine.  I believe 14,000 came in one shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all of the Middle East, only Israel has citizens from all over the world of numerous living faiths, including Muslim Palestinians who even have equal voting rights in the Knesset.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And has anyone heard of any Muslim Palestinian citizen of Israel who wants to leave to go live in some Arab country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Staying put is an act of resistance against the Zionist colonisation of their lands, to leave would mean surrender.
Click to expand...

If Palestinian Israelis were to leave their homeland it would destroy the multi-ethnic, multi-religious demographics of Israel.


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> Hey, what happened to monte the turd?  Guess that POS lying filth didn't think anyone would actually read the long article in her link, which hilariously proved her wrong.
> 
> Gotta love the lying, jew-hating dogshit like that that permeates this forum, they are like hanging pinatas and I'm wielding a 3-feet wide bat.



The Interim Report of the Mandatory proves that you are just repeating propaganda, i.e. lies.  The facts are the facts.  There is nothing that can change the facts.  Before the internet access to source documents was limited, now all the crap propaganda you spout can be debunked instantly. Making you look like the clown you are.


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> 2nd response:
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Your link mentions nothing about illegal arab muslim immigration, nor does it discuss immigration prior to 1920.
> 
> 2) That link does not discuss rural arab territory, idiot asshole.  Next time read what you post, fucking turd.
> 
> "34. Arab rural areas. There are no data available as to the amount of building construction in Arab rural areas;"
> 
> You lose, yet again, fuckbrain retard.
Click to expand...


I always win, you just don't read the source documentation.



*"59. The conclusion is that Arab illegal immigration for the purposes of permanent settlement is insignificant."*

A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 212, para. 59


The illegal immigration was that of European Jews.



" *It follows that the Jewish population may now include between 50,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants* who have settled in Palestine at any time since 1920 when the first Immigration Ordinance was enacted. The number of Jewish illegal immigrants recorded during 1945 is 370."

A Survey of Palestine Vol 1, page 210, para. 54

A Survey of Palestine Volume 1  | Berman Jewish Policy Archive @ Stanford University

Keep up the clown dancing.


----------



## rhodescholar

montelatici said:


> Wiki.



The other link wasn't wikipedia you stupid fucking worthless c-nt, and it was YOUR link that discussed large-scale arab muslim immigration from the 1800s forward.



> We have historical fact from official surveys and census data



Which prove large numbers of arab muslims moved from syria, egypt and jordan - which is where their names came from, fucking retard.

The census' from the Turks in the 1850s forward through to the ones by the British show huge increases in arab population which can only be attributed to mass illegal immgration.  Sucks to be wrong like you every day, isn't it idiot asshole?



> Your wiki article is bullshit that is debunked by facts from census and survey data.



As usual, no facts, no brains - just whining and crying by the house pro-arab terror apologist, low IQ idiot retard.  Time to change your diaper, retard.


----------



## rhodescholar

montelatici said:


> The Interim Report of the Mandatory proves



Low IQ retarded idiot, the British reports were shown to have obscured the actual numbers of the arab illegal immigration.

Must suck to be as stupid as you are, fucking mongoloid.  Too bad all the lies and garbage you and your arab muslim filth spew cannot change the facts in Peters' book, how sad for you, idiot.


----------



## rhodescholar

montelatici said:


> I always win, you just don't read the source documentation.



Repeating, since your low IQ didn't allow you to absorb it the first time:

*1) Your link mentions nothing about illegal arab muslim immigration, nor does it discuss immigration prior to 1920.  

2) That link does not discuss rural arab territory, idiot asshole. Next time read what you post, fucking turd.

"34. Arab rural areas. There are no data available as to the amount of building construction in Arab rural areas;"*

You lose, yet again, fuckbrain retard.  C-nt, I've been dealing with racist, jewhating dogshit like you for 5 fucking decades, you cannot defeat me - EVER.  EVER.  Lying, racist arab muslim trash like you are a dime a dozen.


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The other link wasn't wikipedia you stupid fucking worthless c-nt, and it was YOUR link that discussed large-scale arab muslim immigration from the 1800s forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have historical fact from official surveys and census data
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which prove large numbers of arab muslims moved from syria, egypt and jordan - which is where their names came from, fucking retard.
> 
> The census' from the Turks in the 1850s forward through to the ones by the British show huge increases in arab population which can only be attributed to mass illegal immgration.  Sucks to be wrong like you every day, isn't it idiot asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your wiki article is bullshit that is debunked by facts from census and survey data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As usual, no facts, no brains - just whining and crying by the house pro-arab terror apologist, low IQ idiot retard.  Time to change your diaper, retard.
Click to expand...


All facts from source documentation.  You post Hasbara propaganda exclusively and make things up, you have no source documentation to support your bullshit.  I have and link to source documentation that debunks your wiki bullshit.

But I have much more source documentation to demonstrate that you are a purveyor of Zionist/Hasbara lies. Keep dancing clown.


*"UNITED*
*NATIONS
A*







*General Assembly*













 A/364
3 September 1947
*OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF *
*THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*

(b) IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

*16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths."*

https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3


----------



## rhodescholar

Eloy said:


> If Palestinian Israelis were to leave their homeland it would destroy the multi-ethnic, multi-religious demographics of Israel.



And Israel would then look like all of the arab muslim countries; primarily one ethnicity.  Except it wouldn't have gotten there by ethnically cleansing their minorities the way the arab muslim countries did/are doing.


----------



## rhodescholar

montelatici said:


> I have and link to source documentation that debunks your wiki bullshit. But I have much more source documentation.



That report is AS WRONG as you are, stupid fucking turd c-nt idiot asshole.

The table showing a TRIPLING of the arab muslim population from 1922 in just 25 years from 486K to 1.2 MM which would NOT be possible without mass immigration, you stupid fucking asshole.  There have been many scholars who have shown how the British reports obscured the arab illegal immigration to maintain good arab relations as shown in my prior link - only a moron as stupid as you denies this fact.  Fuck off asshole, and choke to death at your next meal and make this world a MUCH better place.


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always win, you just don't read the source documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating, since your low IQ didn't allow you to absorb it the first time:
> 
> *1) Your link mentions nothing about illegal arab muslim immigration, nor does it discuss immigration prior to 1920.
> 
> 2) That link does not discuss rural arab territory, idiot asshole. Next time read what you post, fucking turd.
> 
> "34. Arab rural areas. There are no data available as to the amount of building construction in Arab rural areas;"*
> 
> You lose, yet again, fuckbrain retard.  C-nt, I've been dealing with racist, jewhating dogshit like you for 5 fucking decades, you cannot defeat me - EVER.  EVER.  Lying, racist arab muslim trash like you are a dime a dozen.
Click to expand...


Clown dancing again.  Now you claim that this massive Muslim and Christian immigration to Palestine occurred before 1920.  

How about the Ottoman 1893 census which shows that there were about 250,000 Muslims and Christians and 8,000 Jews in the Kudus Special District which was comprised of Jerusalem and environs about half to two thirds of mandatory Palestine.






Kemal H.karpat, Ottoman Population, 1830-1914


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have and link to source documentation that debunks your wiki bullshit. But I have much more source documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That report is AS WRONG as you are, stupid fucking turd c-nt idiot asshole.
> 
> The table showing a TRIPLING of the arab muslim population from 1922 in just 25 years from 486K to 1.2 MM which would NOT be possible without mass immigration, you stupid fucking asshole.  There have been many scholars who have shown how the British reports obscured the arab illegal immigration to maintain good arab relations as shown in my prior link - only a moron as stupid as you denies this fact.  Fuck off asshole, and choke to death at your next meal and make this world a MUCH better place.
Click to expand...


Now that's funny, official census reports are wrong and the bullshit Zionist propaganda is accurate.  You are great for laughs.  You are an embarrassing excuse for a Rhodes scholar. LOL  Oh, your obscene insults are a pathetic demonstration that you are full of shit.


----------



## rhodescholar

montelatici said:


> Now you claim that this massive Muslim and Christian immigration to Palestine occurred before 1920.


 
Keep moving the goal posts idiot retard.  Explain how the report YOU linked that showed a pop increase from 400K to 1.2 MM in 20 years yet claimed that that was entirely due to births?  *To anyone with a brain - which does not include you - could see that the report was written with a political agenda, which is what was claimed in my earlier link, that the Brits tried to obscure illegal arab muslim immigration.*

But you keep changing the subject scumbag, you are proving why I put you on ignore years ago - you are a worthless, dishonest, racist piece of unintelligent trash who I normally walk right past in the street without even noticing your pandhandling sign.  You're fucking garbage, and a failure in this life - how sad for you, but don't worry, maybe in the next life you won't be laughed at so often.


----------



## rhodescholar

Notice how the c-nt ignores the massive increase in population of arab muslims in 1850 forward, showing that HUGE numbers of arab muslim moved into the mandate from the late 19th century?  The idiot c-nt pretends the arab population was 400K for 1,000 years - then all of a sudden in the late 1800s, they suddenly started having lots of babies - such fucking garbage.  The retarded moron cannot think for itself to question how/why was the population allegedly stable for so many centuries, then all of a sudden it began to magically increase to where within 50 years would be 4 times higher.

Racist, low IQ trash like monte the fucking dog aren't very interesting; they are fun for about a minute to pummel - but then get boring.

People with the intelligence to reason beyond an agenda make for good debaters, where they can actually think for themselves, but scumbags like monte the turd totally lacks that ability, which contributes to making her so boring...


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you claim that this massive Muslim and Christian immigration to Palestine occurred before 1920.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep moving the goal posts idiot retard.  Explain how the report YOU linked that showed a pop increase from 400K to 1.2 MM in 20 years yet claimed that that was entirely due to births?  *To anyone with a brain - which does not include you - could see that the report was written with a political agenda, which is what was claimed in my earlier link, that the Brits tried to obscure illegal arab muslim immigration.*
> 
> But you keep changing the subject scumbag, you are proving why I put you on ignore years ago - you are a worthless, dishonest, racist piece of unintelligent trash who I normally walk right past in the street without even noticing your pandhandling sign.  You're fucking garbage, and a failure in this life - how sad for you, but don't worry, maybe in the next life you won't be laughed at so often.
Click to expand...


I made no claims, I posted the source documentation that contained the official data, both Ottoman, British, and U.S., and links to said documentation that demonstrate that you are full of shit.  Note: The Survey of Palestine was drafted by the Anglo-American Committee as chartered to do so by the U.N.  

It is extraordinary that the Ottomans, the British and the U.S. had the same political agenda.  LOL


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> Notice how the c-nt ignores the massive increase in population of arab muslims in 1850 forward, showing that HUGE numbers of arab muslim moved into the mandate from the late 19th century?  The idiot c-nt pretends the arab population was 400K for 1,000 years - then all of a sudden in the late 1800s, they suddenly started having lots of babies - such fucking garbage.  The retarded moron cannot think for itself to question how/why was the population allegedly stable for so many centuries, then all of a sudden it began to magically increase to where within 50 years would be 4 times higher.
> 
> Racist, low IQ trash like monte the fucking dog aren't very interesting; they are fun for about a minute to pummel - but then get boring.
> 
> People with the intelligence to reason beyond an agenda make for good debaters, where they can actually think for themselves, but scumbags like monte the turd totally lacks that ability, which contributes to making her so boring...



I posted official census data and reports, you just make it up as you go.  Surely a winning debate tactic. 

You are a clown.


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you claim that this massive Muslim and Christian immigration to Palestine occurred before 1920.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep moving the goal posts idiot retard.  Explain how the report YOU linked that showed a pop increase from 400K to 1.2 MM in 20 years yet claimed that that was entirely due to births?  *To anyone with a brain - which does not include you - could see that the report was written with a political agenda, which is what was claimed in my earlier link, that the Brits tried to obscure illegal arab muslim immigration.*
> 
> But you keep changing the subject scumbag, you are proving why I put you on ignore years ago - you are a worthless, dishonest, racist piece of unintelligent trash who I normally walk right past in the street without even noticing your pandhandling sign.  You're fucking garbage, and a failure in this life - how sad for you, but don't worry, maybe in the next life you won't be laughed at so often.
Click to expand...


The only population that had an extraordinary increase was the Jewish population.  The Muslim, Christian and "others" increased at about the same rate, as depicted in the table included in A/364,






A/364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## rhodescholar

montelatici said:


> The only population that had an extraordinary increase was the Jewish population.



See how the retarded idiot ignores the leftmost column, called "moslems", and how its pop almost increased 3-fold in 20 years?  Of course this turd won't want to address it, any more than how it refuses to address how the British were found to be modifying the data to obscure the largescale illegal immigration of the arab muslims.

When dealing with dishonest, filthy dogshit like this, its best to just keep laughing at it - because like most dogshit it will just blow away in the near future.


----------



## rhodescholar

montelatici said:


> I posted official census data and reports,



And those reports were long discredited, fucking retard.  You're excellent at one thing, proving how low the IQs are of the pro-arab muslim terror apologists.

How come the british/UN reports ignored the largescale arab muslim illegal immigration, retarded idiot asshole?

RESEARCH: "Palestinians" = Arab immigrants' children / Desolate land pre increased Jewish return

*Britiah Mandate policy*

"Research shows again and again that the British, whether by pressure of the violent Arabs or due to its own biased tendency, (come to think of it, in retrospect, maybe, if Jews wouldn't be so kind and tolerant, if they'd behave like the racist Arabs and be so intolerant of Arab immigrants as the Arabs were so adamantly oppose to the Jews, the outcome might have been different and a myth of "native Palestinians" would have been avoided) willfully ignored huge Arab immigration (docuemnted also by 'totally objective' authors such as Ladislas Farago in "A Palestinian Kaleidoscope, Palestine on the Eve" in the 1930s) and spinned, suppressed information and any protest about that, while putting heavy restriction on Jewish immigration exculsively. *Yet, since there's no official recorded data because of that destructive British policy, we are unable to obtain exact numbers (as the British have admitted), thus, we can only ascertain that --with no control on Arab immigration and so many coming evading British control-- the crowds were huge, as Roosevelt [criticizing British 'white paper' policy] pointed out that Arab immigration in the 1920s far exceeded that of the Jews'.*

Needless to say that in such a British anti-Zionist environment, they _couldn't_ bring themselves to admit the direct linkage between Arab population growth to Arab immigration due to Zionists' changing the face of the deserted land -- that would be a humiliating admission to its failure -- on top of everything else."


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted official census data and reports,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And those reports were long discredited, fucking retard.  You're excellent at one thing, proving how low the IQs are of the pro-arab muslim terror apologists.
> 
> How come the british/UN reports ignored the largescale arab muslim illegal immigration, retarded idiot asshole?
> 
> RESEARCH: "Palestinians" = Arab immigrants' children / Desolate land pre increased Jewish return
> 
> *Britiah Mandate policy*
> 
> "Research shows again and again that the British, whether by pressure of the violent Arabs or due to its own biased tendency, (come to think of it, in retrospect, maybe, if Jews wouldn't be so kind and tolerant, if they'd behave like the racist Arabs and be so intolerant of Arab immigrants as the Arabs were so adamantly oppose to the Jews, the outcome might have been different and a myth of "native Palestinians" would have been avoided) willfully ignored huge Arab immigration (docuemnted also by 'totally objective' authors such as Ladislas Farago in "A Palestinian Kaleidoscope, Palestine on the Eve" in the 1930s) and spinned, suppressed information and any protest about that, while putting heavy restriction on Jewish immigration exculsively. *Yet, since there's no official recorded data because of that destructive British policy, we are unable to obtain exact numbers (as the British have admitted), thus, we can only ascertain that --with no control on Arab immigration and so many coming evading British control-- the crowds were huge, as Roosevelt [criticizing British 'white paper' policy] pointed out that Arab immigration in the 1920s far exceeded that of the Jews'.*
> 
> Needless to say that in such a British anti-Zionist environment, they _couldn't_ bring themselves to admit the direct linkage between Arab population growth to Arab immigration due to Zionists' changing the face of the deserted land -- that would be a humiliating admission to its failure -- on top of everything else."
Click to expand...



Sure "Free Republic" is a reliable source.  Clown. I present contemporaneous  the source documents, you present propaganda assembled in attempt rewrite history.  Doesn't work anymore clown, the facts are available on-line from academic institutions, international organization archives and government archives. 

Now the authors of the Balfour Declaration who made it possible for the European Jews to colonize Palestine at the expense of the native population were anti-Zionists.  That takes the cake as propaganda. LOL

Had there been massive non-Jew immigration equal to the Jew colonization there would have about 7 million Muslims and Christians in Palestine by 1946, you moron.  Can't do the math either, you clown.





A/364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## Shusha

@monte,

rhodescholar is right.  There is a massive increase in the Muslim population between 1931 and 1941 -- the population nearly doubling in ten years.  Its especially interesting given that in the previous ten years the population rose hardly at all.  Surely, you can't be attributing this massive increase in growth to birth rates alone?


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> @monte,
> 
> rhodescholar is right.  There is a massive increase in the Muslim population between 1931 and 1941 -- the population nearly doubling in ten years.  Its especially interesting given that in the previous ten years the population rose hardly at all.  Surely, you can't be attributing this massive increase in growth to birth rates alone?



I don't make any claims, I let experts on the ground   at the time state the facts.  I just provide links to the facts. The massive increase was Jewish, 7 or 8 fold, the Muslim and Christian increase, about the same rate, was entirely due to natural increase.  Those are the facts.



*"UNITED
NATIONS
A*






*General Assembly*













 A/364
3 September 1947
*OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF 
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*


*SUPPLEMENT No. 11*



*UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE*

"(b) IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

*16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. "

A/364 of 3 September 1947*


----------



## montelatici

You are the clown, you are providing the entertainment and comedy.  I make no claims I post the facts. The Jewish population increased 7 fold in 20 years you moron.  You really haven't quite figured out the math, moron.  Nor have you have a clue of the rule of 70 in population growth.  Look it up moron.  Better yet, moron, how about a lesson in population mathematics. Today, Lebanon has an annual  population growth rate of 9.3%, the rule of 70 states that population doubles every 10 years when a society has an annual growth rate of 7%.  The sources that provide you with the propaganda you parrot are as stupid as you are.  They don't understand that some of us goyim are smarter than they are.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> @monte,
> 
> rhodescholar is right.  There is a massive increase in the Muslim population between 1931 and 1941 -- the population nearly doubling in ten years.  Its especially interesting given that in the previous ten years the population rose hardly at all.  Surely, you can't be attributing this massive increase in growth to birth rates alone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make any claims, I let experts on the ground   at the time state the facts.  I just provide links to the facts. The massive increase was Jewish, 7 or 8 fold, the Muslim and Christian increase, about the same rate, was entirely due to natural increase.  Those are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> *"UNITED
> NATIONS
> A*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *General Assembly*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/364
> 3 September 1947
> *OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
> THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> 
> *SUPPLEMENT No. 11*
> 
> 
> 
> *UNITED NATIONS
> SPECIAL COMMITTEE
> ON PALESTINE*
> 
> "(b) IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE
> 
> 15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.
> 
> *16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. "
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947*
Click to expand...


Actually, we know your article is flawed.

The Arabs in Palestine

*A Population Boom *
As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947. 

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943. 

The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> @monte,
> 
> rhodescholar is right.  There is a massive increase in the Muslim population between 1931 and 1941 -- the population nearly doubling in ten years.  Its especially interesting given that in the previous ten years the population rose hardly at all.  Surely, you can't be attributing this massive increase in growth to birth rates alone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't make any claims, I let experts on the ground   at the time state the facts.  I just provide links to the facts. The massive increase was Jewish, 7 or 8 fold, the Muslim and Christian increase, about the same rate, was entirely due to natural increase.  Those are the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> *"UNITED
> NATIONS
> A*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *General Assembly*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/364
> 3 September 1947
> *OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
> THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*
> 
> 
> *SUPPLEMENT No. 11*
> 
> 
> 
> *UNITED NATIONS
> SPECIAL COMMITTEE
> ON PALESTINE*
> 
> "(b) IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE
> 
> 15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.
> 
> *16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths. "
> 
> A/364 of 3 September 1947*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we know your article is flawed.
> 
> The Arabs in Palestine
> 
> *A Population Boom *
> As Hussein foresaw, the regeneration of Palestine, and the growth of its population, came only after Jews returned in massive numbers. The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.
> 
> This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.
> 
> The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 19221947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem.
Click to expand...


So true that when Israel developed the near wasteland into a thriving metropolis here came hoards of Palestinians to claim it's their land.


----------



## Shusha

montelatici said:


> You are the clown, you are providing the entertainment and comedy.  I make no claims I post the facts. The Jewish population increased 7 fold in 20 years you moron.  You really haven't quite figured out the math, moron.  Nor have you have a clue of the rule of 70 in population growth.  Look it up moron.  Better yet, moron, how about a lesson in population mathematics. Today, Lebanon has an annual  population growth rate of 9.3%, the rule of 70 states that population doubles every 10 years when a society has an annual growth rate of 7%.  The sources that provide you with the propaganda you parrot are as stupid as you are.  They don't understand that some of us goyim are smarter than they are.



The question we are posing is WHY the growth rate changed so drastically in the Arab Muslim population from one decade to another.  Surely, you are not attributing that to birth rate alone, are you?


----------



## rhodescholar

Wow, you REALLY are a retarded idiot asshole, on so many fronts:



montelatici said:


> I make no claims I post the facts.



2 lies in one sentence by the retarded idiot.  1-you are claiming that the arab muslims were indigenous, which they clearly weren't as your own link shows in the population growth. 2-you post garbage, because you ARE garbage, you have the lowest IQ of any of the pro-arab muslim terror supporters on this forum, congratulations dogshit - you're the best at something.



> The Jewish population increased 7 fold in 20 years



Who is denying that here, retarded little monkey?



> You really haven't quite figured out



Idiot retard, we have ALL figured out what a lying piece of shit you are, which is why we laugh at all of your posts.  That you think you are respected by anyone here is hilarious, you're a fucking piece of lowlife trash.  You are a bottom-feeding, welfare collecting, cock-sucking turd whose best possible outcome can be found by you putting a bullet in your skull and making the world a much better place.  

To summarize for the adults and non-mentally ill, there were 400K arab muslims for DECADES in the region, if not centuries - but then all of a sudden they had MASSIVE growth TRIPLING in population from 1931 to 1945 - which would be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 4 that there was large-scale immigration by them into the region.  But we have lying frauds and disgusting scumbags like monte the pussy who fucks men for money, who pretends that ALL of the arab muslims are "indigenous" to the region, which is clearly false - and is easily destroyed using the retard's own links, even funnier.

I guess we should thank monte the pussy for providing such excellent links, they do an excellent job of proving EVERYTHING we are claiming, how the arab muslims are immigrants from the neighboring countries.  Thanks monte the pussy, you can go back to your street corner now, and do what you do best.  Or there's the welfare office, if you prefer your usual choice for clients.


----------



## montelatici

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the clown, you are providing the entertainment and comedy.  I make no claims I post the facts. The Jewish population increased 7 fold in 20 years you moron.  You really haven't quite figured out the math, moron.  Nor have you have a clue of the rule of 70 in population growth.  Look it up moron.  Better yet, moron, how about a lesson in population mathematics. Today, Lebanon has an annual  population growth rate of 9.3%, the rule of 70 states that population doubles every 10 years when a society has an annual growth rate of 7%.  The sources that provide you with the propaganda you parrot are as stupid as you are.  They don't understand that some of us goyim are smarter than they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question we are posing is WHY the growth rate changed so drastically in the Arab Muslim population from one decade to another.  Surely, you are not attributing that to birth rate alone, are you?
Click to expand...


Post war increased fertility rates and a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health as envisioned by the Mandatory's tutelage per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.  

The French Mandate for Syria underwent the same rise (or more) in population.  The Syrian population was 891,000  in 1911 and rose to 2,978,000 in 1946.  I just wonder when you clowns will realize that all of your bullshit is based on Hasbara alternate facts, or let's be honest, bad propaganda that can be easily debunked.

Syrian population growth:

SYRIA : population growth of the whole country


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question we are posing is WHY the growth rate changed so drastically in the Arab Muslim population from one decade to another.  Surely, you are not attributing that to birth rate alone, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking a retarded idiot who's developmentally disabled to perform deep analysis, which it is incapable.  monte pussy is a low IQ teenage arab muslim posting the same garbage all over the web, when she isn't fucking men for money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This clown doth protest too much regarding IQ, methinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing Palestinian land" while indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS.?
Click to expand...


Happy to see that you finally figured it out.  Both and DNA evidence and historical fact confirm the fact. Of course, common sense would lead anyone with a modicum of intelligence to same conclusion without the other evidence.

*"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam...."*

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


----------



## rhodescholar

montelatici said:


> Post war increased fertility rates and a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health as envisioned by the Mandatory's tutelage per Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.



So now the idiot retard is admitting EXACTLY what we posted, that the mass immigration of arab muslims to Israel because of the improving health conditions by the jews did occur, leading to a child mortality rate LOL.  The retard is too stupid to even recognize the contradiction that it is arguing.

Even funnier is that that report the UN report the retard keeps linking stated the arab muslims and jews had little or no interaction - so then how could the arabs' health environment/improved child mortality rate improved without outside (jewish) help?  The retarded idiot monkey is claiming that the arab somehow were able to achieve this on their very own, just too fucking funny.  How did they do that, stupid little monkey?

To any one with half of a brain which excludes the retard, our links showed (and as the arab surnames of the region also prove), that there was massive immigration of arabs from syria, egypt and jordan into Israel/web/gaza.  Even the retard admits it, if indirectly LOL - the population doubling/tripling in under 15 years HAD to have been caused by migration, but the retarded monkey thinks by repeating the same nonsense it will somehow "prove" something entirely different.



> The French Mandate for Syria underwent the same rise (or more) in population.  The Syrian population was 891,000  in 1911 and rose to 2,978,000 in 1946.



The retard now claims (asssuming the idiot's statistics are accurate) that a population that triples in size in about 40 years does so at the same rate of growth as another that does so in 15 LOL - good math skills there, little retarded monkey, and that the arabs' were able to improve their health conditions without the benefit of the jews' improving the region by draining swamps, etc.  If we had video footage of the mass arab migration, the retarded monkey would still be lying to try and deny the obvious.  Can't help but laugh at this low IQ turd.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question we are posing is WHY the growth rate changed so drastically in the Arab Muslim population from one decade to another.  Surely, you are not attributing that to birth rate alone, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're asking a retarded idiot who's developmentally disabled to perform deep analysis, which it is incapable.  monte pussy is a low IQ teenage arab muslim posting the same garbage all over the web, when she isn't fucking men for money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This clown doth protest too much regarding IQ, methinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing Palestinian land" while indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Happy to see that you finally figured it out.  Both and DNA evidence and historical fact confirm the fact. Of course, common sense would lead anyone with a modicum of intelligence to same conclusion without the other evidence.
> 
> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam...."*
> 
> Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted
Click to expand...


Yes, isn't it interesting how those Zionists in Israel are stealing their own land?


----------



## rhodescholar

montelatici said:


> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam...."*
> 
> Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted



From the retard's OWN link:

"In Palestine the "small" number of Arab invaders who had been imported by the Arabian conquerors were wiped out by disease. Thus the "myth" of the "Palestinian Arab" descending "from the Arab conquerors" appears to be factually incorrect for all but perhaps a few."

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

=============================

Does this retard even read her own links?  This article shows that there are few, if any, native arab muslim to Israel.

Could this mongoloid possibly any less intelligent LOL?  She's posting links that destroy her claims LOL, this is getting hilarious...


----------



## montelatici

Making things up again.  There was no mass immigration of non-Jews.  There was mass immigration of European Jews.  The Jewish population grew seven fold, while the Muslim and Christian population doubled through natural increase, as confirmed by the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry (Survey of Palestine) and as reiterated in the UN Partition Resolution documentation.   To repeat. 

*UNITED*
*NATIONS
A*






*General Assembly*













 A/364
3 September 1947
*OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF *
*THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*


*SUPPLEMENT No. 11*



*UNITED NATIONS*
*SPECIAL COMMITTEE*
*ON PALESTINE
*
(b) IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

*16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.*
A/364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## montelatici

rhodescholar said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam...."*
> 
> Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the retard's OWN link:
> 
> "In Palestine the "small" number of Arab invaders who had been imported by the Arabian conquerors were wiped out by disease. Thus the "myth" of the "Palestinian Arab" descending "from the Arab conquerors" appears to be factually incorrect for all but perhaps a few."
> 
> "*Thus, not only was Arab rule "extraordinarily short," but the "pure Arab peoples in Palestine for millennia" -- a romanticized notion discredited by serious scholars -- actually consisted of a non-Arabian, multi-ethnic procession of immirants."*
> 
> =============================
> 
> Does this retard even read her own links?  This article shows that there are few, if any, native arab muslim to Israel.
> 
> Could this mongoloid possibly any less intelligent LOL?  She's posting links that destroy her claims LOL, this is getting hilarious...
Click to expand...


Of course the Palestinians are non-Arabian, that's what I have always stated. As the article states:

"*Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity"
*
What's your point?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam...."*
> 
> Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the retard's OWN link:
> 
> "In Palestine the "small" number of Arab invaders who had been imported by the Arabian conquerors were wiped out by disease. Thus the "myth" of the "Palestinian Arab" descending "from the Arab conquerors" appears to be factually incorrect for all but perhaps a few."
> 
> "*Thus, not only was Arab rule "extraordinarily short," but the "pure Arab peoples in Palestine for millennia" -- a romanticized notion discredited by serious scholars -- actually consisted of a non-Arabian, multi-ethnic procession of immirants."*
> 
> =============================
> 
> Does this retard even read her own links?  This article shows that there are few, if any, native arab muslim to Israel.
> 
> Could this mongoloid possibly any less intelligent LOL?  She's posting links that destroy her claims LOL, this is getting hilarious...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the Palestinians are non-Arabian, that's what I have always stated. As the article states:
> 
> "*Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity"
> *
> What's your point?
Click to expand...


Oh now I get it.  The Palestinians are Jews for Allah.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.


----------



## Coyote

*Thread has been a cleaned over the last day.  I think it's time to remember the rules:*

*Foul language (profanity) will be loosely tolerated and at the moderators discretion at any time within any forum and/or sub-forum.*

*Posting the same cut'n'paste over and over constitutes spam - start finding some new sources or articulate what from within the source answers the argument.*

*We have word filters on this software, that were put there by the forum owners for a reason - please stop trying to bypass them.  *

*When a post contains more foul language directed at a member then it does topical content, it's not going to fly.*


----------



## MJB12741

Coyote said:


> *Thread has been a cleaned over the last day.  I think it's time to remember the rules:*
> 
> *Foul language (profanity) will be loosely tolerated and at the moderators discretion at any time within any forum and/or sub-forum.*
> 
> *Posting the same cut'n'paste over and over constitutes spam - start finding some new sources or articulate what from within the source answers the argument.*
> 
> *We have word filters on this software, that were put there by the forum owners for a reason - please stop trying to bypass them.  *
> 
> *When a post contains more foul language directed at a member then it does topical content, it's not going to fly.*



Agreed.  Let the thread continue following the board rules as the topic is thought provoking & essential to an understanding of the root cause of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam...."*
> 
> Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the retard's OWN link:
> 
> "In Palestine the "small" number of Arab invaders who had been imported by the Arabian conquerors were wiped out by disease. Thus the "myth" of the "Palestinian Arab" descending "from the Arab conquerors" appears to be factually incorrect for all but perhaps a few."
> 
> "*Thus, not only was Arab rule "extraordinarily short," but the "pure Arab peoples in Palestine for millennia" -- a romanticized notion discredited by serious scholars -- actually consisted of a non-Arabian, multi-ethnic procession of immirants."*
> 
> =============================
> 
> Does this retard even read her own links?  This article shows that there are few, if any, native arab muslim to Israel.
> 
> Could this mongoloid possibly any less intelligent LOL?  She's posting links that destroy her claims LOL, this is getting hilarious...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the Palestinians are non-Arabian, that's what I have always stated. As the article states:
> 
> "*Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity"
> *
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The Palestinians are Jews for Allah.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
Click to expand...


I see you don't understand.  Let's see if I can help your reading comprehension.  Palestinians practice Christianity and Islam for the most part today, so they they are not Jews.  Many, if not most of their ancestors practiced Judaism at one time and were Jews until they converted to Christianity and subsequently Islam.  That's what the link explains.  Hope this helps.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam...."*
> 
> Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the retard's OWN link:
> 
> "In Palestine the "small" number of Arab invaders who had been imported by the Arabian conquerors were wiped out by disease. Thus the "myth" of the "Palestinian Arab" descending "from the Arab conquerors" appears to be factually incorrect for all but perhaps a few."
> 
> "*Thus, not only was Arab rule "extraordinarily short," but the "pure Arab peoples in Palestine for millennia" -- a romanticized notion discredited by serious scholars -- actually consisted of a non-Arabian, multi-ethnic procession of immirants."*
> 
> =============================
> 
> Does this retard even read her own links?  This article shows that there are few, if any, native arab muslim to Israel.
> 
> Could this mongoloid possibly any less intelligent LOL?  She's posting links that destroy her claims LOL, this is getting hilarious...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the Palestinians are non-Arabian, that's what I have always stated. As the article states:
> 
> "*Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity"
> *
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The Palestinians are Jews for Allah.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you don't understand.  Let's see if I can help your reading comprehension.  Palestinians practice Christianity and Islam for the most part today, so they they are not Jews.  Many, if not most of their ancestors practiced Judaism at one time and were Jews until they converted to Christianity and subsequently Islam.  That's what the link explains.  Hope this helps.
Click to expand...


Let me walk you through this.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline.  Is that correct?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam...."*
> 
> Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the retard's OWN link:
> 
> "In Palestine the "small" number of Arab invaders who had been imported by the Arabian conquerors were wiped out by disease. Thus the "myth" of the "Palestinian Arab" descending "from the Arab conquerors" appears to be factually incorrect for all but perhaps a few."
> 
> "*Thus, not only was Arab rule "extraordinarily short," but the "pure Arab peoples in Palestine for millennia" -- a romanticized notion discredited by serious scholars -- actually consisted of a non-Arabian, multi-ethnic procession of immirants."*
> 
> =============================
> 
> Does this retard even read her own links?  This article shows that there are few, if any, native arab muslim to Israel.
> 
> Could this mongoloid possibly any less intelligent LOL?  She's posting links that destroy her claims LOL, this is getting hilarious...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the Palestinians are non-Arabian, that's what I have always stated. As the article states:
> 
> "*Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity"
> *
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The Palestinians are Jews for Allah.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you don't understand.  Let's see if I can help your reading comprehension.  Palestinians practice Christianity and Islam for the most part today, so they they are not Jews.  Many, if not most of their ancestors practiced Judaism at one time and were Jews until they converted to Christianity and subsequently Islam.  That's what the link explains.  Hope this helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me walk you through this.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline.  Is that correct?
Click to expand...


Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.  What is so strange about that?  Does common sense elude you?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the retard's OWN link:
> 
> "In Palestine the "small" number of Arab invaders who had been imported by the Arabian conquerors were wiped out by disease. Thus the "myth" of the "Palestinian Arab" descending "from the Arab conquerors" appears to be factually incorrect for all but perhaps a few."
> 
> "*Thus, not only was Arab rule "extraordinarily short," but the "pure Arab peoples in Palestine for millennia" -- a romanticized notion discredited by serious scholars -- actually consisted of a non-Arabian, multi-ethnic procession of immirants."*
> 
> =============================
> 
> Does this retard even read her own links?  This article shows that there are few, if any, native arab muslim to Israel.
> 
> Could this mongoloid possibly any less intelligent LOL?  She's posting links that destroy her claims LOL, this is getting hilarious...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Palestinians are non-Arabian, that's what I have always stated. As the article states:
> 
> "*Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity"
> *
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The Palestinians are Jews for Allah.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you don't understand.  Let's see if I can help your reading comprehension.  Palestinians practice Christianity and Islam for the most part today, so they they are not Jews.  Many, if not most of their ancestors practiced Judaism at one time and were Jews until they converted to Christianity and subsequently Islam.  That's what the link explains.  Hope this helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me walk you through this.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline.  Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.  What is so strange about that?  Does common sense elude you?
Click to expand...


Back to the original question.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline. Is that correct?  Yes or no?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Palestinians are non-Arabian, that's what I have always stated. As the article states:
> 
> "*Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity"
> *
> What's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The Palestinians are Jews for Allah.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you don't understand.  Let's see if I can help your reading comprehension.  Palestinians practice Christianity and Islam for the most part today, so they they are not Jews.  Many, if not most of their ancestors practiced Judaism at one time and were Jews until they converted to Christianity and subsequently Islam.  That's what the link explains.  Hope this helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me walk you through this.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline.  Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.  What is so strange about that?  Does common sense elude you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the original question.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline. Is that correct?  Yes or no?
Click to expand...


Since an Inuit (or a European, Chinese etc.) could be a Jew through conversion or an ancestor's conversion, it is improbable that a Palestinian would have an Inuit (or European, Chinese) bloodline.  So what I stated stands. 
Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the retard's OWN link:
> 
> "In Palestine the "small" number of Arab invaders who had been imported by the Arabian conquerors were wiped out by disease. Thus the "myth" of the "Palestinian Arab" descending "from the Arab conquerors" appears to be factually incorrect for all but perhaps a few."
> 
> "*Thus, not only was Arab rule "extraordinarily short," but the "pure Arab peoples in Palestine for millennia" -- a romanticized notion discredited by serious scholars -- actually consisted of a non-Arabian, multi-ethnic procession of immirants."*
> 
> =============================
> 
> Does this retard even read her own links?  This article shows that there are few, if any, native arab muslim to Israel.
> 
> Could this mongoloid possibly any less intelligent LOL?  She's posting links that destroy her claims LOL, this is getting hilarious...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Palestinians are non-Arabian, that's what I have always stated. As the article states:
> 
> "*Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity"
> *
> What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The Palestinians are Jews for Allah.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you don't understand.  Let's see if I can help your reading comprehension.  Palestinians practice Christianity and Islam for the most part today, so they they are not Jews.  Many, if not most of their ancestors practiced Judaism at one time and were Jews until they converted to Christianity and subsequently Islam.  That's what the link explains.  Hope this helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me walk you through this.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline.  Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.  What is so strange about that?  Does common sense elude you?
Click to expand...


So... you're hoping to dance around the fact that the European xtian Crusaders were the compelling reason that "most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ."

Let's be honest -because you can't - but your _Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan_ is a geographic area that has seen invasion and colonization by various cultures.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh now I get it.  The Palestinians are Jews for Allah.  Amazing what we can learn from Monte.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you don't understand.  Let's see if I can help your reading comprehension.  Palestinians practice Christianity and Islam for the most part today, so they they are not Jews.  Many, if not most of their ancestors practiced Judaism at one time and were Jews until they converted to Christianity and subsequently Islam.  That's what the link explains.  Hope this helps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me walk you through this.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline.  Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.  What is so strange about that?  Does common sense elude you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the original question.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline. Is that correct?  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since an Inuit (or a European, Chinese etc.) could be a Jew through conversion or an ancestor's conversion, it is improbable that a Palestinian would have an Inuit (or European, Chinese) bloodline.  So what I stated stands.
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.
Click to expand...


Just look at how those Palestinians "following  the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you don't understand.  Let's see if I can help your reading comprehension.  Palestinians practice Christianity and Islam for the most part today, so they they are not Jews.  Many, if not most of their ancestors practiced Judaism at one time and were Jews until they converted to Christianity and subsequently Islam.  That's what the link explains.  Hope this helps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me walk you through this.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline.  Is that correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.  What is so strange about that?  Does common sense elude you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the original question.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline. Is that correct?  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since an Inuit (or a European, Chinese etc.) could be a Jew through conversion or an ancestor's conversion, it is improbable that a Palestinian would have an Inuit (or European, Chinese) bloodline.  So what I stated stands.
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following  the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
Click to expand...


The Palestinians are Christians, 30 % of Palestinians worldwide are. Christian.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me walk you through this.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline.  Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.  What is so strange about that?  Does common sense elude you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to the original question.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline. Is that correct?  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since an Inuit (or a European, Chinese etc.) could be a Jew through conversion or an ancestor's conversion, it is improbable that a Palestinian would have an Inuit (or European, Chinese) bloodline.  So what I stated stands.
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following  the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are Christians, 30 % of Palestinians worldwide are. Christian.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


And again you just avoid the issue when it doesn't please you.

Just look at how those Palestinians "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.


----------



## louie888

MJB12741 said:


> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist*


Thanks for this thread. We finally figured it out. The Jews actually bought Palestine from people that didn't exist. Just ask Holly or independent. It all makes sense now.


----------



## Hollie

louie888 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist*
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for this thread. We finally figured it out. The Jews actually bought Palestine from people that didn't exist. Just ask Holly or independent. It all makes sense now.
Click to expand...


You were already instructed on your gross errors, ignorance and lack of reading comprehension skills. 

You were given the link so you could make an attempt, make an effort at reaching an understanding of the facts.

Willful ignorance on your part, Laddie. 

Stick with cutting and pasting cartoons.


----------



## MJB12741

louie888 said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel's Legal Right To Exist*
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for this thread. We finally figured it out. The Jews actually bought Palestine from people that didn't exist. Just ask Holly or independent. It all makes sense now.
Click to expand...


Hi ya Louie.  Thanks for joining us here.  How did you do on the Dick & Jane thread?  Look Jane, see Spot run.


----------



## louie888

Hollie said:


> ...Stick with cutting and pasting cartoons.


You keep flip-flopping from "*A land without a people for a people without a land," *to Jews legally bought the land from the people who never existed.

So clear now, thanks again.
* *


----------



## MJB12741

louie888 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Stick with cutting and pasting cartoons.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep flip-flopping from "*A land without a people for a people without a land," *to Jews legally bought the land from the people who never existed.
> 
> So clear now, thanks again.
> * *
Click to expand...


Who are these "people that never existed?  Are you referring to the indigenous Palestinians, the Jews?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.  What is so strange about that?  Does common sense elude you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the original question.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline. Is that correct?  Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since an Inuit (or a European, Chinese etc.) could be a Jew through conversion or an ancestor's conversion, it is improbable that a Palestinian would have an Inuit (or European, Chinese) bloodline.  So what I stated stands.
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following  the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are Christians, 30 % of Palestinians worldwide are. Christian.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again you just avoid the issue when it doesn't please you.
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
Click to expand...


Hmmm.  



*"The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
*
by Abe W. Ata

Abe W Ata was a temporary delegate to the UN in 1970 and has lived and worked in the Middle East, America and Australia. Dr Ata is a Senior Fellow Institute for the Advancement of Research, and lectures in Psychology at the Australian Catholic University . Dr Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian academic born in Bethlehem. This essay is used by permission of the author.


"The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.

When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.

Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.

So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?

We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.

I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.

Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.

The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone."

The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the original question.  Based on what you posted, the Palestinians have a Jewish bloodline. Is that correct?  Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since an Inuit (or a European, Chinese etc.) could be a Jew through conversion or an ancestor's conversion, it is improbable that a Palestinian would have an Inuit (or European, Chinese) bloodline.  So what I stated stands.
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following  the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are Christians, 30 % of Palestinians worldwide are. Christian.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again you just avoid the issue when it doesn't please you.
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> *
> by Abe W. Ata
> 
> Abe W Ata was a temporary delegate to the UN in 1970 and has lived and worked in the Middle East, America and Australia. Dr Ata is a Senior Fellow Institute for the Advancement of Research, and lectures in Psychology at the Australian Catholic University . Dr Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian academic born in Bethlehem. This essay is used by permission of the author.
> 
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.
> 
> So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
> 
> I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.
> 
> Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.
> 
> The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone."
> 
> The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
Click to expand...


So why are the Muslim Palestinians persecuting the Christians?

The Disquieting Treatment of Christians by the Palestinians


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since an Inuit (or a European, Chinese etc.) could be a Jew through conversion or an ancestor's conversion, it is improbable that a Palestinian would have an Inuit (or European, Chinese) bloodline.  So what I stated stands.
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following  the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are Christians, 30 % of Palestinians worldwide are. Christian.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again you just avoid the issue when it doesn't please you.
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> *
> by Abe W. Ata
> 
> Abe W Ata was a temporary delegate to the UN in 1970 and has lived and worked in the Middle East, America and Australia. Dr Ata is a Senior Fellow Institute for the Advancement of Research, and lectures in Psychology at the Australian Catholic University . Dr Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian academic born in Bethlehem. This essay is used by permission of the author.
> 
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.
> 
> So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
> 
> I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.
> 
> Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.
> 
> The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone."
> 
> The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are the Muslim Palestinians persecuting the Christians?
> 
> The Disquieting Treatment of Christians by the Palestinians
Click to expand...


Because you use propaganda sites as your exclusive sources.  Try using neutral information sites for once in your life.


----------



## Hollie

louie888 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Stick with cutting and pasting cartoons.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep flip-flopping from "*A land without a people for a people without a land," *to Jews legally bought the land from the people who never existed.
> 
> So clear now, thanks again.
> * *
Click to expand...


Your being befuddled makes it difficult to keep up. You should to use the "quote" function to help you understand what others have written.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following  the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are Christians, 30 % of Palestinians worldwide are. Christian.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again you just avoid the issue when it doesn't please you.
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> *
> by Abe W. Ata
> 
> Abe W Ata was a temporary delegate to the UN in 1970 and has lived and worked in the Middle East, America and Australia. Dr Ata is a Senior Fellow Institute for the Advancement of Research, and lectures in Psychology at the Australian Catholic University . Dr Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian academic born in Bethlehem. This essay is used by permission of the author.
> 
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.
> 
> So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
> 
> I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.
> 
> Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.
> 
> The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone."
> 
> The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are the Muslim Palestinians persecuting the Christians?
> 
> The Disquieting Treatment of Christians by the Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you use propaganda sites as your exclusive sources.  Try using neutral information sites for once in your life.
Click to expand...


I see.  So, what in the article I presented is not true?


----------



## montelatici

All of it.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> All of it.



See for yourselves folks.  Typical  Monte.


----------



## Challenger

montelatici said:


> All of it.


An article by Prof. Michael Curtis? Yup, that's a fair assessment. For an alleged scholar, the article has no sources or citations, just an opinion piece from a well known Zionist activist. If you look at his allegations on the internet for corroboration, you find that he's the only one making these allegations and many of them either come from the Zionist Hasbara apparatus or have been picked up by said apparatus and publicised.


----------



## MJB12741

Challenger said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of it.
> 
> 
> 
> An article by Prof. Michael Curtis? Yup, that's a fair assessment. For an alleged scholar, the article has no sources or citations, just an opinion piece from a well known Zionist activist. If you look at his allegations on the internet for corroboration, you find that he's the only one making these allegations and many of them either come from the Zionist Hasbara apparatus or have been picked up by said apparatus and publicised.
Click to expand...


Same question to you.  What in the article is not true?  And can you be a little more specific than just dodging the question with a reply like Monte's.  'Atta boy.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of it.
> 
> 
> 
> An article by Prof. Michael Curtis? Yup, that's a fair assessment. For an alleged scholar, the article has no sources or citations, just an opinion piece from a well known Zionist activist. If you look at his allegations on the internet for corroboration, you find that he's the only one making these allegations and many of them either come from the Zionist Hasbara apparatus or have been picked up by said apparatus and publicised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same question to you.  What in the article is not true?  And can you be a little more specific than just dodging the question with a reply like Monte's.  'Atta boy.
Click to expand...


Stop linking to propaganda sites and maybe your references will be taken seriously.


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of it.
> 
> 
> 
> An article by Prof. Michael Curtis? Yup, that's a fair assessment. For an alleged scholar, the article has no sources or citations, just an opinion piece from a well known Zionist activist. If you look at his allegations on the internet for corroboration, you find that he's the only one making these allegations and many of them either come from the Zionist Hasbara apparatus or have been picked up by said apparatus and publicised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same question to you.  What in the article is not true?  And can you be a little more specific than just dodging the question with a reply like Monte's.  'Atta boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop linking to propaganda sites and maybe your references will be taken seriously.
Click to expand...



I will stop answering to you because real history and facts and their references, do not make a dent on you.

Goodbye.


----------



## Challenger

MJB12741 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of it.
> 
> 
> 
> An article by Prof. Michael Curtis? Yup, that's a fair assessment. For an alleged scholar, the article has no sources or citations, just an opinion piece from a well known Zionist activist. If you look at his allegations on the internet for corroboration, you find that he's the only one making these allegations and many of them either come from the Zionist Hasbara apparatus or have been picked up by said apparatus and publicised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same question to you.  What in the article is not true?  And can you be a little more specific than just dodging the question with a reply like Monte's.  'Atta boy.
Click to expand...


Wrong question. There is nothing to corroborate the allegations made. If that is the case, all we are dealing with is an opinion piece by a known Pro-Zionist Israel activist, therefor the correct question would be, "what in the article IS true?" Without corroboration, I'd have to echo Monti's view and say nothing in that article has any basis in fact.


----------



## Sixties Fan

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since an Inuit (or a European, Chinese etc.) could be a Jew through conversion or an ancestor's conversion, it is improbable that a Palestinian would have an Inuit (or European, Chinese) bloodline.  So what I stated stands.
> Many, if not most Palestinians are descendants of the inhabitants of the area that began following the teachings of Jesus Christ over the centuries after Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following  the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are Christians, 30 % of Palestinians worldwide are. Christian.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again you just avoid the issue when it doesn't please you.
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> *
> by Abe W. Ata
> 
> Abe W Ata was a temporary delegate to the UN in 1970 and has lived and worked in the Middle East, America and Australia. Dr Ata is a Senior Fellow Institute for the Advancement of Research, and lectures in Psychology at the Australian Catholic University . Dr Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian academic born in Bethlehem. This essay is used by permission of the author.
> 
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.
> 
> So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
> 
> I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.
> 
> Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.
> 
> The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone."
> 
> The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are the Muslim Palestinians persecuting the Christians?
> 
> The Disquieting Treatment of Christians by the Palestinians
Click to expand...



Not only with the PA or Gaza:

List of Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians


[It is all the Joooos fault . The Joooos made them do it.
Muslims never attacked Christians for the past 1400 years.
It is all because the Jooos have created Israel.

Joooos must stop provoking Muslims into attacking Christians.

   ]


----------



## MJB12741

Sixties Fan said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following  the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are Christians, 30 % of Palestinians worldwide are. Christian.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And again you just avoid the issue when it doesn't please you.
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> *
> by Abe W. Ata
> 
> Abe W Ata was a temporary delegate to the UN in 1970 and has lived and worked in the Middle East, America and Australia. Dr Ata is a Senior Fellow Institute for the Advancement of Research, and lectures in Psychology at the Australian Catholic University . Dr Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian academic born in Bethlehem. This essay is used by permission of the author.
> 
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.
> 
> So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
> 
> I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.
> 
> Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.
> 
> The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone."
> 
> The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are the Muslim Palestinians persecuting the Christians?
> 
> The Disquieting Treatment of Christians by the Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only with the PA or Gaza:
> 
> List of Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians
> 
> 
> [It is all the Joooos fault . The Joooos made them do it.
> Muslims never attacked Christians for the past 1400 years.
> It is all because the Jooos have created Israel.
> 
> Joooos must stop provoking Muslims into attacking Christians.
> 
> ]
Click to expand...


The good news from these attacks on Christians is that it has united Christians & Jews even stronger than previous against their common enemy.


----------



## montelatici

These nutters only post from propaganda and hate sites, it's amazing. When confronted they link to yet another propaganda or hate site.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are Christians, 30 % of Palestinians worldwide are. Christian.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again you just avoid the issue when it doesn't please you.
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> *
> by Abe W. Ata
> 
> Abe W Ata was a temporary delegate to the UN in 1970 and has lived and worked in the Middle East, America and Australia. Dr Ata is a Senior Fellow Institute for the Advancement of Research, and lectures in Psychology at the Australian Catholic University . Dr Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian academic born in Bethlehem. This essay is used by permission of the author.
> 
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.
> 
> So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
> 
> I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.
> 
> Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.
> 
> The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone."
> 
> The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are the Muslim Palestinians persecuting the Christians?
> 
> The Disquieting Treatment of Christians by the Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only with the PA or Gaza:
> 
> List of Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians
> 
> 
> [It is all the Joooos fault . The Joooos made them do it.
> Muslims never attacked Christians for the past 1400 years.
> It is all because the Jooos have created Israel.
> 
> Joooos must stop provoking Muslims into attacking Christians.
> 
> ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The good news from these attacks on Christians is that it has united Christians & Jews even stronger than previous against their common enemy.
Click to expand...



Now from a Christian source, not from MJ's hate and propaganda sites.  Real Christians support Palestinians:

"Bishops visiting Holy Land: Christians must oppose Israeli settlements"

Bishops from the US, Canada and Europe said the 'de facto annexation' undermined the rights of Palestinians

Christians have a responsibility to oppose the construction of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories, bishops from the US, Canada and Europe have said.

“This de facto annexation of land not only undermines the rights of Palestinians in areas such as Hebron and East Jerusalem but, as the UN recently recognised, also imperils the chance of peace,”

Bishops visiting Holy Land: Christians must oppose Israeli settlements | CatholicHerald.co.uk


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again you just avoid the issue when it doesn't please you.
> 
> Just look at how those Palestinians "following the teachings of Jesus Christ" have treated the Christians & still do in Israel today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> *
> by Abe W. Ata
> 
> Abe W Ata was a temporary delegate to the UN in 1970 and has lived and worked in the Middle East, America and Australia. Dr Ata is a Senior Fellow Institute for the Advancement of Research, and lectures in Psychology at the Australian Catholic University . Dr Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian academic born in Bethlehem. This essay is used by permission of the author.
> 
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.
> 
> So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
> 
> I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.
> 
> Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.
> 
> The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone."
> 
> The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why are the Muslim Palestinians persecuting the Christians?
> 
> The Disquieting Treatment of Christians by the Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only with the PA or Gaza:
> 
> List of Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians
> 
> 
> [It is all the Joooos fault . The Joooos made them do it.
> Muslims never attacked Christians for the past 1400 years.
> It is all because the Jooos have created Israel.
> 
> Joooos must stop provoking Muslims into attacking Christians.
> 
> ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The good news from these attacks on Christians is that it has united Christians & Jews even stronger than previous against their common enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now from a Christian source, not from MJ's hate and propaganda sites.  Real Christians support Palestinians:
> 
> "Bishops visiting Holy Land: Christians must oppose Israeli settlements"
> 
> Bishops from the US, Canada and Europe said the 'de facto annexation' undermined the rights of Palestinians
> 
> Christians have a responsibility to oppose the construction of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories, bishops from the US, Canada and Europe have said.
> 
> “This de facto annexation of land not only undermines the rights of Palestinians in areas such as Hebron and East Jerusalem but, as the UN recently recognised, also imperils the chance of peace,”
> 
> Bishops visiting Holy Land: Christians must oppose Israeli settlements | CatholicHerald.co.uk
Click to expand...


So, what is the Vatican's legal right to the land of these Bishops?


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> *
> by Abe W. Ata
> 
> Abe W Ata was a temporary delegate to the UN in 1970 and has lived and worked in the Middle East, America and Australia. Dr Ata is a Senior Fellow Institute for the Advancement of Research, and lectures in Psychology at the Australian Catholic University . Dr Ata is a 9th generation Christian Palestinian academic born in Bethlehem. This essay is used by permission of the author.
> 
> 
> "The Palestinian Christian is an endangered species.
> 
> When the modern state of Israel was established there were about 400,000 of us. Two years ago the number was down to 80,000. Now it’s down to 60,000. At that rate, in a few years there will be none of us left. When this happens non-Christian groups will move into our churches and claim them forever.
> 
> Palestinian Christians within Israel fare little better. On the face of it, their number has grown by 20,000 since 1991. But this is misleading, for the census classification "Christian" includes some 20,000 recent non-Arab migrants from the former Soviet Union.
> 
> So why are Palestinian Christians abandoning their homeland?
> 
> We have lost hope, that’s why. We are treated as non-people. Few outside the Middle East even know we exist, and those who do, conveniently forget.
> 
> I refer, of course, to the American Religious Right. They see modern Israel as a harbinger of the Second Coming, at which time Christians will go to paradise, and all others (presumably including Jews) to hell. To this end they lend military and moral support to Israel.
> 
> Even by the double-dealing standards of international diplomacy this is a breathtakingly cynical bargain. It is hard to know who is using whom more: the Christian Right for offering secular power in the expectation that the Jewish state will be destroyed by a greater spiritual one; or the Israeli Right for accepting their offer. What we do know is that both sides are abusing the Palestinians. Apparently we don’t enter into anyone’s calculations.
> 
> The views of the Israeli Right are well known: they want us gone."
> 
> The Palestinian Christian : Betrayed, Persecuted, Sacrificed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why are the Muslim Palestinians persecuting the Christians?
> 
> The Disquieting Treatment of Christians by the Palestinians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not only with the PA or Gaza:
> 
> List of Islamic Terror Attacks on Christians
> 
> 
> [It is all the Joooos fault . The Joooos made them do it.
> Muslims never attacked Christians for the past 1400 years.
> It is all because the Jooos have created Israel.
> 
> Joooos must stop provoking Muslims into attacking Christians.
> 
> ]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The good news from these attacks on Christians is that it has united Christians & Jews even stronger than previous against their common enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now from a Christian source, not from MJ's hate and propaganda sites.  Real Christians support Palestinians:
> 
> "Bishops visiting Holy Land: Christians must oppose Israeli settlements"
> 
> Bishops from the US, Canada and Europe said the 'de facto annexation' undermined the rights of Palestinians
> 
> Christians have a responsibility to oppose the construction of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories, bishops from the US, Canada and Europe have said.
> 
> “This de facto annexation of land not only undermines the rights of Palestinians in areas such as Hebron and East Jerusalem but, as the UN recently recognised, also imperils the chance of peace,”
> 
> Bishops visiting Holy Land: Christians must oppose Israeli settlements | CatholicHerald.co.uk
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Israel's History and Right to Exist - Discover the Networks



On & on it goes with endless Israel contributions to better lives throughout this world.  And that despite Palestinians Israel has to deal with.  Bravo Israel!


----------



## montelatici

Where is Israel? Oh dear, Iran does better but neither are in the top 20. LOL

*What countries have lead the world in medical research and innovation in the past 20 years?*






SJR - International Science Ranking


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Where is Israel? Oh dear, Iran does better but neither are in the top 20. LOL
> 
> *What countries have lead the world in medical research and innovation in the past 20 years?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJR - International Science Ranking



Would you like to see many links of Israel's worldly contributions?  Please advise.  'Atta boy!


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel? Oh dear, Iran does better but neither are in the top 20. LOL
> 
> *What countries have lead the world in medical research and innovation in the past 20 years?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJR - International Science Ranking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to see many links of Israel's worldly contributions?  Please advise.  'Atta boy!
Click to expand...

Besides death and destruction?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel? Oh dear, Iran does better but neither are in the top 20. LOL
> 
> *What countries have lead the world in medical research and innovation in the past 20 years?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJR - International Science Ranking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to see many links of Israel's worldly contributions?  Please advise.  'Atta boy!
Click to expand...


No need to post bullshit from your propaganda sites, I'll stick with scientific sources.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Where is Israel? Oh dear, Iran does better but neither are in the top 20. LOL
> 
> *What countries have lead the world in medical research and innovation in the past 20 years?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJR - International Science Ranking



You cut and pasted that phony nonsense before. 


Publisher pulls 58 articles by Iranian scientists over authorship manipulation


http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2012/10/favorable-comme.html

_Chronicle of Higher Education_ (subscription required for this article) reports on scientists in South Korea, China, and Iran who submitted papers to international journals and gave fictitious e-mail addresses for the potential reviewers they recommended to journal editors. In some cases, even the reviewers themselves were fictitious. In others, the dishonest authors apparently managed to enter and alter a journal’s own database of real reviewers.



You are a hoot. Your link references "documents", not peer reviewed data that finds its way into useful implementation.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel? Oh dear, Iran does better but neither are in the top 20. LOL
> 
> *What countries have lead the world in medical research and innovation in the past 20 years?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJR - International Science Ranking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to see many links of Israel's worldly contributions?  Please advise.  'Atta boy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to post bullshit from your propaganda sites, I'll stick with scientific sources.
Click to expand...


Well ,okay then.  The last thing I want to do is irritate you.  Need you here for more fun & laughs.  Thanks for being such a good sport for us to play with.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel? Oh dear, Iran does better but neither are in the top 20. LOL
> 
> *What countries have lead the world in medical research and innovation in the past 20 years?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJR - International Science Ranking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to see many links of Israel's worldly contributions?  Please advise.  'Atta boy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to post bullshit from your propaganda sites, I'll stick with scientific sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well ,okay then.  The last thing I want to do is irritate you.  Need you here for more fun & laughs.  Thanks for being such a good sport for us to play with.
Click to expand...


You provide great entertainment with your links to propaganda sites. Keep it up. You are great fun to play with.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel? Oh dear, Iran does better but neither are in the top 20. LOL
> 
> *What countries have lead the world in medical research and innovation in the past 20 years?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJR - International Science Ranking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to see many links of Israel's worldly contributions?  Please advise.  'Atta boy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to post bullshit from your propaganda sites, I'll stick with scientific sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well ,okay then.  The last thing I want to do is irritate you.  Need you here for more fun & laughs.  Thanks for being such a good sport for us to play with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You provide great entertainment with your links to propaganda sites. Keep it up. You are great fun to play with.
Click to expand...


That's a problem with links.  Each side discredits the sources used by the other side.  Links prevent people from having a sincere discussion of the issues using their own brains to solve differences.  The governing bodies of Israel & the Palestinians will never ever come to any lasting peace agreement sending each other links.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel? Oh dear, Iran does better but neither are in the top 20. LOL
> 
> *What countries have lead the world in medical research and innovation in the past 20 years?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJR - International Science Ranking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to see many links of Israel's worldly contributions?  Please advise.  'Atta boy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to post bullshit from your propaganda sites, I'll stick with scientific sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well ,okay then.  The last thing I want to do is irritate you.  Need you here for more fun & laughs.  Thanks for being such a good sport for us to play with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You provide great entertainment with your links to propaganda sites. Keep it up. You are great fun to play with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a problem with links.  Each side discredits the sources used by the other side.  Links prevent people from having a sincere discussion of the issues using their own brains to solve differences.  The governing bodies of Israel & the Palestinians will never ever come to any lasting peace agreement sending each other links.
Click to expand...


No, there are propaganda sites dedicated to supporting the Zionist myth and there are normal news sites, academic archives with source documents, scientific organization sites and general information sites which do not concern themselves with the Israel/Palestine issue in a partisan way. 

You use the former exclusively.  I use the latter exclusively.

I don't think you know the difference.  If I were to behave like you, I would be posting links to Electronic Intifada and similar exclusively.  You just don't get it.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to see many links of Israel's worldly contributions?  Please advise.  'Atta boy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need to post bullshit from your propaganda sites, I'll stick with scientific sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well ,okay then.  The last thing I want to do is irritate you.  Need you here for more fun & laughs.  Thanks for being such a good sport for us to play with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You provide great entertainment with your links to propaganda sites. Keep it up. You are great fun to play with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a problem with links.  Each side discredits the sources used by the other side.  Links prevent people from having a sincere discussion of the issues using their own brains to solve differences.  The governing bodies of Israel & the Palestinians will never ever come to any lasting peace agreement sending each other links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there are propaganda sites dedicated to supporting the Zionist myth and there are normal news sites, academic archives with source documents, scientific organization sites and general information sites which do not concern themselves with the Israel/Palestine issue in a partisan way.
> 
> You use the former exclusively.  I use the latter exclusively.
> 
> I don't think you know the difference.  If I were to behave like you, I would be posting links to Electronic Intifada and similar exclusively.  You just don't get it.
Click to expand...


Oh now I get it.  Any link that is pro Israel is Zionist hasbara & any anti Israel link is unbiased. Oh Monte, you are a blast.


----------



## MJB12741

Here is the kind of crap Israel has to deal with from false Palestinian accusations.

Palestinian fabricated 'Jewish terror attack', now faces charges


----------



## montelatici

You mean like this?  This what the world has to deal with from false Israeli accusations.

*British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’*

“They fabricated a stabbing story to justify the killings before they found out they were not Palestinians.”

British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> You mean like this?  This what the world has to deal with from false Israeli accusations.
> 
> *British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’*
> 
> “They fabricated a stabbing story to justify the killings before they found out they were not Palestinians.”
> 
> British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’



It's funny how you vacant-minded types will mouth the bait of every conspiracy theory you can scour from the web.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this?  This what the world has to deal with from false Israeli accusations.
> 
> *British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’*
> 
> “They fabricated a stabbing story to justify the killings before they found out they were not Palestinians.”
> 
> British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how you vacant-minded types will mouth the bait of every conspiracy theory you can scour from the web.
Click to expand...



But but, that's how Monte gets those neutral  documented facts.  Heh Heh!


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this?  This what the world has to deal with from false Israeli accusations.
> 
> *British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’*
> 
> “They fabricated a stabbing story to justify the killings before they found out they were not Palestinians.”
> 
> British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how you vacant-minded types will mouth the bait of every conspiracy theory you can scour from the web.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But but, that's how Monte gets those neutral  documented facts.  Heh Heh!
Click to expand...


Oh, I see, you are not a Zionist. LOL


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this?  This what the world has to deal with from false Israeli accusations.
> 
> *British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’*
> 
> “They fabricated a stabbing story to justify the killings before they found out they were not Palestinians.”
> 
> British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how you vacant-minded types will mouth the bait of every conspiracy theory you can scour from the web.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But but, that's how Monte gets those neutral  documented facts.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, you are not a Zionist. LOL
Click to expand...


Actually I despise them for their treatment of Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions rather than treat the Pali's with the same Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to --- And so well deserve.  Never any complaints about that.  Will will those Zionists in Israel ever learn?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this?  This what the world has to deal with from false Israeli accusations.
> 
> *British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’*
> 
> “They fabricated a stabbing story to justify the killings before they found out they were not Palestinians.”
> 
> British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how you vacant-minded types will mouth the bait of every conspiracy theory you can scour from the web.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But but, that's how Monte gets those neutral  documented facts.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, you are not a Zionist. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I despise them for their treatment of Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions rather than treat the Pali's with the same Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to --- And so well deserve.  Never any complaints about that.  Will will those Zionists in Israel ever learn?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
Click to expand...


So, killing a thousand or so of their women and children every 2 years or so is treating them with too much kindness.  Figures.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this?  This what the world has to deal with from false Israeli accusations.
> 
> *British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’*
> 
> “They fabricated a stabbing story to justify the killings before they found out they were not Palestinians.”
> 
> British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how you vacant-minded types will mouth the bait of every conspiracy theory you can scour from the web.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But but, that's how Monte gets those neutral  documented facts.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, you are not a Zionist. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I despise them for their treatment of Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions rather than treat the Pali's with the same Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to --- And so well deserve.  Never any complaints about that.  Will will those Zionists in Israel ever learn?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, killing a thousand or so of their women and children every 2 years or so is treating them with too much kindness.  Figures.
Click to expand...

Not at all. As the Hudna ends and the Islamic terrorists have re-armed, acts of war aimed at Israel begin again. 

Study your islamo-history and your koranology. A Hudna is merely a temporary cessation of gee-had.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like this?  This what the world has to deal with from false Israeli accusations.
> 
> *British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’*
> 
> “They fabricated a stabbing story to justify the killings before they found out they were not Palestinians.”
> 
> British MP says Palestinian stabbing attacks ‘fabricated’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how you vacant-minded types will mouth the bait of every conspiracy theory you can scour from the web.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But but, that's how Monte gets those neutral  documented facts.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, you are not a Zionist. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I despise them for their treatment of Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions rather than treat the Pali's with the same Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to --- And so well deserve.  Never any complaints about that.  Will will those Zionists in Israel ever learn?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, killing a thousand or so of their women and children every 2 years or so is treating them with too much kindness.  Figures.
Click to expand...


Way to go Monte.  There it is again.  Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Israel retaliates.  And then they bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how you vacant-minded types will mouth the bait of every conspiracy theory you can scour from the web.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But but, that's how Monte gets those neutral  documented facts.  Heh Heh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, you are not a Zionist. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I despise them for their treatment of Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions rather than treat the Pali's with the same Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to --- And so well deserve.  Never any complaints about that.  Will will those Zionists in Israel ever learn?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, killing a thousand or so of their women and children every 2 years or so is treating them with too much kindness.  Figures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to go Monte.  There it is again.  Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Israel retaliates.  And then they bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality
Click to expand...


Isn't it the other way around.  After all, the Palestinians did not go to Europe and attack the Jews.  The Jews went to Palestine from Europe to attack the Muslims and Christians. Get your story straight.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But but, that's how Monte gets those neutral  documented facts.  Heh Heh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, you are not a Zionist. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I despise them for their treatment of Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions rather than treat the Pali's with the same Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to --- And so well deserve.  Never any complaints about that.  Will will those Zionists in Israel ever learn?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, killing a thousand or so of their women and children every 2 years or so is treating them with too much kindness.  Figures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to go Monte.  There it is again.  Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Israel retaliates.  And then they bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it the other way around.  After all, the Palestinians did not go to Europe and attack the Jews.  The Jews went to Palestine from Europe to attack the Muslims and Christians. Get your story straight.
Click to expand...


Oh yes, I forgot the Palestinians welcomed the legal creation of Israel in the beginning.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Oh, yes, there were Arabs and Muslims who's Nationality was Palestinian before 1964 when the PLO invented it.

And by all means, there were no Arabs or Muslims invading any part outside of Arabia after the 7th Century.

One has to wonder how Asia Minor, North Africa became Arabized, with most people speaking Arabic.

Europe was invaded by Arabs and later on by the Ottomans.  But they were not allowed to stay.  Were driven out, or lost it post WWI.

No mention of any Palestinian Arabs, or any Palestinian People at all or any kind, from the 7th Century till the Mandate for Palestine.


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I see, you are not a Zionist. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I despise them for their treatment of Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions rather than treat the Pali's with the same Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to --- And so well deserve.  Never any complaints about that.  Will will those Zionists in Israel ever learn?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, killing a thousand or so of their women and children every 2 years or so is treating them with too much kindness.  Figures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to go Monte.  There it is again.  Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Israel retaliates.  And then they bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it the other way around.  After all, the Palestinians did not go to Europe and attack the Jews.  The Jews went to Palestine from Europe to attack the Muslims and Christians. Get your story straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot the Palestinians welcomed the legal creation of Israel in the beginning.
Click to expand...


Why would the native people have welcomed the creation of a state for people that invaded from Europe who they would be  ruled by?  You have the craziest logic.


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I despise them for their treatment of Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions rather than treat the Pali's with the same Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to --- And so well deserve.  Never any complaints about that.  Will will those Zionists in Israel ever learn?  LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, killing a thousand or so of their women and children every 2 years or so is treating them with too much kindness.  Figures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to go Monte.  There it is again.  Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Israel retaliates.  And then they bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it the other way around.  After all, the Palestinians did not go to Europe and attack the Jews.  The Jews went to Palestine from Europe to attack the Muslims and Christians. Get your story straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot the Palestinians welcomed the legal creation of Israel in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the native people have welcomed the creation of a state for people that invaded from Europe who they would be  ruled by?  You have the craziest logic.
Click to expand...


Because the Arabs are not "native/indigenous" of the land of Israel.
And the Muslim and Christian Arabs did not want Jews to EVER be sovereign of their ancient homeland, ever again.

Dhimmis are so much fun to keep.


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, killing a thousand or so of their women and children every 2 years or so is treating them with too much kindness.  Figures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to go Monte.  There it is again.  Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Israel retaliates.  And then they bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it the other way around.  After all, the Palestinians did not go to Europe and attack the Jews.  The Jews went to Palestine from Europe to attack the Muslims and Christians. Get your story straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot the Palestinians welcomed the legal creation of Israel in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the native people have welcomed the creation of a state for people that invaded from Europe who they would be  ruled by?  You have the craziest logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Arabs are not "native/indigenous" of the land of Israel.
> And the Muslim and Christian Arabs did not want Jews to EVER be sovereign of their ancient homeland, ever again.
> 
> Dhimmis are so much fun to keep.
Click to expand...


Of course the "Arabs" (people that speak Arabic, not Arabians)  are the native and indigenous people of Palestine.  They are Muslims and Christians whose ancestors converted to Christianity and then Islam.  Many of their ancestors were Jews before the birth of Christ.  Who do you think the first Christians were? You are hilarious.


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to go Monte.  There it is again.  Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Israel retaliates.  And then they bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it the other way around.  After all, the Palestinians did not go to Europe and attack the Jews.  The Jews went to Palestine from Europe to attack the Muslims and Christians. Get your story straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot the Palestinians welcomed the legal creation of Israel in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the native people have welcomed the creation of a state for people that invaded from Europe who they would be  ruled by?  You have the craziest logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Arabs are not "native/indigenous" of the land of Israel.
> And the Muslim and Christian Arabs did not want Jews to EVER be sovereign of their ancient homeland, ever again.
> 
> Dhimmis are so much fun to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the "Arabs" (people that speak Arabic, not Arabians)  are the native and indigenous people of Palestine.  They are Muslims and Christians whose ancestors converted to Christianity and then Islam.  Many of their ancestors were Jews before the birth of Christ.  Who do you think the first Christians were? You are hilarious.
Click to expand...



Hilarious!!!!!     Is this:

Now, there are Arabs.....and Arabians.

They are indigenous from all different places all of a sudden.

What a Hoot !!!


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it the other way around.  After all, the Palestinians did not go to Europe and attack the Jews.  The Jews went to Palestine from Europe to attack the Muslims and Christians. Get your story straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot the Palestinians welcomed the legal creation of Israel in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the native people have welcomed the creation of a state for people that invaded from Europe who they would be  ruled by?  You have the craziest logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Arabs are not "native/indigenous" of the land of Israel.
> And the Muslim and Christian Arabs did not want Jews to EVER be sovereign of their ancient homeland, ever again.
> 
> Dhimmis are so much fun to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the "Arabs" (people that speak Arabic, not Arabians)  are the native and indigenous people of Palestine.  They are Muslims and Christians whose ancestors converted to Christianity and then Islam.  Many of their ancestors were Jews before the birth of Christ.  Who do you think the first Christians were? You are hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious!!!!!     Is this:
> 
> Now, there are Arabs.....and Arabians.
> 
> They are indigenous from all different places all of a sudden.
> 
> What a Hoot !!!
Click to expand...


Of course they are.  You really never understood the difference between Arab and Arabian? I am surprised you are so ignorant in this area. The Arabians were a tiny desert population of less than a million in the whole peninsula at the time of Mohamed.  The "Arabs" are people that speak Arabic.  Even Egyptians are not very Arabian.  Interestingly, Ashkenazi Jews are more Arabian than Tunisians.  Bet you didn't know that. National Geographic performed a genetic study to see how much Arabian the various Arabs had in them.

*Tunisians are only 4% Arabian ...*







*Did you know these non-Arab countries actually have some Arabian genes?*
1. Georgia: 5 percent 

2. Iran: 56 percent  

3. The Luhya people of Kenya: 2 percent

4. Natives of Madagascar: 2 percent  

5. The Northern Caucasus (including Dagestanis and Abkhazians): 9 percent

6. Tajikistan (Pamiri mountains): 6 percent 

7. Sardinia: 3 percent

8. Southern India: 2 percent 

9. Western India: 6 percent 

10. Indonesia: 6 percent  

11. Ethiopia: 11 percent  

12. Ashkenazi Jews (Jews who originated in Eastern Europe): 10 percent 

*Egyptians are only 17% Arabian ...*






DNA analysis proves Arabs aren't entirely Arab


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot the Palestinians welcomed the legal creation of Israel in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the native people have welcomed the creation of a state for people that invaded from Europe who they would be  ruled by?  You have the craziest logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Arabs are not "native/indigenous" of the land of Israel.
> And the Muslim and Christian Arabs did not want Jews to EVER be sovereign of their ancient homeland, ever again.
> 
> Dhimmis are so much fun to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the "Arabs" (people that speak Arabic, not Arabians)  are the native and indigenous people of Palestine.  They are Muslims and Christians whose ancestors converted to Christianity and then Islam.  Many of their ancestors were Jews before the birth of Christ.  Who do you think the first Christians were? You are hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious!!!!!     Is this:
> 
> Now, there are Arabs.....and Arabians.
> 
> They are indigenous from all different places all of a sudden.
> 
> What a Hoot !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are.  You really never understood the difference between Arab and Arabian? I am surprised you are so ignorant in this area. The Arabians were a tiny desert population of less than a million in the whole peninsula at the time of Mohamed.  The "Arabs" are people that speak Arabic.  Even Egyptians are not very Arabian.  Interestingly, Ashkenazi Jews are more Arabian than Tunisians.  Bet you didn't know that. National Geographic performed a genetic study to see how much Arabian the various Arabs had in them.
> 
> *Tunisians are only 4% Arabian ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you know these non-Arab countries actually have some Arabian genes?*
> 1. Georgia: 5 percent
> 
> 2. Iran: 56 percent
> 
> 3. The Luhya people of Kenya: 2 percent
> 
> 4. Natives of Madagascar: 2 percent
> 
> 5. The Northern Caucasus (including Dagestanis and Abkhazians): 9 percent
> 
> 6. Tajikistan (Pamiri mountains): 6 percent
> 
> 7. Sardinia: 3 percent
> 
> 8. Southern India: 2 percent
> 
> 9. Western India: 6 percent
> 
> 10. Indonesia: 6 percent
> 
> 11. Ethiopia: 11 percent
> 
> 12. Ashkenazi Jews (Jews who originated in Eastern Europe): 10 percent
> 
> *Egyptians are only 17% Arabian ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA analysis proves Arabs aren't entirely Arab
Click to expand...



There is not the point and you know it.

The 850,000 Jews expelled from Arab dominated countries, from 1948 on, were never, ever, ever, and continue to not be......called Arabs.
Regardless of the fact that many of the surviving ones continue to speak Arabic.


Tell us another one !!!!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, killing a thousand or so of their women and children every 2 years or so is treating them with too much kindness.  Figures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to go Monte.  There it is again.  Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Israel retaliates.  And then they bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it the other way around.  After all, the Palestinians did not go to Europe and attack the Jews.  The Jews went to Palestine from Europe to attack the Muslims and Christians. Get your story straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot the Palestinians welcomed the legal creation of Israel in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the native people have welcomed the creation of a state for people that invaded from Europe who they would be  ruled by?  You have the craziest logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Arabs are not "native/indigenous" of the land of Israel.
> And the Muslim and Christian Arabs did not want Jews to EVER be sovereign of their ancient homeland, ever again.
> 
> Dhimmis are so much fun to keep.
Click to expand...

There were no Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire or in Palestine.

Where do you get your shit?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way to go Monte.  There it is again.  Pali's attack & kill Israeli's.  Israel retaliates.  And then they bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's.  It's called Palestinian mentality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it the other way around.  After all, the Palestinians did not go to Europe and attack the Jews.  The Jews went to Palestine from Europe to attack the Muslims and Christians. Get your story straight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot the Palestinians welcomed the legal creation of Israel in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the native people have welcomed the creation of a state for people that invaded from Europe who they would be  ruled by?  You have the craziest logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Arabs are not "native/indigenous" of the land of Israel.
> And the Muslim and Christian Arabs did not want Jews to EVER be sovereign of their ancient homeland, ever again.
> 
> Dhimmis are so much fun to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were no Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire or in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you get your shit?
Click to expand...


Do you know what the word Dhimmis means?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it the other way around.  After all, the Palestinians did not go to Europe and attack the Jews.  The Jews went to Palestine from Europe to attack the Muslims and Christians. Get your story straight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot the Palestinians welcomed the legal creation of Israel in the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the native people have welcomed the creation of a state for people that invaded from Europe who they would be  ruled by?  You have the craziest logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Arabs are not "native/indigenous" of the land of Israel.
> And the Muslim and Christian Arabs did not want Jews to EVER be sovereign of their ancient homeland, ever again.
> 
> Dhimmis are so much fun to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were no Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire or in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you get your shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word Dhimmis means?
Click to expand...

Sure, the Ottomans abandoned the practice in the mid 19th century and it was never an issue in Palestine.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, I forgot the Palestinians welcomed the legal creation of Israel in the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the native people have welcomed the creation of a state for people that invaded from Europe who they would be  ruled by?  You have the craziest logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Arabs are not "native/indigenous" of the land of Israel.
> And the Muslim and Christian Arabs did not want Jews to EVER be sovereign of their ancient homeland, ever again.
> 
> Dhimmis are so much fun to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were no Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire or in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you get your shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word Dhimmis means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, the Ottomans abandoned the practice in the mid 19th century and it was never an issue in Palestine.
Click to expand...


Ah, so having self-refuted your earlier "no dbimmi" comment, you acknowledge that error and now attempt to weed whack your way through the landscape of "but.... but.... but.... but...."


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would the native people have welcomed the creation of a state for people that invaded from Europe who they would be  ruled by?  You have the craziest logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Arabs are not "native/indigenous" of the land of Israel.
> And the Muslim and Christian Arabs did not want Jews to EVER be sovereign of their ancient homeland, ever again.
> 
> Dhimmis are so much fun to keep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were no Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire or in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you get your shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word Dhimmis means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, the Ottomans abandoned the practice in the mid 19th century and it was never an issue in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so having self-refuted your earlier "no dbimmi" comment, you acknowledge that error and now attempt to weed whack your way through the landscape of "but.... but.... but.... but...."
Click to expand...

If it was never an issue in Palestine, why did you bring it up?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Arabs are not "native/indigenous" of the land of Israel.
> And the Muslim and Christian Arabs did not want Jews to EVER be sovereign of their ancient homeland, ever again.
> 
> Dhimmis are so much fun to keep.
> 
> 
> 
> There were no Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire or in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you get your shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word Dhimmis means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, the Ottomans abandoned the practice in the mid 19th century and it was never an issue in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so having self-refuted your earlier "no dbimmi" comment, you acknowledge that error and now attempt to weed whack your way through the landscape of "but.... but.... but.... but...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was never an issue in Palestine, why did you bring it up?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Arabs are not "native/indigenous" of the land of Israel.
> And the Muslim and Christian Arabs did not want Jews to EVER be sovereign of their ancient homeland, ever again.
> 
> Dhimmis are so much fun to keep.
> 
> 
> 
> There were no Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire or in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you get your shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word Dhimmis means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, the Ottomans abandoned the practice in the mid 19th century and it was never an issue in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so having self-refuted your earlier "no dbimmi" comment, you acknowledge that error and now attempt to weed whack your way through the landscape of "but.... but.... but.... but...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was never an issue in Palestine, why did you bring it up?
Click to expand...


The Ottoman Empire instituted the fascist Islamic practice of dhimmitude. You brought it up.


----------



## Hollie

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were no Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire or in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you get your shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word Dhimmis means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, the Ottomans abandoned the practice in the mid 19th century and it was never an issue in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so having self-refuted your earlier "no dbimmi" comment, you acknowledge that error and now attempt to weed whack your way through the landscape of "but.... but.... but.... but...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was never an issue in Palestine, why did you bring it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It's called_ The Tinmore Vortex_™


----------



## Sixties Fan

I believe that dhimmitute was around from the time Islam was created.

Dhimmi - Wikipedia

*The "dhimma contract"[edit]*
Based on Quranic verses and Islamic traditions, classical sharia distinguishes between Muslims, followers of other Abrahamic religions, and pagans or people belonging to other polytheistic religions. As monotheists, Jews and Christians have traditionally been considered "People of the Book," and afforded a special status known as _dhimmi_ derived from a theoretical contract—"dhimma" or "residence in return for taxes". In Yemenite Jewish sources, a treaty was drafted between Muhammad and his Jewish subjects, known as _kitāb ḏimmat al-nabi_, written in the 17th year of the Hijra (638 CE), and which gave express liberty unto Jews living in Arabia to observe the Sabbath and to grow-out their side-locks, but were required to pay the jizya (poll-tax) annually for their protection by their patrons


----------



## MJB12741

Sixties Fan said:


> I believe that dhimmitute was around from the time Islam was created.
> 
> Dhimmi - Wikipedia
> 
> *The "dhimma contract"[edit]*
> Based on Quranic verses and Islamic traditions, classical sharia distinguishes between Muslims, followers of other Abrahamic religions, and pagans or people belonging to other polytheistic religions. As monotheists, Jews and Christians have traditionally been considered "People of the Book," and afforded a special status known as _dhimmi_ derived from a theoretical contract—"dhimma" or "residence in return for taxes". In Yemenite Jewish sources, a treaty was drafted between Muhammad and his Jewish subjects, known as _kitāb ḏimmat al-nabi_, written in the 17th year of the Hijra (638 CE), and which gave express liberty unto Jews living in Arabia to observe the Sabbath and to grow-out their side-locks, but were required to pay the jizya (poll-tax) annually for their protection by their patrons



That's what they call equal justice for non Muslim citizens.  Not exactly like Israeli Palestinian citizens represented in the Knesset with equal voting rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were no Dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire or in Palestine.
> 
> Where do you get your shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word Dhimmis means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, the Ottomans abandoned the practice in the mid 19th century and it was never an issue in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so having self-refuted your earlier "no dbimmi" comment, you acknowledge that error and now attempt to weed whack your way through the landscape of "but.... but.... but.... but...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was never an issue in Palestine, why did you bring it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ottoman Empire instituted the fascist Islamic practice of dhimmitude. You brought it up.
Click to expand...

Not true. Sixties Fan brought it up.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the word Dhimmis means?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the Ottomans abandoned the practice in the mid 19th century and it was never an issue in Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so having self-refuted your earlier "no dbimmi" comment, you acknowledge that error and now attempt to weed whack your way through the landscape of "but.... but.... but.... but...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was never an issue in Palestine, why did you bring it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ottoman Empire instituted the fascist Islamic practice of dhimmitude. You brought it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. Sixties Fan brought it up.
Click to expand...


Actually, you've sucked _yourself_ into _The Tinmore Vortex™
_
It's funny watching you corkscrew yourself around in circles._ 

_


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the Ottomans abandoned the practice in the mid 19th century and it was never an issue in Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so having self-refuted your earlier "no dbimmi" comment, you acknowledge that error and now attempt to weed whack your way through the landscape of "but.... but.... but.... but...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If it was never an issue in Palestine, why did you bring it up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ottoman Empire instituted the fascist Islamic practice of dhimmitude. You brought it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true. Sixties Fan brought it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you've sucked _yourself_ into _The Tinmore Vortex™
> _
> It's funny watching you corkscrew yourself around in circles._
> _
Click to expand...


Just like a Palestinian, he just can't accept the fact that Israel is there to stay.


----------



## Sixties Fan

A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land



Look, it is understandable that Jews, whether descendants of converts or not,  believe they have a right to the land they colonized.  But, you also have to understand that it is based on a document that is self-serving.  Not everyone believes that the document is historically factual or that it has any religious validity.  Think of billions of people that practice other religions, Hindus etc.  More importantly, the inhabitants of Palestine, some of whose ancestors had lived in the area before the Hebrews even arrived, believe they have equal or more rights to live there than people that lived on other continents. Furthermore, as has been established and is historically provable, many if not most of the inhabitants that were living in the area are descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that adopted Christianity as their religion.  Who do you think the first Christians were?  From 400 AD until the Muslims conquest the area was almost exclusively Christian, these Christians did not just appear magically, they were the same people that had always lived there.  Whether they were forcefully converted or not, they converted, but it did not change their ancestry.  The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over an overwhelming majority of Greek Orthodox Christians, native Christians,  They, the rulers, were Roman Catholics.  It is also provable that most of these Greek Orthodox Christians eventually converted to Islam. whether forcefully or not. 

So, until the Zionist Jews accept that they came from somewhere else and evicted most of and implemented their rule over the remaining native inhabitants, there will never be peace.  The primary fault lies with the British and their colonial empire ideology, which never took the rights of the native people into consideration.  They assumed that the native people, being backward and non-Europeans as they considered them, could easily be put under European rule as per their past experience.  Rhodesia, South Africa, India etc. were ruled through companies like the British East India Company, the British South Africa Company (Cecil Rhodes) etc. The Zionist Organization was considered an analog to these enterprises.  Do I fault the Zionists for taking advantage of the opportunity? No, but the consequences are what they are today.


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it is understandable that Jews, whether descendants of converts or not,  believe they have a right to the land they colonized.  But, you also have to understand that it is based on a document that is self-serving.  Not everyone believes that the document is historically factual or that it has any religious validity.  Think of billions of people that practice other religions, Hindus etc.  More importantly, the inhabitants of Palestine, some of whose ancestors had lived in the area before the Hebrews even arrived, believe they have equal or more rights to live there than people that lived on other continents. Furthermore, as has been established and is historically provable, many if not most of the inhabitants that were living in the area are descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that adopted Christianity as their religion.  Who do you think the first Christians were?  From 400 AD until the Muslims conquest the area was almost exclusively Christian, these Christians did not just appear magically, they were the same people that had always lived there.  Whether they were forcefully converted or not, they converted, but it did not change their ancestry.  The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over an overwhelming majority of Greek Orthodox Christians, native Christians,  They, the rulers, were Roman Catholics.  It is also provable that most of these Greek Orthodox Christians eventually converted to Islam. whether forcefully or not.
> 
> So, until the Zionist Jews accept that they came from somewhere else and evicted most of and implemented their rule over the remaining native inhabitants, there will never be peace.  The primary fault lies with the British and their colonial empire ideology, which never took the rights of the native people into consideration.  They assumed that the native people, being backward and non-Europeans as they considered them, could easily be put under European rule as per their past experience.  Rhodesia, South Africa, India etc. were ruled through companies like the British East India Company, the British South Africa Company (Cecil Rhodes) etc. The Zionist Organization was considered an analog to these enterprises.  Do I fault the Zionists for taking advantage of the opportunity? No, but the consequences are what they are today.
Click to expand...


Obtaining a legal document which will give you the right to re-establish your Nation on your ancient land is not "self-serving".

If you do the research, you will find out that First Nations in America have been working legally to reclaim any of their ancient land.

You have no evidence that the Arabs were living in ancient Canaan before the Hebrews.
The Palestinians are Arabs.  Their ancient homeland is the Arabian Peninsula.
They are not connected to any tribe/clan which lived in ancient Canaan, not to the Greek descendants knows as the Philistines, or any other people.

The Israelites, descendants of the Hebrews, formed the Nation of Israel once they left bondage in Egypt.  From King David on, they became a unified Kingdom recognized by many of the invaders or traders as being such.

Being away from one's homeland, does not make that homeland less their homeland, the place where their ancient culture flourished, their history, their religion and everything else one connects to the words Hebrews, Israelites, Nation of Israel, Judea.  Not even the Romans changing the name of Judea into latin Palestine, did not make the land stop being the ancient homeland of the Jews, no matter how many continued to live on the land.

Islam has done nothing but teach that Jews are inferior people for not converting to Islam. And treating them and all non Muslim under Islam as second class citizens who had to pay a certain tax and wear certain clothes to identify them, so on and so forth.

Palestinians are Arab Muslims who cannot accept that Jews have taken any part of their Muslim heritage away from them.  Even if it was taken away by the Crusaders, and the Ottomans, at least with the Ottomans - they were Muslims.

Zionism is not a bad word. It is not about conquering other people's lands.
If they were all converts, that would mean that Judaism had no problem converting people en masse.  
Judaism was never like that, and to this day it is not like that.  
That is why the number of Jews in the world continues to be small compared to Christianity and Islam which have gone out of their way to convert people for the past 2000 years.

Zionism is the return of the Jewish People  to their homeland and recreating a sovereign nation on their Ancient Land.

That is all it has been since the word was coined.

It is about Zion.  The Land of Zion.  Israel.  Jerusalem.

All of which were always important at all time to all Jews.

Changing the facts, or believing in what the Muslims want the world to believe, because they know how much many Christians and Muslims have been taught to hate Jews, will not change the truth and reality that the Jews who created Zionism, and the Jews who were already living on the land, or returned to it, are the rightful 
of the Land of Israel.

No different from Apaches still being the rightful owners, paper or no paper, of their ancient homeland.  The same goes to all 500 First Nations, or the ones which have survived 400 of European colonization.

Jews are NOT Europeans.  They are not Mezopotamiams.  Iranians.  Egyptians, Russians, in the ethnical sense.

All peoples have had additions to their groups, or converts.

The numbers into Jewish Groups is not as great as you have been told or would like to think because Jews mostly lived in isolation from others in other for their faith and way of living to survive any assimilation which would endanger the Jewish life they lived.

Jews are the indigenous people of the land.  A melting pot of all the people who lived in ancient Canaan 3000 years ago, and others who married or converted into the religion and became part of the Nation of Israel.

Jews from Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Russia, England, France, America = people who's ancestors inhabited ancient Canaan, The Nation of Israel, Judea = eventually a region known as Palestine.

Arabs from Palestine (now known as Palestinians), Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan,England, USA, Australia,  and anywhere else they now live = people who primarily came from the Arabian Peninsula and moved around the world just as any other people did, including the Jewish People.


Jews are from Judea 

Arabs are from Arabia 


Spend some time thinking about it.


----------



## Sixties Fan

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it is understandable that Jews, whether descendants of converts or not,  believe they have a right to the land they colonized.  But, you also have to understand that it is based on a document that is self-serving.  Not everyone believes that the document is historically factual or that it has any religious validity.  Think of billions of people that practice other religions, Hindus etc.  More importantly, the inhabitants of Palestine, some of whose ancestors had lived in the area before the Hebrews even arrived, believe they have equal or more rights to live there than people that lived on other continents. Furthermore, as has been established and is historically provable, many if not most of the inhabitants that were living in the area are descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that adopted Christianity as their religion.  Who do you think the first Christians were?  From 400 AD until the Muslims conquest the area was almost exclusively Christian, these Christians did not just appear magically, they were the same people that had always lived there.  Whether they were forcefully converted or not, they converted, but it did not change their ancestry.  The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over an overwhelming majority of Greek Orthodox Christians, native Christians,  They, the rulers, were Roman Catholics.  It is also provable that most of these Greek Orthodox Christians eventually converted to Islam. whether forcefully or not.
> 
> So, until the Zionist Jews accept that they came from somewhere else and evicted most of and implemented their rule over the remaining native inhabitants, there will never be peace.  The primary fault lies with the British and their colonial empire ideology, which never took the rights of the native people into consideration.  They assumed that the native people, being backward and non-Europeans as they considered them, could easily be put under European rule as per their past experience.  Rhodesia, South Africa, India etc. were ruled through companies like the British East India Company, the British South Africa Company (Cecil Rhodes) etc. The Zionist Organization was considered an analog to these enterprises.  Do I fault the Zionists for taking advantage of the opportunity? No, but the consequences are what they are today.
Click to expand...



Ask yourselves this:

If most if not all are converts to Judaism, why in the world would they stand Pogroms and Pogroms, the Inquisition, more Pogroms and then the Holocaust?

Why in the world, knowing that they are all European converts to a very hated religion and people, would they not, en masse, convert to Christianity or Islam?

And why, if knowing that these are all converts to Judaism, why didn't the Inquisition 
force all of them to convert to Christianity?

Why would the Muslims accept anyone who returned to the Land of Israel as Jews, if they should have known 1400 years ago, that most Jews were gone, and these could not possibly have been the indigenous Jews of the Land?

Why didn't Islam simply force this Fake Jews to convert to Islam?
Why have fake Jews anywhere on the lands Islam conquered?
Or in their dealings with the "European" Jews in Spain?
How about the Visigoth who conquered Spain for a period?
They did not force those "Jews" to convert to Christianity by force, as Mohammad did with the tribes of Arabia?
Neither did the Vatican.

Why allow "fake Jews", who would not have gone through a proper conversion into Judaism to exist?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it is understandable that Jews, whether descendants of converts or not,  believe they have a right to the land they colonized.  But, you also have to understand that it is based on a document that is self-serving.  Not everyone believes that the document is historically factual or that it has any religious validity.  Think of billions of people that practice other religions, Hindus etc.  More importantly, the inhabitants of Palestine, some of whose ancestors had lived in the area before the Hebrews even arrived, believe they have equal or more rights to live there than people that lived on other continents. Furthermore, as has been established and is historically provable, many if not most of the inhabitants that were living in the area are descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that adopted Christianity as their religion.  Who do you think the first Christians were?  From 400 AD until the Muslims conquest the area was almost exclusively Christian, these Christians did not just appear magically, they were the same people that had always lived there.  Whether they were forcefully converted or not, they converted, but it did not change their ancestry.  The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over an overwhelming majority of Greek Orthodox Christians, native Christians,  They, the rulers, were Roman Catholics.  It is also provable that most of these Greek Orthodox Christians eventually converted to Islam. whether forcefully or not.
> 
> So, until the Zionist Jews accept that they came from somewhere else and evicted most of and implemented their rule over the remaining native inhabitants, there will never be peace.  The primary fault lies with the British and their colonial empire ideology, which never took the rights of the native people into consideration.  They assumed that the native people, being backward and non-Europeans as they considered them, could easily be put under European rule as per their past experience.  Rhodesia, South Africa, India etc. were ruled through companies like the British East India Company, the British South Africa Company (Cecil Rhodes) etc. The Zionist Organization was considered an analog to these enterprises.  Do I fault the Zionists for taking advantage of the opportunity? No, but the consequences are what they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourselves this:
> 
> If most if not all are converts to Judaism, why in the world would they stand Pogroms and Pogroms, the Inquisition, more Pogroms and then the Holocaust?
> 
> Why in the world, knowing that they are all European converts to a very hated religion and people, would they not, en masse, convert to Christianity or Islam?
> 
> And why, if knowing that these are all converts to Judaism, why didn't the Inquisition
> force all of them to convert to Christianity?
> 
> Why would the Muslims accept anyone who returned to the Land of Israel as Jews, if they should have known 1400 years ago, that most Jews were gone, and these could not possibly have been the indigenous Jews of the Land?
> 
> Why didn't Islam simply force this Fake Jews to convert to Islam?
> Why have fake Jews anywhere on the lands Islam conquered?
> Or in their dealings with the "European" Jews in Spain?
> How about the Visigoth who conquered Spain for a period?
> They did not force those "Jews" to convert to Christianity by force, as Mohammad did with the tribes of Arabia?
> Neither did the Vatican.
> 
> Why allow "fake Jews", who would not have gone through a proper conversion into Judaism to exist?
Click to expand...


Just another ant-Semitic canard.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it is understandable that Jews, whether descendants of converts or not,  believe they have a right to the land they colonized.  But, you also have to understand that it is based on a document that is self-serving.  Not everyone believes that the document is historically factual or that it has any religious validity.  Think of billions of people that practice other religions, Hindus etc.  More importantly, the inhabitants of Palestine, some of whose ancestors had lived in the area before the Hebrews even arrived, believe they have equal or more rights to live there than people that lived on other continents. Furthermore, as has been established and is historically provable, many if not most of the inhabitants that were living in the area are descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that adopted Christianity as their religion.  Who do you think the first Christians were?  From 400 AD until the Muslims conquest the area was almost exclusively Christian, these Christians did not just appear magically, they were the same people that had always lived there.  Whether they were forcefully converted or not, they converted, but it did not change their ancestry.  The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over an overwhelming majority of Greek Orthodox Christians, native Christians,  They, the rulers, were Roman Catholics.  It is also provable that most of these Greek Orthodox Christians eventually converted to Islam. whether forcefully or not.
> 
> So, until the Zionist Jews accept that they came from somewhere else and evicted most of and implemented their rule over the remaining native inhabitants, there will never be peace.  The primary fault lies with the British and their colonial empire ideology, which never took the rights of the native people into consideration.  They assumed that the native people, being backward and non-Europeans as they considered them, could easily be put under European rule as per their past experience.  Rhodesia, South Africa, India etc. were ruled through companies like the British East India Company, the British South Africa Company (Cecil Rhodes) etc. The Zionist Organization was considered an analog to these enterprises.  Do I fault the Zionists for taking advantage of the opportunity? No, but the consequences are what they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obtaining a legal document which will give you the right to re-establish your Nation on your ancient land is not "self-serving".
> 
> If you do the research, you will find out that First Nations in America have been working legally to reclaim any of their ancient land.
> 
> You have no evidence that the Arabs were living in ancient Canaan before the Hebrews.
> The Palestinians are Arabs.  Their ancient homeland is the Arabian Peninsula.
> They are not connected to any tribe/clan which lived in ancient Canaan, not to the Greek descendants knows as the Philistines, or any other people.
> 
> The Israelites, descendants of the Hebrews, formed the Nation of Israel once they left bondage in Egypt.  From King David on, they became a unified Kingdom recognized by many of the invaders or traders as being such.
> 
> Being away from one's homeland, does not make that homeland less their homeland, the place where their ancient culture flourished, their history, their religion and everything else one connects to the words Hebrews, Israelites, Nation of Israel, Judea.  Not even the Romans changing the name of Judea into latin Palestine, did not make the land stop being the ancient homeland of the Jews, no matter how many continued to live on the land.
> 
> Islam has done nothing but teach that Jews are inferior people for not converting to Islam. And treating them and all non Muslim under Islam as second class citizens who had to pay a certain tax and wear certain clothes to identify them, so on and so forth.
> 
> Palestinians are Arab Muslims who cannot accept that Jews have taken any part of their Muslim heritage away from them.  Even if it was taken away by the Crusaders, and the Ottomans, at least with the Ottomans - they were Muslims.
> 
> Zionism is not a bad word. It is not about conquering other people's lands.
> If they were all converts, that would mean that Judaism had no problem converting people en masse.
> Judaism was never like that, and to this day it is not like that.
> That is why the number of Jews in the world continues to be small compared to Christianity and Islam which have gone out of their way to convert people for the past 2000 years.
> 
> Zionism is the return of the Jewish People  to their homeland and recreating a sovereign nation on their Ancient Land.
> 
> That is all it has been since the word was coined.
> 
> It is about Zion.  The Land of Zion.  Israel.  Jerusalem.
> 
> All of which were always important at all time to all Jews.
> 
> Changing the facts, or believing in what the Muslims want the world to believe, because they know how much many Christians and Muslims have been taught to hate Jews, will not change the truth and reality that the Jews who created Zionism, and the Jews who were already living on the land, or returned to it, are the rightful
> of the Land of Israel.
> 
> No different from Apaches still being the rightful owners, paper or no paper, of their ancient homeland.  The same goes to all 500 First Nations, or the ones which have survived 400 of European colonization.
> 
> Jews are NOT Europeans.  They are not Mezopotamiams.  Iranians.  Egyptians, Russians, in the ethnical sense.
> 
> All peoples have had additions to their groups, or converts.
> 
> The numbers into Jewish Groups is not as great as you have been told or would like to think because Jews mostly lived in isolation from others in other for their faith and way of living to survive any assimilation which would endanger the Jewish life they lived.
> 
> Jews are the indigenous people of the land.  A melting pot of all the people who lived in ancient Canaan 3000 years ago, and others who married or converted into the religion and became part of the Nation of Israel.
> 
> Jews from Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Russia, England, France, America = people who's ancestors inhabited ancient Canaan, The Nation of Israel, Judea = eventually a region known as Palestine.
> 
> Arabs from Palestine (now known as Palestinians), Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan,England, USA, Australia,  and anywhere else they now live = people who primarily came from the Arabian Peninsula and moved around the world just as any other people did, including the Jewish People.
> 
> 
> Jews are from Judea
> 
> Arabs are from Arabia
> 
> 
> Spend some time thinking about it.
Click to expand...

 
Bravo!!


----------



## MJB12741

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it is understandable that Jews, whether descendants of converts or not,  believe they have a right to the land they colonized.  But, you also have to understand that it is based on a document that is self-serving.  Not everyone believes that the document is historically factual or that it has any religious validity.  Think of billions of people that practice other religions, Hindus etc.  More importantly, the inhabitants of Palestine, some of whose ancestors had lived in the area before the Hebrews even arrived, believe they have equal or more rights to live there than people that lived on other continents. Furthermore, as has been established and is historically provable, many if not most of the inhabitants that were living in the area are descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that adopted Christianity as their religion.  Who do you think the first Christians were?  From 400 AD until the Muslims conquest the area was almost exclusively Christian, these Christians did not just appear magically, they were the same people that had always lived there.  Whether they were forcefully converted or not, they converted, but it did not change their ancestry.  The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over an overwhelming majority of Greek Orthodox Christians, native Christians,  They, the rulers, were Roman Catholics.  It is also provable that most of these Greek Orthodox Christians eventually converted to Islam. whether forcefully or not.
> 
> So, until the Zionist Jews accept that they came from somewhere else and evicted most of and implemented their rule over the remaining native inhabitants, there will never be peace.  The primary fault lies with the British and their colonial empire ideology, which never took the rights of the native people into consideration.  They assumed that the native people, being backward and non-Europeans as they considered them, could easily be put under European rule as per their past experience.  Rhodesia, South Africa, India etc. were ruled through companies like the British East India Company, the British South Africa Company (Cecil Rhodes) etc. The Zionist Organization was considered an analog to these enterprises.  Do I fault the Zionists for taking advantage of the opportunity? No, but the consequences are what they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourselves this:
> 
> If most if not all are converts to Judaism, why in the world would they stand Pogroms and Pogroms, the Inquisition, more Pogroms and then the Holocaust?
> 
> Why in the world, knowing that they are all European converts to a very hated religion and people, would they not, en masse, convert to Christianity or Islam?
> 
> And why, if knowing that these are all converts to Judaism, why didn't the Inquisition
> force all of them to convert to Christianity?
> 
> Why would the Muslims accept anyone who returned to the Land of Israel as Jews, if they should have known 1400 years ago, that most Jews were gone, and these could not possibly have been the indigenous Jews of the Land?
> 
> Why didn't Islam simply force this Fake Jews to convert to Islam?
> Why have fake Jews anywhere on the lands Islam conquered?
> Or in their dealings with the "European" Jews in Spain?
> How about the Visigoth who conquered Spain for a period?
> They did not force those "Jews" to convert to Christianity by force, as Mohammad did with the tribes of Arabia?
> Neither did the Vatican.
> 
> Why allow "fake Jews", who would not have gone through a proper conversion into Judaism to exist?
Click to expand...


Seems like by their own actions they prove Israel's right to exist.


----------



## montelatici

Palestinians are not Arabians.  They are Arab speaking people.  Arab speaking people are not all from Arabia.  Just as Hispanic people are not all from Spain. Tunisians, for example, are less Arabian than Ashkenazi Jews.
*Tunisians are only 4% Arabian ...*







*Did you know these non-Arab countries actually have some Arabian genes?*
1. Georgia: 5 percent 

2. Iran: 56 percent  

3. The Luhya people of Kenya: 2 percent

4. Natives of Madagascar: 2 percent  

5. The Northern Caucasus (including Dagestanis and Abkhazians): 9 percent

6. Tajikistan (Pamiri mountains): 6 percent 

7. Sardinia: 3 percent

8. Southern India: 2 percent 

9. Western India: 6 percent 

10. Indonesia: 6 percent  

11. Ethiopia: 11 percent  

1*2. Ashkenazi Jews (Jews who originated in Eastern Europe): 10 percent 

DNA analysis proves Arabs aren't entirely Arab*


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Palestinians are not Arabians.  They are Arab speaking people.  Arab speaking people are not all from Arabia.  Just as Hispanic people are not all from Spain. Tunisians, for example, are less Arabian than Ashkenazi Jews.
> *Tunisians are only 4% Arabian ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you know these non-Arab countries actually have some Arabian genes?*
> 1. Georgia: 5 percent
> 
> 2. Iran: 56 percent
> 
> 3. The Luhya people of Kenya: 2 percent
> 
> 4. Natives of Madagascar: 2 percent
> 
> 5. The Northern Caucasus (including Dagestanis and Abkhazians): 9 percent
> 
> 6. Tajikistan (Pamiri mountains): 6 percent
> 
> 7. Sardinia: 3 percent
> 
> 8. Southern India: 2 percent
> 
> 9. Western India: 6 percent
> 
> 10. Indonesia: 6 percent
> 
> 11. Ethiopia: 11 percent
> 
> 1*2. Ashkenazi Jews (Jews who originated in Eastern Europe): 10 percent
> 
> DNA analysis proves Arabs aren't entirely Arab*



WTF!  And your point is -----


----------



## NaziMick

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews always cry ANTI-SEMITE when their LIES are exposed but there is nothing more Anti-semitic than Killing Indigenous Palestinians!!!
> 
> Look, it is understandable that Jews, whether descendants of converts or not,  believe they have a right to the land they colonized.  But, you also have to understand that it is based on a document that is self-serving.  Not everyone believes that the document is historically factual or that it has any religious validity.  Think of billions of people that practice other religions, Hindus etc.  More importantly, the inhabitants of Palestine, some of whose ancestors had lived in the area before the Hebrews even arrived, believe they have equal or more rights to live there than people that lived on other continents. Furthermore, as has been established and is historically provable, many if not most of the inhabitants that were living in the area are descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that adopted Christianity as their religion.  Who do you think the first Christians were?  From 400 AD until the Muslims conquest the area was almost exclusively Christian, these Christians did not just appear magically, they were the same people that had always lived there.  Whether they were forcefully converted or not, they converted, but it did not change their ancestry.  The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over an overwhelming majority of Greek Orthodox Christians, native Christians,  They, the rulers, were Roman Catholics.  It is also provable that most of these Greek Orthodox Christians eventually converted to Islam. whether forcefully or not.
> 
> So, until the Zionist Jews accept that they came from somewhere else and evicted most of and implemented their rule over the remaining native inhabitants, there will never be peace.  The primary fault lies with the British and their colonial empire ideology, which never took the rights of the native people into consideration.  They assumed that the native people, being backward and non-Europeans as they considered them, could easily be put under European rule as per their past experience.  Rhodesia, South Africa, India etc. were ruled through companies like the British East India Company, the British South Africa Company (Cecil Rhodes) etc. The Zionist Organization was considered an analog to these enterprises.  Do I fault the Zionists for taking advantage of the opportunity? No, but the consequences are what they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourselves this:
> 
> If most if not all are converts to Judaism, why in the world would they stand Pogroms and Pogroms, the Inquisition, more Pogroms and then the Holocaust?
> 
> Why in the world, knowing that they are all European converts to a very hated religion and people, would they not, en masse, convert to Christianity or Islam?
> 
> And why, if knowing that these are all converts to Judaism, why didn't the Inquisition
> force all of them to convert to Christianity?
> 
> Why would the Muslims accept anyone who returned to the Land of Israel as Jews, if they should have known 1400 years ago, that most Jews were gone, and these could not possibly have been the indigenous Jews of the Land?
> 
> Why didn't Islam simply force this Fake Jews to convert to Islam?
> Why have fake Jews anywhere on the lands Islam conquered?
> Or in their dealings with the "European" Jews in Spain?
> How about the Visigoth who conquered Spain for a period?
> They did not force those "Jews" to convert to Christianity by force, as Mohammad did with the tribes of Arabia?
> Neither did the Vatican.
> 
> Why allow "fake Jews", who would not have gone through a proper conversion into Judaism to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just another ant-Semitic canard.
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinians are not Arabians.  They are Arab speaking people.  Arab speaking people are not all from Arabia.  Just as Hispanic people are not all from Spain. Tunisians, for example, are less Arabian than Ashkenazi Jews.
> *Tunisians are only 4% Arabian ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Did you know these non-Arab countries actually have some Arabian genes?*
> 1. Georgia: 5 percent
> 
> 2. Iran: 56 percent
> 
> 3. The Luhya people of Kenya: 2 percent
> 
> 4. Natives of Madagascar: 2 percent
> 
> 5. The Northern Caucasus (including Dagestanis and Abkhazians): 9 percent
> 
> 6. Tajikistan (Pamiri mountains): 6 percent
> 
> 7. Sardinia: 3 percent
> 
> 8. Southern India: 2 percent
> 
> 9. Western India: 6 percent
> 
> 10. Indonesia: 6 percent
> 
> 11. Ethiopia: 11 percent
> 
> 1*2. Ashkenazi Jews (Jews who originated in Eastern Europe): 10 percent
> 
> DNA analysis proves Arabs aren't entirely Arab*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF!  And your point is -----
Click to expand...


Hello!  Can Monte come out & play?


----------



## MJB12741

As long as the Zionists continue to brutalize the Palestinians with their damn peace offerings, security fence & land concessions keeping them in Israel, there will never be a lasting peace.  Want peace Israel?  Learn from king Husssein how to achieve peace from Palestinians & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## MJB12741

Bitch, bitch, bitch about anything Israel does or doesn't do.  And yet never a single complaint about Arab country treatment of Palestinians.  When will Israel ever learn how to deal with Palestinians?


----------



## montelatici

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it is understandable that Jews, whether descendants of converts or not,  believe they have a right to the land they colonized.  But, you also have to understand that it is based on a document that is self-serving.  Not everyone believes that the document is historically factual or that it has any religious validity.  Think of billions of people that practice other religions, Hindus etc.  More importantly, the inhabitants of Palestine, some of whose ancestors had lived in the area before the Hebrews even arrived, believe they have equal or more rights to live there than people that lived on other continents. Furthermore, as has been established and is historically provable, many if not most of the inhabitants that were living in the area are descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that adopted Christianity as their religion.  Who do you think the first Christians were?  From 400 AD until the Muslims conquest the area was almost exclusively Christian, these Christians did not just appear magically, they were the same people that had always lived there.  Whether they were forcefully converted or not, they converted, but it did not change their ancestry.  The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over an overwhelming majority of Greek Orthodox Christians, native Christians,  They, the rulers, were Roman Catholics.  It is also provable that most of these Greek Orthodox Christians eventually converted to Islam. whether forcefully or not.
> 
> So, until the Zionist Jews accept that they came from somewhere else and evicted most of and implemented their rule over the remaining native inhabitants, there will never be peace.  The primary fault lies with the British and their colonial empire ideology, which never took the rights of the native people into consideration.  They assumed that the native people, being backward and non-Europeans as they considered them, could easily be put under European rule as per their past experience.  Rhodesia, South Africa, India etc. were ruled through companies like the British East India Company, the British South Africa Company (Cecil Rhodes) etc. The Zionist Organization was considered an analog to these enterprises.  Do I fault the Zionists for taking advantage of the opportunity? No, but the consequences are what they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourselves this:
> 
> If most if not all are converts to Judaism, why in the world would they stand Pogroms and Pogroms, the Inquisition, more Pogroms and then the Holocaust?
> 
> Why in the world, knowing that they are all European converts to a very hated religion and people, would they not, en masse, convert to Christianity or Islam?
> 
> And why, if knowing that these are all converts to Judaism, why didn't the Inquisition
> force all of them to convert to Christianity?
> 
> Why would the Muslims accept anyone who returned to the Land of Israel as Jews, if they should have known 1400 years ago, that most Jews were gone, and these could not possibly have been the indigenous Jews of the Land?
> 
> Why didn't Islam simply force this Fake Jews to convert to Islam?
> Why have fake Jews anywhere on the lands Islam conquered?
> Or in their dealings with the "European" Jews in Spain?
> How about the Visigoth who conquered Spain for a period?
> They did not force those "Jews" to convert to Christianity by force, as Mohammad did with the tribes of Arabia?
> Neither did the Vatican.
> 
> Why allow "fake Jews", who would not have gone through a proper conversion into Judaism to exist?
Click to expand...


You are truly an idiot for posting, when you haven't a clue about history.  The Spanish Inquisition did force Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity.  Moriscos (Muslims in Spain) and Marranos (Jews in Spain) that refused to convert were expelled.  Most converted to Christianity. 

And in Italy, we have Inquisition trial transcripts to prove the point. 

https://www.escholar.manchester.ac....amId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it is understandable that Jews, whether descendants of converts or not,  believe they have a right to the land they colonized.  But, you also have to understand that it is based on a document that is self-serving.  Not everyone believes that the document is historically factual or that it has any religious validity.  Think of billions of people that practice other religions, Hindus etc.  More importantly, the inhabitants of Palestine, some of whose ancestors had lived in the area before the Hebrews even arrived, believe they have equal or more rights to live there than people that lived on other continents. Furthermore, as has been established and is historically provable, many if not most of the inhabitants that were living in the area are descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that adopted Christianity as their religion.  Who do you think the first Christians were?  From 400 AD until the Muslims conquest the area was almost exclusively Christian, these Christians did not just appear magically, they were the same people that had always lived there.  Whether they were forcefully converted or not, they converted, but it did not change their ancestry.  The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over an overwhelming majority of Greek Orthodox Christians, native Christians,  They, the rulers, were Roman Catholics.  It is also provable that most of these Greek Orthodox Christians eventually converted to Islam. whether forcefully or not.
> 
> So, until the Zionist Jews accept that they came from somewhere else and evicted most of and implemented their rule over the remaining native inhabitants, there will never be peace.  The primary fault lies with the British and their colonial empire ideology, which never took the rights of the native people into consideration.  They assumed that the native people, being backward and non-Europeans as they considered them, could easily be put under European rule as per their past experience.  Rhodesia, South Africa, India etc. were ruled through companies like the British East India Company, the British South Africa Company (Cecil Rhodes) etc. The Zionist Organization was considered an analog to these enterprises.  Do I fault the Zionists for taking advantage of the opportunity? No, but the consequences are what they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourselves this:
> 
> If most if not all are converts to Judaism, why in the world would they stand Pogroms and Pogroms, the Inquisition, more Pogroms and then the Holocaust?
> 
> Why in the world, knowing that they are all European converts to a very hated religion and people, would they not, en masse, convert to Christianity or Islam?
> 
> And why, if knowing that these are all converts to Judaism, why didn't the Inquisition
> force all of them to convert to Christianity?
> 
> Why would the Muslims accept anyone who returned to the Land of Israel as Jews, if they should have known 1400 years ago, that most Jews were gone, and these could not possibly have been the indigenous Jews of the Land?
> 
> Why didn't Islam simply force this Fake Jews to convert to Islam?
> Why have fake Jews anywhere on the lands Islam conquered?
> Or in their dealings with the "European" Jews in Spain?
> How about the Visigoth who conquered Spain for a period?
> They did not force those "Jews" to convert to Christianity by force, as Mohammad did with the tribes of Arabia?
> Neither did the Vatican.
> 
> Why allow "fake Jews", who would not have gone through a proper conversion into Judaism to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are truly an idiot for posting, when you haven't a clue about history.  The Spanish Inquisition did force Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity.  Moriscos (Muslims in Spain) and Marranos (Jews in Spain) that refused to convert were expelled.  Most converted to Christianity.
> 
> And in Italy, we have Inquisition trial transcripts to prove the point.
> 
> https://www.escholar.manchester.ac....amId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF
Click to expand...


LMAO!  Look who is calling who an idiot.  Ya gotta love Monte for all the laughs he gives us.


----------



## Hollie

montelatici said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it is understandable that Jews, whether descendants of converts or not,  believe they have a right to the land they colonized.  But, you also have to understand that it is based on a document that is self-serving.  Not everyone believes that the document is historically factual or that it has any religious validity.  Think of billions of people that practice other religions, Hindus etc.  More importantly, the inhabitants of Palestine, some of whose ancestors had lived in the area before the Hebrews even arrived, believe they have equal or more rights to live there than people that lived on other continents. Furthermore, as has been established and is historically provable, many if not most of the inhabitants that were living in the area are descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that adopted Christianity as their religion.  Who do you think the first Christians were?  From 400 AD until the Muslims conquest the area was almost exclusively Christian, these Christians did not just appear magically, they were the same people that had always lived there.  Whether they were forcefully converted or not, they converted, but it did not change their ancestry.  The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over an overwhelming majority of Greek Orthodox Christians, native Christians,  They, the rulers, were Roman Catholics.  It is also provable that most of these Greek Orthodox Christians eventually converted to Islam. whether forcefully or not.
> 
> So, until the Zionist Jews accept that they came from somewhere else and evicted most of and implemented their rule over the remaining native inhabitants, there will never be peace.  The primary fault lies with the British and their colonial empire ideology, which never took the rights of the native people into consideration.  They assumed that the native people, being backward and non-Europeans as they considered them, could easily be put under European rule as per their past experience.  Rhodesia, South Africa, India etc. were ruled through companies like the British East India Company, the British South Africa Company (Cecil Rhodes) etc. The Zionist Organization was considered an analog to these enterprises.  Do I fault the Zionists for taking advantage of the opportunity? No, but the consequences are what they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourselves this:
> 
> If most if not all are converts to Judaism, why in the world would they stand Pogroms and Pogroms, the Inquisition, more Pogroms and then the Holocaust?
> 
> Why in the world, knowing that they are all European converts to a very hated religion and people, would they not, en masse, convert to Christianity or Islam?
> 
> And why, if knowing that these are all converts to Judaism, why didn't the Inquisition
> force all of them to convert to Christianity?
> 
> Why would the Muslims accept anyone who returned to the Land of Israel as Jews, if they should have known 1400 years ago, that most Jews were gone, and these could not possibly have been the indigenous Jews of the Land?
> 
> Why didn't Islam simply force this Fake Jews to convert to Islam?
> Why have fake Jews anywhere on the lands Islam conquered?
> Or in their dealings with the "European" Jews in Spain?
> How about the Visigoth who conquered Spain for a period?
> They did not force those "Jews" to convert to Christianity by force, as Mohammad did with the tribes of Arabia?
> Neither did the Vatican.
> 
> Why allow "fake Jews", who would not have gone through a proper conversion into Judaism to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are truly an idiot for posting, when you haven't a clue about history.  The Spanish Inquisition did force Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity.  Moriscos (Muslims in Spain) and Marranos (Jews in Spain) that refused to convert were expelled.  Most converted to Christianity.
> 
> And in Italy, we have Inquisition trial transcripts to prove the point.
> 
> https://www.escholar.manchester.ac....amId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF
Click to expand...


_*Monty'ism Alert!
*
The Monty_ tell us: "The Spanish Inquisition did force Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity."
_
The Monty _then advises: Moriscos (Muslims in Spain) and Marranos (Jews in Spain) that refused to convert were expelled.

Gee whiz, that's sounds a bit like the Christian mafioso made the non-Christians an offer they couldn't refuse. 

"There's no compulsion in religion." Never mind the underlying threat.


----------



## MJB12741

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it is understandable that Jews, whether descendants of converts or not,  believe they have a right to the land they colonized.  But, you also have to understand that it is based on a document that is self-serving.  Not everyone believes that the document is historically factual or that it has any religious validity.  Think of billions of people that practice other religions, Hindus etc.  More importantly, the inhabitants of Palestine, some of whose ancestors had lived in the area before the Hebrews even arrived, believe they have equal or more rights to live there than people that lived on other continents. Furthermore, as has been established and is historically provable, many if not most of the inhabitants that were living in the area are descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that adopted Christianity as their religion.  Who do you think the first Christians were?  From 400 AD until the Muslims conquest the area was almost exclusively Christian, these Christians did not just appear magically, they were the same people that had always lived there.  Whether they were forcefully converted or not, they converted, but it did not change their ancestry.  The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over an overwhelming majority of Greek Orthodox Christians, native Christians,  They, the rulers, were Roman Catholics.  It is also provable that most of these Greek Orthodox Christians eventually converted to Islam. whether forcefully or not.
> 
> So, until the Zionist Jews accept that they came from somewhere else and evicted most of and implemented their rule over the remaining native inhabitants, there will never be peace.  The primary fault lies with the British and their colonial empire ideology, which never took the rights of the native people into consideration.  They assumed that the native people, being backward and non-Europeans as they considered them, could easily be put under European rule as per their past experience.  Rhodesia, South Africa, India etc. were ruled through companies like the British East India Company, the British South Africa Company (Cecil Rhodes) etc. The Zionist Organization was considered an analog to these enterprises.  Do I fault the Zionists for taking advantage of the opportunity? No, but the consequences are what they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ask yourselves this:
> 
> If most if not all are converts to Judaism, why in the world would they stand Pogroms and Pogroms, the Inquisition, more Pogroms and then the Holocaust?
> 
> Why in the world, knowing that they are all European converts to a very hated religion and people, would they not, en masse, convert to Christianity or Islam?
> 
> And why, if knowing that these are all converts to Judaism, why didn't the Inquisition
> force all of them to convert to Christianity?
> 
> Why would the Muslims accept anyone who returned to the Land of Israel as Jews, if they should have known 1400 years ago, that most Jews were gone, and these could not possibly have been the indigenous Jews of the Land?
> 
> Why didn't Islam simply force this Fake Jews to convert to Islam?
> Why have fake Jews anywhere on the lands Islam conquered?
> Or in their dealings with the "European" Jews in Spain?
> How about the Visigoth who conquered Spain for a period?
> They did not force those "Jews" to convert to Christianity by force, as Mohammad did with the tribes of Arabia?
> Neither did the Vatican.
> 
> Why allow "fake Jews", who would not have gone through a proper conversion into Judaism to exist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are truly an idiot for posting, when you haven't a clue about history.  The Spanish Inquisition did force Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity.  Moriscos (Muslims in Spain) and Marranos (Jews in Spain) that refused to convert were expelled.  Most converted to Christianity.
> 
> And in Italy, we have Inquisition trial transcripts to prove the point.
> 
> https://www.escholar.manchester.ac....amId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*Monty'ism Alert!
> *
> The Monty_ tell us: "The Spanish Inquisition did force Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity."
> _
> The Monty _then advises: Moriscos (Muslims in Spain) and Marranos (Jews in Spain) that refused to convert were expelled.
> 
> Gee whiz, that's sounds a bit like the Christian mafioso made the non-Christians an offer they couldn't refuse.
> 
> "There's no compulsion in religion." Never mind the underlying threat.
Click to expand...


He tries hard to change the subject.  What does any of this have to do with Israel's legal right to exist.


----------



## fanger

According to the linguist Noam Chomsky, the term "right to exist" is unique to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: "No state has a right to exist, and no one demands such a right....In an effort to prevent negotiations and a diplomatic settlement, the U.S. and Israel insisted on raising the barrier to something that nobody's going to accept....[Palestinians are] not going to accept...the legitimacy of their dispossession."[34] John V. Whitbeck argued that Israel's insistence on a right to exist forces Palestinians to provide a moral justification for their own suffering.[35] Journalist and author Alan Hart, a critic of Zionism who has speculated that Israeli agents were behind the 9/11 attacks, has argued that there is no legitimacy to Israel’s claim to a “right to exist” in International law. He reasons that Israel therefore insists the Palestinians must first recognise its 'right to exist' on Palestinian territory because according to International law, neither the British Balfour declaration, nor the vitiated UN resolution of 1947 granted that legitimacy and only the dispossessed Palestinians can confer it upon Israel: "Israel has no right to exist unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state."
Right to exist - Wikipedia


----------



## MJB12741

fanger said:


> According to the linguist Noam Chomsky, the term "right to exist" is unique to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: "No state has a right to exist, and no one demands such a right....In an effort to prevent negotiations and a diplomatic settlement, the U.S. and Israel insisted on raising the barrier to something that nobody's going to accept....[Palestinians are] not going to accept...the legitimacy of their dispossession."[34] John V. Whitbeck argued that Israel's insistence on a right to exist forces Palestinians to provide a moral justification for their own suffering.[35] Journalist and author Alan Hart, a critic of Zionism who has speculated that Israeli agents were behind the 9/11 attacks, has argued that there is no legitimacy to Israel’s claim to a “right to exist” in International law. He reasons that Israel therefore insists the Palestinians must first recognise its 'right to exist' on Palestinian territory because according to International law, neither the British Balfour declaration, nor the vitiated UN resolution of 1947 granted that legitimacy and only the dispossessed Palestinians can confer it upon Israel: "Israel has no right to exist unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state."
> Right to exist - Wikipedia



So then, do Palestinians not have a right to exist?


----------



## MJB12741

fanger said:


> According to the linguist Noam Chomsky, the term "right to exist" is unique to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: "No state has a right to exist, and no one demands such a right....In an effort to prevent negotiations and a diplomatic settlement, the U.S. and Israel insisted on raising the barrier to something that nobody's going to accept....[Palestinians are] not going to accept...the legitimacy of their dispossession."[34] John V. Whitbeck argued that Israel's insistence on a right to exist forces Palestinians to provide a moral justification for their own suffering.[35] Journalist and author Alan Hart, a critic of Zionism who has speculated that Israeli agents were behind the 9/11 attacks, has argued that there is no legitimacy to Israel’s claim to a “right to exist” in International law. He reasons that Israel therefore insists the Palestinians must first recognise its 'right to exist' on Palestinian territory because according to International law, neither the British Balfour declaration, nor the vitiated UN resolution of 1947 granted that legitimacy and only the dispossessed Palestinians can confer it upon Israel: "Israel has no right to exist unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during the creation of the Zionist state."
> Right to exist - Wikipedia



Fact!  As long as the Palestinians don't recognize Israel's legal right to exist, things will remain the same as now.  Great by me.


----------



## MJB12741

Sixties Fan said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good Historical review on how modern Israel came to be, and the rights of the Jewish people to the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, it is understandable that Jews, whether descendants of converts or not,  believe they have a right to the land they colonized.  But, you also have to understand that it is based on a document that is self-serving.  Not everyone believes that the document is historically factual or that it has any religious validity.  Think of billions of people that practice other religions, Hindus etc.  More importantly, the inhabitants of Palestine, some of whose ancestors had lived in the area before the Hebrews even arrived, believe they have equal or more rights to live there than people that lived on other continents. Furthermore, as has been established and is historically provable, many if not most of the inhabitants that were living in the area are descendants of the Samaritans and Jews that adopted Christianity as their religion.  Who do you think the first Christians were?  From 400 AD until the Muslims conquest the area was almost exclusively Christian, these Christians did not just appear magically, they were the same people that had always lived there.  Whether they were forcefully converted or not, they converted, but it did not change their ancestry.  The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ruled over an overwhelming majority of Greek Orthodox Christians, native Christians,  They, the rulers, were Roman Catholics.  It is also provable that most of these Greek Orthodox Christians eventually converted to Islam. whether forcefully or not.
> 
> So, until the Zionist Jews accept that they came from somewhere else and evicted most of and implemented their rule over the remaining native inhabitants, there will never be peace.  The primary fault lies with the British and their colonial empire ideology, which never took the rights of the native people into consideration.  They assumed that the native people, being backward and non-Europeans as they considered them, could easily be put under European rule as per their past experience.  Rhodesia, South Africa, India etc. were ruled through companies like the British East India Company, the British South Africa Company (Cecil Rhodes) etc. The Zionist Organization was considered an analog to these enterprises.  Do I fault the Zionists for taking advantage of the opportunity? No, but the consequences are what they are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obtaining a legal document which will give you the right to re-establish your Nation on your ancient land is not "self-serving".
> 
> If you do the research, you will find out that First Nations in America have been working legally to reclaim any of their ancient land.
> 
> You have no evidence that the Arabs were living in ancient Canaan before the Hebrews.
> The Palestinians are Arabs.  Their ancient homeland is the Arabian Peninsula.
> They are not connected to any tribe/clan which lived in ancient Canaan, not to the Greek descendants knows as the Philistines, or any other people.
> 
> The Israelites, descendants of the Hebrews, formed the Nation of Israel once they left bondage in Egypt.  From King David on, they became a unified Kingdom recognized by many of the invaders or traders as being such.
> 
> Being away from one's homeland, does not make that homeland less their homeland, the place where their ancient culture flourished, their history, their religion and everything else one connects to the words Hebrews, Israelites, Nation of Israel, Judea.  Not even the Romans changing the name of Judea into latin Palestine, did not make the land stop being the ancient homeland of the Jews, no matter how many continued to live on the land.
> 
> Islam has done nothing but teach that Jews are inferior people for not converting to Islam. And treating them and all non Muslim under Islam as second class citizens who had to pay a certain tax and wear certain clothes to identify them, so on and so forth.
> 
> Palestinians are Arab Muslims who cannot accept that Jews have taken any part of their Muslim heritage away from them.  Even if it was taken away by the Crusaders, and the Ottomans, at least with the Ottomans - they were Muslims.
> 
> Zionism is not a bad word. It is not about conquering other people's lands.
> If they were all converts, that would mean that Judaism had no problem converting people en masse.
> Judaism was never like that, and to this day it is not like that.
> That is why the number of Jews in the world continues to be small compared to Christianity and Islam which have gone out of their way to convert people for the past 2000 years.
> 
> Zionism is the return of the Jewish People  to their homeland and recreating a sovereign nation on their Ancient Land.
> 
> That is all it has been since the word was coined.
> 
> It is about Zion.  The Land of Zion.  Israel.  Jerusalem.
> 
> All of which were always important at all time to all Jews.
> 
> Changing the facts, or believing in what the Muslims want the world to believe, because they know how much many Christians and Muslims have been taught to hate Jews, will not change the truth and reality that the Jews who created Zionism, and the Jews who were already living on the land, or returned to it, are the rightful
> of the Land of Israel.
> 
> No different from Apaches still being the rightful owners, paper or no paper, of their ancient homeland.  The same goes to all 500 First Nations, or the ones which have survived 400 of European colonization.
> 
> Jews are NOT Europeans.  They are not Mezopotamiams.  Iranians.  Egyptians, Russians, in the ethnical sense.
> 
> All peoples have had additions to their groups, or converts.
> 
> The numbers into Jewish Groups is not as great as you have been told or would like to think because Jews mostly lived in isolation from others in other for their faith and way of living to survive any assimilation which would endanger the Jewish life they lived.
> 
> Jews are the indigenous people of the land.  A melting pot of all the people who lived in ancient Canaan 3000 years ago, and others who married or converted into the religion and became part of the Nation of Israel.
> 
> Jews from Iran, Egypt, Morocco, Russia, England, France, America = people who's ancestors inhabited ancient Canaan, The Nation of Israel, Judea = eventually a region known as Palestine.
> 
> Arabs from Palestine (now known as Palestinians), Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan,England, USA, Australia,  and anywhere else they now live = people who primarily came from the Arabian Peninsula and moved around the world just as any other people did, including the Jewish People.
> 
> 
> Jews are from Judea
> 
> Arabs are from Arabia
> 
> 
> Spend some time thinking about it.
Click to expand...


Excellent post.  Hopefully the Pali supporters can read & understand it.


----------



## MJB12741

Considering all American dollars we provide in foreign aid to many countries, is there anyone who disagrees that it is best spent on Israel for what we Americans & the entire world receive in return?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> Considering all American dollars we provide in foreign aid to many countries, is there anyone who disagrees that it is best spent on Israel for what we Americans & the entire world receive in return?



Israel does nothing for the world that other countries do far better and we receive nothing from the Israelis except for the hate of nearly 2 billion Muslims.


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering all American dollars we provide in foreign aid to many countries, is there anyone who disagrees that it is best spent on Israel for what we Americans & the entire world receive in return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel does nothing for the world that other countries do far better and we receive nothing from the Israelis except for the hate of nearly 2 billion Muslims.
Click to expand...



BS as usual.  Hey Monte, wouldn't you just love it if we Americans cut off all aid to Israel & gave it to the Palestinians to finance anti American terrorist organizations out to kill us Americans?


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering all American dollars we provide in foreign aid to many countries, is there anyone who disagrees that it is best spent on Israel for what we Americans & the entire world receive in return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel does nothing for the world that other countries do far better and we receive nothing from the Israelis except for the hate of nearly 2 billion Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BS as usual.  Hey Monte, wouldn't you just love it if we Americans cut off all aid to Israel & gave it to the Palestinians to finance anti American terrorist organizations out to kill us Americans?
Click to expand...


Just fact.  If the U.S. were even handed, we would gain a billion or more new friends.  By the way, outside of a Christian Palestinian that assassinated RFK, what Palestinian violence  has been directed against the U.S.?


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering all American dollars we provide in foreign aid to many countries, is there anyone who disagrees that it is best spent on Israel for what we Americans & the entire world receive in return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel does nothing for the world that other countries do far better and we receive nothing from the Israelis except for the hate of nearly 2 billion Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BS as usual.  Hey Monte, wouldn't you just love it if we Americans cut off all aid to Israel & gave it to the Palestinians to finance anti American terrorist organizations out to kill us Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just fact.  If the U.S. were even handed, we would gain a billion or more new friends.  By the way, outside of a Christian Palestinian that assassinated RFK, what Palestinian violence  has been directed against the U.S.?
Click to expand...



Just for starters, what ever happened to the American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro?

*The Death of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro Cruise ...*
www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/10/articles/terrorism-1/the-death-of...

the death of cruise ship passenger Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew, who was killed by Palestinian terrorists


----------



## montelatici

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering all American dollars we provide in foreign aid to many countries, is there anyone who disagrees that it is best spent on Israel for what we Americans & the entire world receive in return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel does nothing for the world that other countries do far better and we receive nothing from the Israelis except for the hate of nearly 2 billion Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BS as usual.  Hey Monte, wouldn't you just love it if we Americans cut off all aid to Israel & gave it to the Palestinians to finance anti American terrorist organizations out to kill us Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just fact.  If the U.S. were even handed, we would gain a billion or more new friends.  By the way, outside of a Christian Palestinian that assassinated RFK, what Palestinian violence  has been directed against the U.S.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just for starters, what ever happened to the American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro?
> 
> *The Death of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro Cruise ...*
> www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/10/articles/terrorism-1/the-death-of...
> 
> the death of cruise ship passenger Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew, who was killed by Palestinian terrorists
Click to expand...


The IDF has killed dozens of Americans, including kids,  not counting the 34 or so Liberty crewmen al in one shot.

"The United States expresses its deepest condolences to the family of a U.S. citizen minor who was killed by the Israeli Defense Forces during clashes in Silwad on October 24. "

- See more at: Israeli army kills 14-year old Palestinian with U.S. citizenship


----------



## MJB12741

montelatici said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering all American dollars we provide in foreign aid to many countries, is there anyone who disagrees that it is best spent on Israel for what we Americans & the entire world receive in return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel does nothing for the world that other countries do far better and we receive nothing from the Israelis except for the hate of nearly 2 billion Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BS as usual.  Hey Monte, wouldn't you just love it if we Americans cut off all aid to Israel & gave it to the Palestinians to finance anti American terrorist organizations out to kill us Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just fact.  If the U.S. were even handed, we would gain a billion or more new friends.  By the way, outside of a Christian Palestinian that assassinated RFK, what Palestinian violence  has been directed against the U.S.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just for starters, what ever happened to the American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro?
> 
> *The Death of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro Cruise ...*
> www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/10/articles/terrorism-1/the-death-of...
> 
> the death of cruise ship passenger Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew, who was killed by Palestinian terrorists
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The IDF has killed dozens of Americans, including kids,  not counting the 34 or so Liberty crewmen al in one shot.
> 
> "The United States expresses its deepest condolences to the family of a U.S. citizen minor who was killed by the Israeli Defense Forces during clashes in Silwad on October 24. "
> 
> - See more at: Israeli army kills 14-year old Palestinian with U.S. citizenship
Click to expand...


Hey, don't get all upset & dodge the issue at hand.  You asked for examples of Palestinian hostilities toward Americans & I gave you just one.  Want more?  Please advise.


----------



## MJB12741

Palestinian Sentenced For Killing American Student Ezra Schwartz


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering all American dollars we provide in foreign aid to many countries, is there anyone who disagrees that it is best spent on Israel for what we Americans & the entire world receive in return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel does nothing for the world that other countries do far better and we receive nothing from the Israelis except for the hate of nearly 2 billion Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BS as usual.  Hey Monte, wouldn't you just love it if we Americans cut off all aid to Israel & gave it to the Palestinians to finance anti American terrorist organizations out to kill us Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just fact.  If the U.S. were even handed, we would gain a billion or more new friends.  By the way, outside of a Christian Palestinian that assassinated RFK, what Palestinian violence  has been directed against the U.S.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just for starters, what ever happened to the American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro?
> 
> *The Death of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro Cruise ...*
> www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/10/articles/terrorism-1/the-death-of...
> 
> the death of cruise ship passenger Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew, who was killed by Palestinian terrorists
Click to expand...

I never could find out who he was.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering all American dollars we provide in foreign aid to many countries, is there anyone who disagrees that it is best spent on Israel for what we Americans & the entire world receive in return?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel does nothing for the world that other countries do far better and we receive nothing from the Israelis except for the hate of nearly 2 billion Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> BS as usual.  Hey Monte, wouldn't you just love it if we Americans cut off all aid to Israel & gave it to the Palestinians to finance anti American terrorist organizations out to kill us Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just fact.  If the U.S. were even handed, we would gain a billion or more new friends.  By the way, outside of a Christian Palestinian that assassinated RFK, what Palestinian violence  has been directed against the U.S.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just for starters, what ever happened to the American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro?
> 
> *The Death of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro Cruise ...*
> www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/10/articles/terrorism-1/the-death-of...
> 
> the death of cruise ship passenger Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew, who was killed by Palestinian terrorists
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never could find out who he was.
Click to expand...


Aw, bless you for caring.  Live & learn.

8 Heartbreaking Pictures of Slain Teen Ezra Schwartz


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel does nothing for the world that other countries do far better and we receive nothing from the Israelis except for the hate of nearly 2 billion Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS as usual.  Hey Monte, wouldn't you just love it if we Americans cut off all aid to Israel & gave it to the Palestinians to finance anti American terrorist organizations out to kill us Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just fact.  If the U.S. were even handed, we would gain a billion or more new friends.  By the way, outside of a Christian Palestinian that assassinated RFK, what Palestinian violence  has been directed against the U.S.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just for starters, what ever happened to the American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro?
> 
> *The Death of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro Cruise ...*
> www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/10/articles/terrorism-1/the-death-of...
> 
> the death of cruise ship passenger Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew, who was killed by Palestinian terrorists
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never could find out who he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, bless you for caring.  Live & learn.
> 
> 8 Heartbreaking Pictures of Slain Teen Ezra Schwartz
Click to expand...

I was talking about Klinghoffer. You need to keep up.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BS as usual.  Hey Monte, wouldn't you just love it if we Americans cut off all aid to Israel & gave it to the Palestinians to finance anti American terrorist organizations out to kill us Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just fact.  If the U.S. were even handed, we would gain a billion or more new friends.  By the way, outside of a Christian Palestinian that assassinated RFK, what Palestinian violence  has been directed against the U.S.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just for starters, what ever happened to the American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro?
> 
> *The Death of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro Cruise ...*
> www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/10/articles/terrorism-1/the-death-of...
> 
> the death of cruise ship passenger Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew, who was killed by Palestinian terrorists
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never could find out who he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, bless you for caring.  Live & learn.
> 
> 8 Heartbreaking Pictures of Slain Teen Ezra Schwartz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was talking about Klinghoffer. You need to keep up.
Click to expand...


Let me help you.  No thanks necessary.

Leon Klinghoffer - Wikipedia


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just fact.  If the U.S. were even handed, we would gain a billion or more new friends.  By the way, outside of a Christian Palestinian that assassinated RFK, what Palestinian violence  has been directed against the U.S.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for starters, what ever happened to the American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro?
> 
> *The Death of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro Cruise ...*
> www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/10/articles/terrorism-1/the-death-of...
> 
> the death of cruise ship passenger Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew, who was killed by Palestinian terrorists
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never could find out who he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, bless you for caring.  Live & learn.
> 
> 8 Heartbreaking Pictures of Slain Teen Ezra Schwartz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was talking about Klinghoffer. You need to keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me help you.  No thanks necessary.
> 
> Leon Klinghoffer - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Hello!  Can PF come out & play?


----------



## P F Tinmore

MJB12741 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just fact.  If the U.S. were even handed, we would gain a billion or more new friends.  By the way, outside of a Christian Palestinian that assassinated RFK, what Palestinian violence  has been directed against the U.S.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for starters, what ever happened to the American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro?
> 
> *The Death of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro Cruise ...*
> www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/10/articles/terrorism-1/the-death-of...
> 
> the death of cruise ship passenger Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew, who was killed by Palestinian terrorists
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never could find out who he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, bless you for caring.  Live & learn.
> 
> 8 Heartbreaking Pictures of Slain Teen Ezra Schwartz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was talking about Klinghoffer. You need to keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me help you.  No thanks necessary.
> 
> Leon Klinghoffer - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I know all that. His bios from all over the place reads like the same press release.

Was he involved in Israel? Was he a dual citizen? Did he donate to the IDF or settlements?

I don't know.


----------



## MJB12741

P F Tinmore said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for starters, what ever happened to the American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro?
> 
> *The Death of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro Cruise ...*
> www.cruiselawnews.com/2010/10/articles/terrorism-1/the-death-of...
> 
> the death of cruise ship passenger Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew, who was killed by Palestinian terrorists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never could find out who he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, bless you for caring.  Live & learn.
> 
> 8 Heartbreaking Pictures of Slain Teen Ezra Schwartz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was talking about Klinghoffer. You need to keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me help you.  No thanks necessary.
> 
> Leon Klinghoffer - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know all that. His bios from all over the place reads like the same press release.
> 
> Was he involved in Israel? Was he a dual citizen? Did he donate to the IDF or settlements?
> 
> I don't know.
Click to expand...


Never been to Israel & have no desire whatsoever to do so considering all the Palestinian terrorists has has to deal with daily.


----------



## Juicin

So you feel that way

Yet you think Israeli Jews are sane for raising children there? And you support it?

Knowing as you do they stole the land from the "terrorists"?

What kind of friend of Israel wouldn't step in their borders?


----------



## MJB12741

Juicin said:


> So you feel that way
> 
> Yet you think Israeli Jews are sane for raising children there? And you support it?
> 
> Knowing as you do they stole the land from the "terrorists"?
> 
> What kind of friend of Israel wouldn't step in their borders?



Get serious.  I am an American.  Why would I want to live in Israel with Palestinians out to kill me?


----------



## Juicin

MJB12741 said:


> Juicin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel that way
> 
> Yet you think Israeli Jews are sane for raising children there? And you support it?
> 
> Knowing as you do they stole the land from the "terrorists"?
> 
> What kind of friend of Israel wouldn't step in their borders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get serious.  I am an American.  Why would I want to live in Israel with Palestinians out to kill me?
Click to expand...


You're an American, why would you support Israel at all?

Presumably you feel there is some sort of theological imperative or are poorly informed


----------



## MJB12741

Juicin said:


> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juicin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel that way
> 
> Yet you think Israeli Jews are sane for raising children there? And you support it?
> 
> Knowing as you do they stole the land from the "terrorists"?
> 
> What kind of friend of Israel wouldn't step in their borders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get serious.  I am an American.  Why would I want to live in Israel with Palestinians out to kill me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an American, why would you support Israel at all?
> 
> Presumably you feel there is some sort of theological imperative or are poorly informed
Click to expand...


I support Israel's legal right to exist but despise the Zionists for their treatment of Palestinians with peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke them by keeping them captives in Israel.  Face it, no surrounding Arab country ever treated their Palestinians like those Zionists in Israel do.


----------



## MJB12741

MJB12741 said:


> Juicin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MJB12741 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juicin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you feel that way
> 
> Yet you think Israeli Jews are sane for raising children there? And you support it?
> 
> Knowing as you do they stole the land from the "terrorists"?
> 
> What kind of friend of Israel wouldn't step in their borders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get serious.  I am an American.  Why would I want to live in Israel with Palestinians out to kill me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an American, why would you support Israel at all?
> 
> Presumably you feel there is some sort of theological imperative or are poorly informed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support Israel's legal right to exist but despise the Zionists for their treatment of Palestinians with peace offerings, security fence & land concessions to provoke them by keeping them captives in Israel.  Face it, no surrounding Arab country ever treated their Palestinians like those Zionists in Israel do.
> 
> Wouldn't it be wonderful if those Zionists in Israel treated the Palestinians with the surrounding Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to --- and so well deserve?
Click to expand...


----------



## MJB12741

Wouldn't it be wonderful if those Zionists in Israel started treating the Palestinians with the surrounding Arab country love, justice & respect the Palestinians are so well accustomed to --- and so well deserve?


----------



## MJB12741

Unless & until Palestinian leadership accepts Israel's legal right to exist, Israel wins & Palestinians lose.


----------

