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



## Coyote

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

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

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

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


----------



## flacaltenn

*The older version of this thread needed to be REBOOTED.. It still exists as sticky thread, but too many off topic battles have been waged in it.. SAME purpose as Coyote explains above for THIS thread. To be exact, nothing beyond the '67 war and the resulting redrawn boundaries should EVER be a topic here.. *

*And this thread is not for "comparative religion" or bigotry against ANY religion or people.. *

*Do not derail any other thread topics in this forum with arguments about ancient history or origins of borders and nation in this region.. Put it here... *


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ahh yes Israel EXISTS as a Sovereign Nation and no amount of complaining from the Arabs or the Jew haters in the West can change the fact that the UN RECOGNIZED Israel as did most civilized Nation States. After they were created every Arab Nation attacked them and tried in vain to kill all the Jews. Yet Israel prevailed then and now.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Hundred Year War in Palestine*

**


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Hundred Year War in Palestine*
> 
> **


Columbia University’s Rashid Khalidi Is Secure in His Anti-Semitism

Khalid.....A man who says that the British and other powers were colonial powers.

But......wait......what were the Ottoman Turks ?  Indigenous people of the land?  For 800 years ?

By all means, deny the indigenous state of the Jewish people and their right to live and reconstitute their Nation ON their ancient homeland.

But the Turks were ok, and it does not matter that the Arabs never cried wolf against that power for all the centuries they were there, taking over from the Crusaders what the Arabs had taken from the Byzantine in the 7th Century.

Yes, to some people who can give speeches and make money off of it, their Arab fellows are "victims" of the indigenous people of the land, but were never victims of the powerful Ottoman Empire.

Ottomans =  Muslims.  So it is ok to have them as Muslim masters.

Israel = Jews .  It is never ok to have Jews be sovereign over Muslims, and especially Arabs.

THAT is the history of the endless attacks on Jews by rioting Arabs from 1920 until 1948.  Why all the Arab Muslim Countries attacked Israel after it declared Independence.  Why they attacked Israel two more times to destroy it.  Why there continues the endless war of Muslims against Jews on their right to recreate their Nation, be free and safe in it.

Jews, masters of their own destiny?
No, it is not allowed in the ideology fabricated by Islam.

So, is Khalid telling the truth?   Did the Arabs, before 1964, ever call themselves Palestinians, or cared to be called Palestinians?
Is there an "Ancient Palestine" ?

Why does Khalid distort everything, from the Balfour Declaration to today's on going war on the Jews, as if the Arabs ever had a longer standing history on the land?

Why does he turn Zionism into something ugly, instead of simply what it was?   A natural consequence to endless Muslim and Christian attacks on Jews and endless non acceptance of Jews as beings as humans as those in those two religions ?

It does take knowledge of the issues to understand the history of the area for the past 100 years.

Khalid is gambling on the audience's ignorance of what he says, telling some semi truths, distorting all the rest.

Oh, the poor, poor Palestinians, who had their "homeland" stolen by total strangers, totally devoid of any history on that land, because it has always been what? .......Palestinian Land.
Regardless of all of the historical and archeological evidence to the contrary and that the Jews are not from Europe, and therefore not colonizers as he attempts to make them........his speech does sell very well to those who know absolutely nothing about it.
Or could not care less.

Muslims are very good at stealing.  Arabs have been very good at stealing land since they got out of Arabia in the 7th Century, although the Kurds were the first to invade and take the land from the Byzantine Empire.

But, never mind what history really is.  What matters is keeping any land conquered by any Muslim, in the hands of ANY Muslims.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Hundred Year War in Palestine*
> 
> **



Q. Why do Arab historians always start the story in the middle of the conflict, and never mention the Arab Pogroms before Zionism?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I don't know that it can be made any planer than that.  The use of the military of any nation is to accomplish a political and diplomatic objective.  The use of the military is a tool in the box of tradecraft.
> 
> _Article 5 Mandate for Palestine_
> 
> 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.​
> _Article 12 Mandate for Palestine_
> 
> The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limit.
> 
> _Article 17 Mandate for Palestine_
> 
> The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.
> 
> Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.
> 
> The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads; railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Hashemite Royal Family had demonstrated the ability to productively form a government and establish a civil administration. This was something that the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River were unable to accomplish.
> 
> 
> 
> Under the boot of Britain's military. You are ducking the question as usual.
> 
> Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I cannot begin to teach you about the role of the military in the diplomacy of a century ago.  Different countries administer their holding and external obligations in many different ways.
> 
> The application of the military in the maintenance of peace and order in jurisdictions just recently released from the status of "Enemy Occupied Territory," except as described in Posting #2579 is based on the conventional wisdom and political perception of the day.  While Jordan was Allied Friendly at the time, the general population Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River were not.  The Mandate Period was not a typical post-War phase four territorial condition.
> 
> PS:  I was trying to keep my post in the spirit of the OP.  I was not ducking your question.  But if the question you ask were as simple as you portray them to be, the solution would have been found already.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The question was:

Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?​
How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I don't know that it can be made any planer than that.  The use of the military of any nation is to accomplish a political and diplomatic objective.  The use of the military is a tool in the box of tradecraft.
> 
> _Article 5 Mandate for Palestine_
> 
> 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.​
> _Article 12 Mandate for Palestine_
> 
> The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limit.
> 
> _Article 17 Mandate for Palestine_
> 
> The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.
> 
> Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.
> 
> The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads; railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Hashemite Royal Family had demonstrated the ability to productively form a government and establish a civil administration. This was something that the Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River were unable to accomplish.
> 
> 
> 
> Under the boot of Britain's military. You are ducking the question as usual.
> 
> Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I cannot begin to teach you about the role of the military in the diplomacy of a century ago.  Different countries administer their holding and external obligations in many different ways.
> 
> The application of the military in the maintenance of peace and order in jurisdictions just recently released from the status of "Enemy Occupied Territory," except as described in Posting #2579 is based on the conventional wisdom and political perception of the day.  While Jordan was Allied Friendly at the time, the general population Arab Palestinians west of the Jordan River were not.  The Mandate Period was not a typical post-War phase four territorial condition.
> 
> PS:  I was trying to keep my post in the spirit of the OP.  I was not ducking your question.  But if the question you ask were as simple as you portray them to be, the solution would have been found already.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question was:
> 
> Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?​
> How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?
Click to expand...

When were the British ever tasked with establishing post office, monetary system, etc.?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Movie Exodus is very good.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The question was:
> 
> Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?​
> How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?



No military force is necessary at ALL.  Arab Palestinians need to stop using weapons against Israel and Jews and build a state.  Not rocket science.  But they seem to be utterly incapable of doing so.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.



Hollie said:


> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?


*(OBSERVATIONS)*

In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.


An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange. 

The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained. 
There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.

The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles. 

The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.

Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.

See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its “right to exist.” Is- rael’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement . . . There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its “right to exist” a favor, or a negotiable concession.

—Abba Eban2

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=9


----------



## Sixties Fan

MYTH

The Zionists were colonialist tools of Western imperialism.

FACT

“Colonialism means living by exploiting others,” Yehoshafat Harkabi has written. “But what could be further from colonialism than the ide- alism of city-dwelling Jews who strive to become farmers and laborers and to live by their own work?”26

Moreover, as British historian Paul Johnson noted, Zionists were hardly tools of imperialists given the powers’ general opposition to their cause. “Everywhere in the West, the foreign offices, defense min- istries and big business were against the Zionists.”27

Emir Faisal saw the Zionist movement as a companion to the Arab nationalist movement, fighting against imperialism, as he explained in a letter to Harvard law professor and future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter on March 3, 1919, one day after Chaim Weizmannpresented the Zionist case to the Paris conference. Faisal wrote:

The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deep- est sympathy on the Zionist movement . . . We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home . . . We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationalist 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 (emphasis added).28

In the 1940s, the Jewish underground movements waged an an- ticolonial war against the British. The Arabs, meanwhile, were con- cerned primarily with fighting the Jews rather than expelling the British imperialists.


https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=9


----------



## Sixties Fan

The British promised the Arabs independence in Palestine.

FACT

The central figure in the Arab nationalist movement at the time ofWorld War I was Hussein ibn ‘Ali, the Sherif of Mecca in 1908. As Sherif, Hussein was responsible for the custody of Islam’s shrines in the Hejaz and was one of the Muslims’ spiritual leaders.

In July 1915, Hussein sent a letter to Sir Henry MacMahon, the High Commissioner for Egypt, informing him of the terms for Arab partici- pation in the war against the Turks. The letters between Hussein and MacMahon that followed outlined the areas that Britain was prepared to cede to the Arabs in exchange for their help.

The Hussein-MacMahon correspondence conspicuously fails to mention Palestine. The British argued the omission had been inten- tional, thereby justifying their refusal to grant the Arabs indepen- dence in Palestine after the war.29 MacMahon explained:

I feel it my duty to state, and I do so definitely and emphati- cally, that it was not intended by me in giving this pledge to King Hussein to include Palestine in the area in which Arab independence was promised. I also had every reason to be- lieve at the time that the fact that Palestine was not included in my pledge was well understood by King Hussein.30

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=9


[ Just a reminder that the 99% which the Arabs got was NOT their indigenous homeland.  It was territory they invaded from the 7th century CE on like...... Lebanon (Phonecians) ,  Syria  (Assyrians) and  Iraq  (Babylonians, Kurds, Yazidis) where none of the indigenous people were neither offered, not got any piece of land to reconstitute into their own modern  State or country .
Why is it that only the Arabs, who were invaders for 13 centuries, were accorded a Mandate and countries out of Ottoman conquered land?  Not even the Copts from Egypt were accorded any land in their ancestral Egypt to become an independent State or country, even if Egypt was not part of the Four Mandates created after WWI ]


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> 
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?

I was only using these as examples. Palestine was a functioning society. They had districts centered around population centers and local governments. The only thing they needed were some national institutions, *like a post office,* for example. Britain had its occu...er...ahh...Mandate for thirty years and created nothing. The Palestinians would have been better off without the administrative assistance and advice of the British.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> 
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> I was only using these as examples. Palestine was a functioning society. They had districts centered around population centers and local governments. The only thing they needed were some national institutions, *like a post office,* for example. Britain had its occu...er...ahh...Mandate for thirty years and created nothing. The Palestinians would have been better off without the administrative assistance and advice of the British.
Click to expand...



Palestine was a functioning society -- as long as it was governed. The test is SELF government. 

Fail.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> 
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> I was only using these as examples. Palestine was a functioning society. They had districts centered around population centers and local governments. The only thing they needed were some national institutions, *like a post office,* for example. Britain had its occu...er...ahh...Mandate for thirty years and created nothing. The Palestinians would have been better off without the administrative assistance and advice of the British.
Click to expand...

Exactly how did the Mandates for Lebanon, Syria and Iraq get to become countries and Self governed with the British or the French being there?

It was up to whom to create schools, post offices, hospitals, etc and become self sufficient and show the Allies that they could be Independent of other's help before they were finally recognize as self sufficient States/Countries?

That is what the Jews did.

What did the Arab leaders make the Arab population do instead of building their own State from 1920 to 1948?

They declared war on the Jews and the British, wanting to keep the whole land to themselves and make it part of a whole pie, for Muslims only.

Wasted time, wasted space, wasted lives, wasted........is the history of the Arabs in what could have become two more states, not counting TranJordan, from 1937 on, when a partition was first offered to the Arab leaders.

What did they say?

*NO
*
And by all mean, keep forgetting that ALL who lived in the Mandate for Palestine, ALL, were being called Palestinians with the ability of getting a Palestinian Passport if they so desired.

But mostly Jews accepted that name, and those passports, and the Arabs kept crying to become part of Syria.

The Arabs rejected, the Jews accepted.

And we continue to see which ones became prosperous and which ones continue to live in the 7th century CE, or even in the 7th century BCE.


----------



## Hollie

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> 
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Informative as usual, Rocco. 

Ultimately, I was attempting to suggest to PF Tinmore that the attitude of the Arabs-Moslems is that everyone else is tasked with providing for them, catering to their every wish and then, when the Arabs-Moslems fail to take steps to improve their situation, it’s always someone else’s fault. 

It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories. Why is it that so many societies have risen above difficult circumstances and taken control of their destinies as opposed to the perpetual whining of Arabs-Moslems who demand others take responsibility for their continually poor decision making.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> 
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Informative as usual, Rocco.
> 
> Ultimately, I was attempting to suggest to PF Tinmore that the attitude of the Arabs-Moslems is that everyone else is tasked with providing for them, catering to their every wish and then, when the Arabs-Moslems fail to take steps to improve their situation, it’s always someone else’s fault.
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories. Why is it that so many societies have risen above difficult circumstances and taken control of their destinies as opposed to the perpetual whining of Arabs-Moslems who demand others take responsibility for their continually poor decision making.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories.


None of them are occupied.

I was in Vietnam when it was occupied. It was wall to wall poverty. Cooking rice over an open fire in three walls and a roof shacks.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> 
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Informative as usual, Rocco.
> 
> Ultimately, I was attempting to suggest to PF Tinmore that the attitude of the Arabs-Moslems is that everyone else is tasked with providing for them, catering to their every wish and then, when the Arabs-Moslems fail to take steps to improve their situation, it’s always someone else’s fault.
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories. Why is it that so many societies have risen above difficult circumstances and taken control of their destinies as opposed to the perpetual whining of Arabs-Moslems who demand others take responsibility for their continually poor decision making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of them are occupied.
> 
> I was in Vietnam when it was occupied. It was wall to wall poverty. Cooking rice over an open fire in three walls and a roof shacks.
Click to expand...

The point might be.....

They all went through wars, even colonialism for some, and they have all not held on to feeling sorry for themselves and moved on, and made something out of their countries. South Korea is doing just fine, North Korea .....not so well.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> 
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Informative as usual, Rocco.
> 
> Ultimately, I was attempting to suggest to PF Tinmore that the attitude of the Arabs-Moslems is that everyone else is tasked with providing for them, catering to their every wish and then, when the Arabs-Moslems fail to take steps to improve their situation, it’s always someone else’s fault.
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories. Why is it that so many societies have risen above difficult circumstances and taken control of their destinies as opposed to the perpetual whining of Arabs-Moslems who demand others take responsibility for their continually poor decision making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of them are occupied.
> 
> I was in Vietnam when it was occupied. It was wall to wall poverty. Cooking rice over an open fire in three walls and a roof shacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point might be.....
> 
> They all went through wars, even colonialism for some, and they have all not held on to feeling sorry for themselves and moved on, and made something out of their countries. South Korea is doing just fine, North Korea .....not so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine still suffers under colonialism.
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea .....not so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The non existent country of Palestine suffered from colonialism for over 400 years of Ottoman conquest.  Not one riot against them.
They really enjoyed being under the Turks. 

Right now, the Arabs are under their own leaders "colonization ", one which demands that each non leader sacrifice their own lives to free the territory they want so that THEY can colonize it, instead of letting the indigenous Jews have a free sovereign country.

So, they continue to not have a choice, because their leaders will never allow them to have their own State, because since 1920 and since 1937, their leaders have been very clear about it.

The Arabs also have no issues with the Hashemites colonizing TranJordan, where that tribe only stepped on around WWI and then went to attack and totally expel it indigenous Jewish Population.

So, your fantasy land/country of Palestine, which never existed, is going to remain only that.  A fantasy.  While the rest of the world moves on, as they always did, before the Arabs invented the THREE NOs  against any Jewish State ever existing on Jewish Ancient Homeland.

Say NO, and deal with the consequences.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> 
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Informative as usual, Rocco.
> 
> Ultimately, I was attempting to suggest to PF Tinmore that the attitude of the Arabs-Moslems is that everyone else is tasked with providing for them, catering to their every wish and then, when the Arabs-Moslems fail to take steps to improve their situation, it’s always someone else’s fault.
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories. Why is it that so many societies have risen above difficult circumstances and taken control of their destinies as opposed to the perpetual whining of Arabs-Moslems who demand others take responsibility for their continually poor decision making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of them are occupied.
> 
> I was in Vietnam when it was occupied. It was wall to wall poverty. Cooking rice over an open fire in three walls and a roof shacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point might be.....
> 
> They all went through wars, even colonialism for some, and they have all not held on to feeling sorry for themselves and moved on, and made something out of their countries. South Korea is doing just fine, North Korea .....not so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine still suffers under colonialism.
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea .....not so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Is it like when demand Madrid "back"?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> 
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Informative as usual, Rocco.
> 
> Ultimately, I was attempting to suggest to PF Tinmore that the attitude of the Arabs-Moslems is that everyone else is tasked with providing for them, catering to their every wish and then, when the Arabs-Moslems fail to take steps to improve their situation, it’s always someone else’s fault.
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories. Why is it that so many societies have risen above difficult circumstances and taken control of their destinies as opposed to the perpetual whining of Arabs-Moslems who demand others take responsibility for their continually poor decision making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of them are occupied.
> 
> I was in Vietnam when it was occupied. It was wall to wall poverty. Cooking rice over an open fire in three walls and a roof shacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point might be.....
> 
> They all went through wars, even colonialism for some, and they have all not held on to feeling sorry for themselves and moved on, and made something out of their countries. South Korea is doing just fine, North Korea .....not so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine still suffers under colonialism.
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea .....not so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Arabs-Moslems across the islsmic Middle East suffer from a self-imposed, retrograde politico-religious ideology that has remained static since the 7th century. 

Don’t attempt to place blame on others for the failures you create.


----------



## Rehmani

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh yes Israel EXISTS as a Sovereign Nation and no amount of complaining from the Arabs or the Jew haters in the West can change the fact that the UN RECOGNIZED Israel as did most civilized Nation States. After they were created every Arab Nation attacked them and tried in vain to kill all the Jews. Yet Israel prevailed then and now.



As it was (the fact that the UN RECOGNIZED Israel) " But fact is now that Israel and many supporter of Israel not RECOGNIZING the UN " as the authority on the issue. And playing paranoid-ism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its “right to exist.” Is- rael’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement . . . There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its “right to exist” a favor, or a negotiable concession.
> 
> —Abba Eban2
> 
> https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=9


How many other countries bang on about their right to exist like they are trying to sell something?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its “right to exist.” Is- rael’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement . . . There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its “right to exist” a favor, or a negotiable concession.
> 
> —Abba Eban2
> 
> https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=9
> 
> 
> 
> How many other countries bang on about their right to exist like they are trying to sell something?
Click to expand...


Indeed, in view of the Islamic fascists demanding their “right” to destroy Israel, the Israelis have, you know, countered with a differing opinion and, you know, delivered you humiliating beat-downs when necessary. 

Indeed.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *PF Tinmore*
> How many other countries bang on about their right to exist like they are trying to sell something?



So true...

And the supporters mirror the behavior of the country they support.

A lot of zionists feel a visceral need to repeat their mantra "*Israel is here to stay, it's not going anywhere*" every 5 minutes even when the peaceful dismantlement of the country is not the subject of the conversation... as if they were trying to prove something to themselves.

I often tell them they sound like someone who's desperately trying to convince himself more than anybody else.


----------



## Sixties Fan

José said:


> Originally posted by *PF Tinmore*
> How many other countries bang on about their right to exist like they are trying to sell something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So true...
> 
> And the supporters mirror the behavior of the country they support.
> 
> A lot of zionists feel a visceral need to repeat their mantra "*Israel is here to stay, it's not going anywhere*" every 5 minutes even when the peaceful dismantlement of the country is not the subject of the conversation... as if they were trying to prove something to themselves.
> 
> I often tell them they sound like someone who's desperately trying to convince himself more than anybody else.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to convince us of.   We know who we are, we know where we belong and we know how to defend our country.

By all means deny what continues to be written in the PLO, PA and Hamas charters, all written between 1948 and 1967.

Have you counted the number of rockets and attacks on Israeli and Jewish civilians these past three months alone, all around the world?

Do not let me, or anyone else, wake you from your slumber.


----------



## Rehmani

José said:


> Originally posted by *Sixties Fan*
> There is nothing to convince us of. We know who we are, we know where we belong and we know how to defend our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this is my advice to the Zionists:
> 
> Show more confidence in what you claim to believe!!!!
> 
> People who really have an unshakeable belief that "Israel is here to stay" shouldn't have the obsessive need to repeat the line every 5 minutes, for Christ's sake!!!
Click to expand...

Well said. It is also mean they don't have trust in themselves mean paranoid.


----------



## Rehmani

Sixties Fan said:


> Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its “right to exist.” Is- rael’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement . . . There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its “right to exist” a favor, or a negotiable concession.
> 
> —Abba Eban2
> 
> https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=9


But its not mean that you are become legitimate owner of native Arab land.


----------



## The Original Tree

*The enemies of Israel think they will be able to surround Israel and destroy them.

God promises that not only will these enemies attack Israel and be defeated, but that Israel’s borders will be enlarged.

God has made Israel like an immovable stone and His Word is True.
*


----------



## Rehmani

The Original Tree said:


> *The enemies of Israel think they will be able to surround Israel and destroy them.
> 
> God promises that not only will these enemies attack Israel and be defeated, but that Israel’s borders will be enlarged.
> 
> God has made Israel like an immovable stone and His Word is True.*


It is paranoid-ism from israelis which is making problem bigger/longer. In the beginning Hazbullah was not there, Hamas was not there but It is israelis who paranoid the situation and  keep delaying the rights of people of Holly Land currently known Palestinian today. _*But israel never exist in history. Why God want it now after 4000 years.   *_


----------



## Rehmani

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> 
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Informative as usual, Rocco.
> 
> Ultimately, I was attempting to suggest to PF Tinmore that the attitude of the Arabs-Moslems is that everyone else is tasked with providing for them, catering to their every wish and then, when the Arabs-Moslems fail to take steps to improve their situation, it’s always someone else’s fault.
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories. Why is it that so many societies have risen above difficult circumstances and taken control of their destinies as opposed to the perpetual whining of Arabs-Moslems who demand others take responsibility for their continually poor decision making.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of them are occupied.
> 
> I was in Vietnam when it was occupied. It was wall to wall poverty. Cooking rice over an open fire in three walls and a roof shacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point might be.....
> 
> They all went through wars, even colonialism for some, and they have all not held on to feeling sorry for themselves and moved on, and made something out of their countries. South Korea is doing just fine, North Korea .....not so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine still suffers under colonialism.
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea .....not so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs-Moslems across the islsmic Middle East suffer from a self-imposed, retrograde politico-religious ideology that has remained static since the 7th century.
> 
> Don’t attempt to place blame on others for the failures you create.
Click to expand...

_*But don't blame to Muslim blame to yourself.*_


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Informative as usual, Rocco.
> 
> Ultimately, I was attempting to suggest to PF Tinmore that the attitude of the Arabs-Moslems is that everyone else is tasked with providing for them, catering to their every wish and then, when the Arabs-Moslems fail to take steps to improve their situation, it’s always someone else’s fault.
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories. Why is it that so many societies have risen above difficult circumstances and taken control of their destinies as opposed to the perpetual whining of Arabs-Moslems who demand others take responsibility for their continually poor decision making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s really quite a contrast to see what others in Vietnam, Korea, Hong Kong and India have accomplished despite their histories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of them are occupied.
> 
> I was in Vietnam when it was occupied. It was wall to wall poverty. Cooking rice over an open fire in three walls and a roof shacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point might be.....
> 
> They all went through wars, even colonialism for some, and they have all not held on to feeling sorry for themselves and moved on, and made something out of their countries. South Korea is doing just fine, North Korea .....not so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine still suffers under colonialism.
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea .....not so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it like when demand Madrid "back"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rylah:- Are you promoting war? Sound like it.
> If it is correct then why US message Board running this thread?
Click to expand...


Actually I promote a wide regional cooperation, and open dialogue with honest and respectful leaders of the Muslim community.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point might be.....
> 
> They all went through wars, even colonialism for some, and they have all not held on to feeling sorry for themselves and moved on, and made something out of their countries. South Korea is doing just fine, North Korea .....not so well.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine still suffers under colonialism.
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea .....not so well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it like when demand Madrid "back"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rylah:- Are you promoting war? Sound like it.
> If it is correct then why US message Board running this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I promote a wide regional cooperation, and open dialogue with honest and respectful leaders of the Muslim community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While yours posts expressed, division, prolong palestine issue, scared of from your own existence. Are you people psycho? Why don't you follow the UN resolution and solved the issue? Or if scared of from the lion will come and eat you all if this the case then one day it will come and its called paranoid-ism.
Click to expand...


What posts?
I'm not sure You understand the words You use, what makes You think that UN resolutions are obligatory, does You country follow them?


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> _*It is proved now that israel is not a legitimate country*_


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine still suffers under colonialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it like when demand Madrid "back"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rylah:- Are you promoting war? Sound like it.
> If it is correct then why US message Board running this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I promote a wide regional cooperation, and open dialogue with honest and respectful leaders of the Muslim community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While yours posts expressed, division, prolong palestine issue, scared of from your own existence. Are you people psycho? Why don't you follow the UN resolution and solved the issue? Or if scared of from the lion will come and eat you all if this the case then one day it will come and its called paranoid-ism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What posts?
> I'm not sure You understand the words You use, what makes You think that UN resolutions are obligatory, does You country follow them?
Click to expand...

Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rylah:- Are you promoting war? Sound like it.
> If it is correct then why US message Board running this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I promote a wide regional cooperation, and open dialogue with honest and respectful leaders of the Muslim community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While yours posts expressed, division, prolong palestine issue, scared of from your own existence. Are you people psycho? Why don't you follow the UN resolution and solved the issue? Or if scared of from the lion will come and eat you all if this the case then one day it will come and its called paranoid-ism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What posts?
> I'm not sure You understand the words You use, what makes You think that UN resolutions are obligatory, does You country follow them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
> I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.
> 
> Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
> nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?
Click to expand...

Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Sixties Fan,* *et al,
> 
> I believe you to be wrong.
> 
> Sovereignty is NOT dependent on "military force or military strength.
> 
> Military might is a defense of the right of a State _(to the exclusion of any other States)_  to exercise sole authority over its own territory. [Sovereign equality _(supreme power or authority)_ applied to UN Members, Article 2(1) UN Charter)]
> 
> Sovereignty is but one of several component parts to "self-determination."  "Self-determination encompasses so many is-sues—including individual and minority rights, regional autonomy, government repression, territorial integrity, state sovereignty, and claims to independence, to name but a few—the most difficult task in planning such a meeting was to determine which aspects of the issue would be addressed."
> See:  REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF, US Institute for Peace, (Author: Patricia Carley)
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis never took a square inch of the land way from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Sovereign control is a function of military might not legal right?
> 
> *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.
> 
> The Avalon Project: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *NOTE:*  "Judicial Equality" is NOT the same thing as "Sovereign Equality."  The US, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are all Sovereign in their own right.  It does not mean that any of them equal before the law _(domestically or internationally)_.​Your argument has three important components:
> 
> ✦  First is to suggest that the sovereignty of Israel, a state declared independent since May 1948, is somehow deminishedbecause it was successfully able to defende its status as an independent nation not just once, but three times, against acts of aggression by the surrounding Arab League States and the terrorism orchestrated by the separated band of Arab Criminals.
> 
> ✦  Secondly - upon the simple fact of its existence - somehow prevented the Arab Palestinians from participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.
> 
> ✦  The 1933 Montevideo Convention also says that "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."​
> There is absolutely NO limitation on the Israelis to establish their own nation under international law.  This is especially true when combined with the fact that the Arrab Palestinians declined the offer to establish its own Article 22 self-governing institutions.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> The 1933 Montevideo Convention also says that "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,


In 1948 about 80 Palestinian leaders from around the state declared independence from the Mandate for its own people, on its own land, and inside its own international borders.

Being under occupation does not negate a state. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Palestine has been occupied ever since.

Palestine has the right to defend its integrity and independence.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Sixties Fan,* *et al,
> 
> I believe you to be wrong.
> 
> Sovereignty is NOT dependent on "military force or military strength.
> 
> Military might is a defense of the right of a State _(to the exclusion of any other States)_  to exercise sole authority over its own territory. [Sovereign equality _(supreme power or authority)_ applied to UN Members, Article 2(1) UN Charter)]
> 
> Sovereignty is but one of several component parts to "self-determination."  "Self-determination encompasses so many is-sues—including individual and minority rights, regional autonomy, government repression, territorial integrity, state sovereignty, and claims to independence, to name but a few—the most difficult task in planning such a meeting was to determine which aspects of the issue would be addressed."
> See:  REPORT FROM ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF, US Institute for Peace, (Author: Patricia Carley)
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Israelis never took a square inch of the land way from the sovereign control of the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> Sovereign control is a function of military might not legal right?
> 
> *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.
> 
> The Avalon Project: Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *NOTE:*  "Judicial Equality" is NOT the same thing as "Sovereign Equality."  The US, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are all Sovereign in their own right.  It does not mean that any of them equal before the law _(domestically or internationally)_.​Your argument has three important components:
> 
> ✦  First is to suggest that the sovereignty of Israel, a state declared independent since May 1948, is somehow deminishedbecause it was successfully able to defende its status as an independent nation not just once, but three times, against acts of aggression by the surrounding Arab League States and the terrorism orchestrated by the separated band of Arab Criminals.
> 
> ✦  Secondly - upon the simple fact of its existence - somehow prevented the Arab Palestinians from participating in the establishment of self-governing institutions.
> 
> ✦  The 1933 Montevideo Convention also says that "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."​
> There is absolutely NO limitation on the Israelis to establish their own nation under international law.  This is especially true when combined with the fact that the Arrab Palestinians declined the offer to establish its own Article 22 self-governing institutions.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1933 Montevideo Convention also says that "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,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1948 about 80 Palestinian leaders from around the state declared independence from the Mandate for its own people, on its own land, and inside its own international borders.
> 
> Being under occupation does not negate a state. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Palestine has been occupied ever since.
> 
> Palestine has the right to defend its integrity and independence.
Click to expand...

Where is that link.......?

1948?
80 Palestinian (?) leaders ?  State ?  From the Mandate?  International Borders?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> In 1948 about 80 Palestinian leaders from around the state declared independence from the Mandate for its own people, on its own land, and inside its own international borders.
> 
> Being under occupation does not negate a state. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Palestine has been occupied ever since.
> 
> Palestine has the right to defend its integrity and independence.



Declarations of independence don't have to be recognized to be valid, but they do have to be effective.  No government, no control, no sovereignty over territory or people = no State.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948 about 80 Palestinian leaders from around the state declared independence from the Mandate for its own people, on its own land, and inside its own international borders.
> 
> Being under occupation does not negate a state. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Palestine has been occupied ever since.
> 
> Palestine has the right to defend its integrity and independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declarations of independence don't have to be recognized to be valid, but they do have to be effective.  No government, no control, no sovereignty over territory or people = no State.
Click to expand...

Not counting that they did so against the Mandate, which they refused twice, in 1937 and in 1948.  

1)  An Arab State was never a part of the original Mandate.
2)  The extreme  Arab Leaders ( Al Husseini ) refused any creation of a Jewish State on the Mandate created for them.
3) The extreme Arab leaders did not have an interest in any Arab State in the Mandate for Palestine in 1937, after so many riots, or in 1947 when the Partition was offered.
4) We do know that the Arabs had no intention of allowing any Jewish State to exist.
5)  All other three Mandates were ARAB ONLY in nature, regardless of the indigenous people living in them, and the Arabs wanted the Mandate for Palestine to be equally Arab only with indigenous people living as they had done for the past 1300 years.  UNDER Muslim power, be it Kurdish, Arab, or Turkish.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948 about 80 Palestinian leaders from around the state declared independence from the Mandate for its own people, on its own land, and inside its own international borders.
> 
> Being under occupation does not negate a state. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Palestine has been occupied ever since.
> 
> Palestine has the right to defend its integrity and independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declarations of independence don't have to be recognized to be valid, but they do have to be effective.  No government, no control, no sovereignty over territory or people = no State.
Click to expand...

So, foreigners with guns can prevent the people's right to declare independence.

Where is that legal?

Link?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948 about 80 Palestinian leaders from around the state declared independence from the Mandate for its own people, on its own land, and inside its own international borders.
> 
> Being under occupation does not negate a state. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Palestine has been occupied ever since.
> 
> Palestine has the right to defend its integrity and independence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declarations of independence don't have to be recognized to be valid, but they do have to be effective.  No government, no control, no sovereignty over territory or people = no State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, foreigners with guns can prevent the people's right to declare independence.
> 
> Where is that legal?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

LOL

That is EXACTLY  what foreigners called Arabs attempted to do in order to prevent the Jews from declaring Independence until May of 1948.

Stop making me laugh.....Please....


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> So, foreigners with guns can prevent the people's right to declare independence.
> 
> Where is that legal?
> 
> Link?



Every word of that is wrong.

First, the Jewish people are not foreigners in their own homeland.

Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.  The guns only became necessary when hostile Arabs decided to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their inherent, inviolable right to self-determination, as confirmed and written in international law by the international community from 1920 onward.  In fact, you are (again) inverting the truth.  It is the Arabs who are STILL (!) attempting to use guns and violence to reverse and erase the actual, declared and recognized independence of Israel.  With absolutely zero effect, except to entrench the Jewish peoples need for safety and security.

Third, no one is preventing the Arab Palestinians from declaring independence.  In fact, they HAVE declared independence, in 1988.  Their declaration is complete. And look! no one prevented it.  In fact, Hamas can declare independence in Gaza today, tomorrow or next week.  They meet the necessary criteria of: government, people, territory and treating with other states.

And to answer your question about legality:  the accepted legal standard in the world where different, distinct ethnic/cultural groups within a territory are each vying for self-determination and sovereignty is to partition the territory.  In other words, the accepted legal standard is that self-determination trumps territorial integrity.  Witness former Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, etc, etc, etc.  Its only the Arab Palestinians who insist on special treatment.  Why is that, do you think?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, foreigners with guns can prevent the people's right to declare independence.
> 
> Where is that legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every word of that is wrong.
> 
> First, the Jewish people are not foreigners in their own homeland.
> 
> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.  The guns only became necessary when hostile Arabs decided to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their inherent, inviolable right to self-determination, as confirmed and written in international law by the international community from 1920 onward.  In fact, you are (again) inverting the truth.  It is the Arabs who are STILL (!) attempting to use guns and violence to reverse and erase the actual, declared and recognized independence of Israel.  With absolutely zero effect, except to entrench the Jewish peoples need for safety and security.
> 
> Third, no one is preventing the Arab Palestinians from declaring independence.  In fact, they HAVE declared independence, in 1988.  Their declaration is complete. And look! no one prevented it.  In fact, Hamas can declare independence in Gaza today, tomorrow or next week.  They meet the necessary criteria of: government, people, territory and treating with other states.
> 
> And to answer your question about legality:  the accepted legal standard in the world where different, distinct ethnic/cultural groups within a territory are each vying for self-determination and sovereignty is to partition the territory.  In other words, the accepted legal standard is that self-determination trumps territorial integrity.  Witness former Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, etc, etc, etc.  Its only the Arab Palestinians who insist on special treatment.  Why is that, do you think?
Click to expand...

So,when did the Zionists change from colonialism to self determination?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, foreigners with guns can prevent the people's right to declare independence.
> 
> Where is that legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every word of that is wrong.
> 
> First, the Jewish people are not foreigners in their own homeland.
> 
> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.  The guns only became necessary when hostile Arabs decided to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their inherent, inviolable right to self-determination, as confirmed and written in international law by the international community from 1920 onward.  In fact, you are (again) inverting the truth.  It is the Arabs who are STILL (!) attempting to use guns and violence to reverse and erase the actual, declared and recognized independence of Israel.  With absolutely zero effect, except to entrench the Jewish peoples need for safety and security.
> 
> Third, no one is preventing the Arab Palestinians from declaring independence.  In fact, they HAVE declared independence, in 1988.  Their declaration is complete. And look! no one prevented it.  In fact, Hamas can declare independence in Gaza today, tomorrow or next week.  They meet the necessary criteria of: government, people, territory and treating with other states.
> 
> And to answer your question about legality:  the accepted legal standard in the world where different, distinct ethnic/cultural groups within a territory are each vying for self-determination and sovereignty is to partition the territory.  In other words, the accepted legal standard is that self-determination trumps territorial integrity.  Witness former Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, etc, etc, etc.  Its only the Arab Palestinians who insist on special treatment.  Why is that, do you think?
Click to expand...




Shusha said:


> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.


Yes they did. They moved in under the gun of the British military.

Nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others. The Zionists moved in from Europe, under the gun, and violated the rights of the Palestinians. That is an act of aggression.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, foreigners with guns can prevent the people's right to declare independence.
> 
> Where is that legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every word of that is wrong.
> 
> First, the Jewish people are not foreigners in their own homeland.
> 
> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.  The guns only became necessary when hostile Arabs decided to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their inherent, inviolable right to self-determination, as confirmed and written in international law by the international community from 1920 onward.  In fact, you are (again) inverting the truth.  It is the Arabs who are STILL (!) attempting to use guns and violence to reverse and erase the actual, declared and recognized independence of Israel.  With absolutely zero effect, except to entrench the Jewish peoples need for safety and security.
> 
> Third, no one is preventing the Arab Palestinians from declaring independence.  In fact, they HAVE declared independence, in 1988.  Their declaration is complete. And look! no one prevented it.  In fact, Hamas can declare independence in Gaza today, tomorrow or next week.  They meet the necessary criteria of: government, people, territory and treating with other states.
> 
> And to answer your question about legality:  the accepted legal standard in the world where different, distinct ethnic/cultural groups within a territory are each vying for self-determination and sovereignty is to partition the territory.  In other words, the accepted legal standard is that self-determination trumps territorial integrity.  Witness former Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, etc, etc, etc.  Its only the Arab Palestinians who insist on special treatment.  Why is that, do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So,when did the Zionists change from colonialism to self determination?
Click to expand...

Please save yourself from your very dumb questions.
You do know the answer, and that it was never colonialism on the part of the Jews, it was reconstituting their Nation on their ancestral home.

Stop demonizing and delegitimizing the indigenous people of Ancient Canaan, Israel.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, foreigners with guns can prevent the people's right to declare independence.
> 
> Where is that legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every word of that is wrong.
> 
> First, the Jewish people are not foreigners in their own homeland.
> 
> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.  The guns only became necessary when hostile Arabs decided to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their inherent, inviolable right to self-determination, as confirmed and written in international law by the international community from 1920 onward.  In fact, you are (again) inverting the truth.  It is the Arabs who are STILL (!) attempting to use guns and violence to reverse and erase the actual, declared and recognized independence of Israel.  With absolutely zero effect, except to entrench the Jewish peoples need for safety and security.
> 
> Third, no one is preventing the Arab Palestinians from declaring independence.  In fact, they HAVE declared independence, in 1988.  Their declaration is complete. And look! no one prevented it.  In fact, Hamas can declare independence in Gaza today, tomorrow or next week.  They meet the necessary criteria of: government, people, territory and treating with other states.
> 
> And to answer your question about legality:  the accepted legal standard in the world where different, distinct ethnic/cultural groups within a territory are each vying for self-determination and sovereignty is to partition the territory.  In other words, the accepted legal standard is that self-determination trumps territorial integrity.  Witness former Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, etc, etc, etc.  Its only the Arab Palestinians who insist on special treatment.  Why is that, do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. They moved in under the gun of the British military.
> 
> Nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others. The Zionists moved in from Europe, under the gun, and violated the rights of the Palestinians. That is an act of aggression.
Click to expand...

You are a joke.  

Jews bought land, and that very same land, in Gaza and TransJordan was taken from them by force from 1920 to 1948.

And that also includes all the land they bought in Judea and Samaria.


Go have some fun, instead of playing the advocate for thieves and murderers.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

There was never such a country as Palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, foreigners with guns can prevent the people's right to declare independence.
> 
> Where is that legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every word of that is wrong.
> 
> First, the Jewish people are not foreigners in their own homeland.
> 
> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.  The guns only became necessary when hostile Arabs decided to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their inherent, inviolable right to self-determination, as confirmed and written in international law by the international community from 1920 onward.  In fact, you are (again) inverting the truth.  It is the Arabs who are STILL (!) attempting to use guns and violence to reverse and erase the actual, declared and recognized independence of Israel.  With absolutely zero effect, except to entrench the Jewish peoples need for safety and security.
> 
> Third, no one is preventing the Arab Palestinians from declaring independence.  In fact, they HAVE declared independence, in 1988.  Their declaration is complete. And look! no one prevented it.  In fact, Hamas can declare independence in Gaza today, tomorrow or next week.  They meet the necessary criteria of: government, people, territory and treating with other states.
> 
> And to answer your question about legality:  the accepted legal standard in the world where different, distinct ethnic/cultural groups within a territory are each vying for self-determination and sovereignty is to partition the territory.  In other words, the accepted legal standard is that self-determination trumps territorial integrity.  Witness former Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, etc, etc, etc.  Its only the Arab Palestinians who insist on special treatment.  Why is that, do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So,when did the Zionists change from colonialism to self determination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please save yourself from your very dumb questions.
> You do know the answer, and that it was never colonialism on the part of the Jews, it was reconstituting their Nation on their ancestral home.
> 
> Stop demonizing and delegitimizing the indigenous people of Ancient Canaan, Israel.
Click to expand...

You need to read up. And stay off of that Israeli propaganda bullshit.

Both the British and the Zionists called their project colonialism all through the Mandate period.


----------



## P F Tinmore

AzogtheDefiler said:


> There was never such a country as Palestine


Link?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never such a country as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist


----------



## P F Tinmore

AzogtheDefiler said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never such a country as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
Click to expand...

Why did you say it if you can't prove it?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never such a country as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did you say it if you can't prove it?
Click to expand...


I did prove it. Unless it was a country without a President? LOL


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never such a country as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did you say it if you can't prove it?
Click to expand...


The Patriots won the last SB. I don’t need a link to prove it. Palestine never existed as a country. I dont Need a link to prove it. Try to follow along.


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never such a country as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
Click to expand...

Where was Israel for 4000 years?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never such a country as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where was Israel for 4000 years?
Click to expand...


Who cares about 4K yrs lol.


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never such a country as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did you say it if you can't prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Patriots won the last SB. I don’t need a link to prove it. Palestine never existed as a country. I dont Need a link to prove it. Try to follow along.
Click to expand...

Was Israel exist?
Israel never ever exist in 4000 years of history. Means you don't have prove.


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never such a country as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where was Israel for 4000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares about 4K yrs lol.
Click to expand...

Lol like you don't.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never such a country as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did you say it if you can't prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Patriots won the last SB. I don’t need a link to prove it. Palestine never existed as a country. I dont Need a link to prove it. Try to follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Israel exist?
> Israel never ever exist in 4000 years of history. Means you don't have prove.
Click to expand...


That is not even the topic? And why 4K years? That number is arbitrary.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never such a country as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where was Israel for 4000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares about 4K yrs lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol like you don't.
Click to expand...


4K is arbitrary. 1946 is pretty real with TVs and everything. Still no Palestine. Funny right?


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where was Israel for 4000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares about 4K yrs lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol like you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4K is arbitrary. 1946 is pretty real with TVs and everything. Still no Palestine. Funny right?
Click to expand...


Then it is pretty real too, with TVs and everything that Israel pose on holly land by force, by false mandate by tiny UN at the time. 

Its all rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll real.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> 
> 
> Where was Israel for 4000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares about 4K yrs lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol like you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4K is arbitrary. 1946 is pretty real with TVs and everything. Still no Palestine. Funny right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it is pretty real too, with TVs and everything that Israel pose on holly land by force, by false mandate by tiny UN at the time.
> 
> Its all rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll real.
Click to expand...


How can a mandate be false? If I own a house and you rent in it. I can kick you out and sell or give it to whom ever I want. You then tried to take it back by direct force and lost and now you whine to the same UN. I don’t follow your logic at all. The was no “Palestine” it was British land with nomads living in it. They gave it to the Jews and the Jews asked others to live there but they left. Now that it’s flourishing you want it back. Sorry it doesn’t work that way. There are 50+ other Islamist countries so feel free to move there


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Sixties Fan said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares about 4K yrs lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol like you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4K is arbitrary. 1946 is pretty real with TVs and everything. Still no Palestine. Funny right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it is pretty real too, with TVs and everything that Israel pose on holly land by force, by false mandate by tiny UN at the time.
> 
> Its all rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a mandate be false? If I own a house and you rent in it. I can kick you out and sell or give it to whom ever I want. You then tried to take it back by direct force and lost and now you whine to the same UN. I don’t follow your logic at all. The was no “Palestine” it was British land with nomads living in it. They gave it to the Jews and the Jews asked others to live there but they left. Now that it’s flourishing you want it back. Sorry it doesn’t work that way. There are 50+ other Islamist countries so feel free to move there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may be wasting your breath.  This poster does not discuss the creation of modern Israel, or the Mandate.  It is all about denial.  He is Pakistani, so he wants nothing back.  He just wants to give it to the Muslims.  Denial is the game.  And he follows an Indian Muslim who really hates Israel.  After all, what else is there for some Muslims to do?
Click to expand...


He can have Israel once Turkey returns Constantinople to the Byzantine Empire.


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was Israel for 4000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares about 4K yrs lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol like you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4K is arbitrary. 1946 is pretty real with TVs and everything. Still no Palestine. Funny right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it is pretty real too, with TVs and everything that Israel pose on holly land by force, by false mandate by tiny UN at the time.
> 
> Its all rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a mandate be false? If I own a house and you rent in it. I can kick you out and sell or give it to whom ever I want. You then tried to take it back by direct force and lost and now you whine to the same UN. I don’t follow your logic at all. The was no “Palestine” it was British land with nomads living in it. They gave it to the Jews and the Jews asked others to live there but they left. Now that it’s flourishing you want it back. Sorry it doesn’t work that way. There are 50+ other Islamist countries so feel free to move there
Click to expand...

Well Well well ! Now we have to explain you otherwise. Israelis supporter before you already rejected UN mandate, according to them UN is not valid now.
Read all post they posted to rehmani and PFtimore and then enter in debate we are not sitting here to answer    yours nonsense propaganda.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares about 4K yrs lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol like you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4K is arbitrary. 1946 is pretty real with TVs and everything. Still no Palestine. Funny right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it is pretty real too, with TVs and everything that Israel pose on holly land by force, by false mandate by tiny UN at the time.
> 
> Its all rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a mandate be false? If I own a house and you rent in it. I can kick you out and sell or give it to whom ever I want. You then tried to take it back by direct force and lost and now you whine to the same UN. I don’t follow your logic at all. The was no “Palestine” it was British land with nomads living in it. They gave it to the Jews and the Jews asked others to live there but they left. Now that it’s flourishing you want it back. Sorry it doesn’t work that way. There are 50+ other Islamist countries so feel free to move there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Well well ! Now we have to explain you otherwise. Israelis supporter before you already rejected UN mandate, according to them UN is not valid now.
> Read all post they posted to rehmani and PFtimore and then enter in debate we are not sitting here to answer    yours nonsense propaganda.
Click to expand...


In the end it is irrelevant what we think. Israel has the land and will not give it up. To the victor go the spoils. That is how it has always been in history. As a Moslem you should know. Your ancestors have destroyed the Babylonians, Persians, etc. Sucks that you lost to the Hebrews.


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did you say it if you can't prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Patriots won the last SB. I don’t need a link to prove it. Palestine never existed as a country. I dont Need a link to prove it. Try to follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Israel exist?
> Israel never ever exist in 4000 years of history. Means you don't have prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not even the topic? And why 4K years? That number is arbitrary.
Click to expand...

Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you say it if you can't prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Patriots won the last SB. I don’t need a link to prove it. Palestine never existed as a country. I dont Need a link to prove it. Try to follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Israel exist?
> Israel never ever exist in 4000 years of history. Means you don't have prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not even the topic? And why 4K years? That number is arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
Click to expand...


Yes it does. It began in 1947. Listen Zombie. I am Not an Islamist so I think for myself. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? Answer that. I can name Israel’s presidents from 1947 and beyond. You zombies can never answer simple questions. And your English sucks.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you say it if you can't prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Patriots won the last SB. I don’t need a link to prove it. Palestine never existed as a country. I dont Need a link to prove it. Try to follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Israel exist?
> Israel never ever exist in 4000 years of history. Means you don't have prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not even the topic? And why 4K years? That number is arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
Click to expand...

Palestine does not exist.  Israel does not exit.  India does not exist. Pakistan does not exist.

Now we are done undoing countries and regions which never existed.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Sixties Fan said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you say it if you can't prove it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Patriots won the last SB. I don’t need a link to prove it. Palestine never existed as a country. I dont Need a link to prove it. Try to follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Israel exist?
> Israel never ever exist in 4000 years of history. Means you don't have prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not even the topic? And why 4K years? That number is arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine does not exist.  Israel does not exit.  India does not exist. Pakistan does not exist.
> 
> Now we are done undoing countries and regions which never existed.
Click to expand...


I am waiting for him to tell me who the President of “Palestine” was in 1946.


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you say it if you can't prove it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Patriots won the last SB. I don’t need a link to prove it. Palestine never existed as a country. I dont Need a link to prove it. Try to follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was Israel exist?
> Israel never ever exist in 4000 years of history. Means you don't have prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not even the topic? And why 4K years? That number is arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does. It began in 1947. Listen Zombie. I am Not an Islamist so I think for myself. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? Answer that. I can name Israel’s presidents from 1947 and beyond. You zombies can never answer simple questions. And your English sucks.
Click to expand...

How much do you earn from here to spread false propaganda. Whole world knows Israel is created on the suffering of people of Holly Land with out any mandate or false mandate when UN has member from wwii coalition. Now tell me you are zombi or not.


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Patriots won the last SB. I don’t need a link to prove it. Palestine never existed as a country. I dont Need a link to prove it. Try to follow along.
> 
> 
> 
> Was Israel exist?
> Israel never ever exist in 4000 years of history. Means you don't have prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not even the topic? And why 4K years? That number is arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine does not exist.  Israel does not exit.  India does not exist. Pakistan does not exist.
> 
> Now we are done undoing countries and regions which never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am waiting for him to tell me who the President of “Palestine” was in 1946.
Click to expand...

I am waiting for you to tell me where was Israel before Palestine? Zoooommmmbbbbbiii.


----------



## Sixties Fan

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does. It began in 1947. Listen Zombie. I am Not an Islamist so I think for myself. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? Answer that. I can name Israel’s presidents from 1947 and beyond. You zombies can never answer simple questions. And your English sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are just giving him the pleasure of making sure that all the lessons he took with the Indian Muslim preacher are working.
> Stop giving him the time.
> Not worth it.  He is immune to history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just enjoy calling him a zombie and telling him how terrible his English is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is also link to you as well Zombie because english is not yours mother. An English man never taunt to others because of language means how poor character you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. English is my 2nd language and yet I speak it quite well. Yours sucks. Zombie land is where you live with Tinmore
Click to expand...

Do not let it get to the point where a Mod will show up and tell you to stop.  Neither is discussing the topic of the thread.

Give it a rest  

Mod Edit --- GREAT ADVICE !!! Not happy with cleaning this up every week... LOL.... Sixties Fan


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh yes Israel EXISTS as a Sovereign Nation and no amount of complaining from the Arabs or the Jew haters in the West can change the fact that the UN RECOGNIZED Israel as did most civilized Nation States. After they were created every Arab Nation attacked them and tried in vain to kill all the Jews. Yet Israel prevailed then and now.



THIS!


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not even the topic? And why 4K years? That number is arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine does not exist.  Israel does not exit.  India does not exist. Pakistan does not exist.
> 
> Now we are done undoing countries and regions which never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am waiting for him to tell me who the President of “Palestine” was in 1946.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am waiting for you to tell me where was Israel before Palestine? Zoooommmmbbbbbiii.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn’t exist and then it did in 1947 on empty nomadic land owned by the UK. Now answer me. Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946? Hurry up Zombie.
Click to expand...

Not owned by UK invaded by UK and now invaded by Israel. It is not legitimate country and I am not bound to answer your  stupid question.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not exist.  Israel does not exit.  India does not exist. Pakistan does not exist.
> 
> Now we are done undoing countries and regions which never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am waiting for him to tell me who the President of “Palestine” was in 1946.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am waiting for you to tell me where was Israel before Palestine? Zoooommmmbbbbbiii.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn’t exist and then it did in 1947 on empty nomadic land owned by the UK. Now answer me. Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946? Hurry up Zombie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not owned by UK invaded by UK and now invaded by Israel. It is not legitimate country and I am not bound to answer your  stupid question.
Click to expand...


Yes you are. Allah wills it. Conquest is how life works. Look at Turkey. Look at the US. I won the debate. You lost. Loser.


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh yes Israel EXISTS as a Sovereign Nation and no amount of complaining from the Arabs or the Jew haters in the West can change the fact that the UN RECOGNIZED Israel as did most civilized Nation States. After they were created every Arab Nation attacked them and tried in vain to kill all the Jews. Yet Israel prevailed then and now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS!
Click to expand...

Look Israel has no choice but to pretend civilize even though whole world know that Israelis are killer invader gypsy vagrant. Only ZOMBI like you don't and Zombi make fun of others on other shoulder and I will thanks to God many time that you are on Israel side. I don't need mean like you on my side.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

It might help if you just took a moment to evaluate what our friend "Shusha" is saying; before dismissing it out of hand.  As said many times bef0ore, the right of self-determination is what it is.  And it is the same for everyone.



P F Tinmore said:


> So,when did the Zionists change from colonialism to self determination?


*(COMMENT)*

The Zionist were never the "colonialist" _(of a political nature)_ as your questions suggest.  Nor were they invaders having been invited "all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home."



			
				Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples said:
			
		

> The Special Committee annually reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. It also hears statements from NSGTs _(Non-Self-Governing Territories)_ representatives, dispatches visiting missions, and organizes seminars on the political, social and economic situation in the Territories. Further, the Special Committee annually makes recommendations concerning the dissemination of information to mobilize public opinion in support of the decolonization process, and observes the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
> *SOURCE: * *•  Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization)  •*
> *LIST:* •  *Non-Self-Governing Territories*  •



Whether you look at it as a matter of the "Zionist", if you look at it as a matter of the Jewish People, or if you look at it as a matter of the Allied Powers exercising their authority, obligation and control over the areas that were Occupied as Enemy Territory at the conclusion of The Great War, this nonsense about the foreign invaders is simply a childish view of the The Great War (WWI).  The rights and title over the Occupied Enemy Territory that was renounced by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic at the conclusion of the War were NOT placed in the hands of the inhabitants.  The "future of these territories" were placed in the hands of the Allied Powers by Treaty (Article 16).  No matter what the Arab Palestinians _(of today - or by any name you wish to assign them)_ may think, the rights and title are not negated in favor of the inhabitants of the Occupied Enemy Territory based on what they think is their rights or claims to the sovereignty of the territories.

You should take note, as I'm sure many already have, that the UN Special Committee does NOT consider the territories, often referred to as the Occupied Territories, as falling under the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)].

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *Nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others.* The Zionists moved in from Europe, under the gun, and violated the rights of the Palestinians. That is an act of aggression.



Exactly.  Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.  Self-determination is an inherent, inviolable right belonging to all peoples.  (You've OFTEN said that exact thing).  Thus,nobody has the right to violate the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.  It would be an act of aggression to do so.  (Also no one has the right to violate the right to self-determination of the Arab Palestinian people.)  

Now, the standard in the world with multiple peoples desiring self-determination is to partition the territory and give them both self-determination.


----------



## Shusha

RoccoR said:


> The rights and title over the Occupied Enemy Territory that was renounced by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic at the conclusion of the War *were NOT placed in the hands of the inhabitants.*



Yes, and the reason they were not placed in the hands of the inhabitants is because it was judged that the inhabitants were incapable of self-government.  That still seems to be the case for the Arab Palestinians.


----------



## flacaltenn

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, foreigners with guns can prevent the people's right to declare independence.
> 
> Where is that legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every word of that is wrong.
> 
> First, the Jewish people are not foreigners in their own homeland.
> 
> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.  The guns only became necessary when hostile Arabs decided to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their inherent, inviolable right to self-determination, as confirmed and written in international law by the international community from 1920 onward.  In fact, you are (again) inverting the truth.  It is the Arabs who are STILL (!) attempting to use guns and violence to reverse and erase the actual, declared and recognized independence of Israel.  With absolutely zero effect, except to entrench the Jewish peoples need for safety and security.
> 
> Third, no one is preventing the Arab Palestinians from declaring independence.  In fact, they HAVE declared independence, in 1988.  Their declaration is complete. And look! no one prevented it.  In fact, Hamas can declare independence in Gaza today, tomorrow or next week.  They meet the necessary criteria of: government, people, territory and treating with other states.
> 
> And to answer your question about legality:  the accepted legal standard in the world where different, distinct ethnic/cultural groups within a territory are each vying for self-determination and sovereignty is to partition the territory.  In other words, the accepted legal standard is that self-determination trumps territorial integrity.  Witness former Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, etc, etc, etc.  Its only the Arab Palestinians who insist on special treatment.  Why is that, do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. They moved in under the gun of the British military.
> 
> Nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others. The Zionists moved in from Europe, under the gun, and violated the rights of the Palestinians. That is an act of aggression.
Click to expand...


When you're under occupation by the BRITISH --- you follow their rules. There's a reason Britain was assigned that job to administer that part of the Ottoman Empire.. "The gun of the British military" seems to imply they had rightful title to the land and NOT the Palestinians or the Jews.. Their disposition of land took into account BOTH those interests when they left...


----------



## flacaltenn

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never such a country as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where was Israel for 4000 years?
Click to expand...


That's part of the topic of this thread... I'm sure someone will get around to pointing out that under the Roman Empire -- it was the leadership of the Jews in Jerusalem that the Romans conspired with "to deal with" their Jesus "problem"... And at the time, the governance of Jerusalem was pretty much headquartered in the 2nd Temple...


----------



## flacaltenn

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Patriots won the last SB. I don’t need a link to prove it. Palestine never existed as a country. I dont Need a link to prove it. Try to follow along.
> 
> 
> 
> Was Israel exist?
> Israel never ever exist in 4000 years of history. Means you don't have prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not even the topic? And why 4K years? That number is arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does. It began in 1947. Listen Zombie. I am Not an Islamist so I think for myself. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? Answer that. I can name Israel’s presidents from 1947 and beyond. You zombies can never answer simple questions. And your English sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much do you earn from here to spread false propaganda. Whole world knows Israel is created on the suffering of people of Holly Land with out any mandate or false mandate when UN has member from wwii coalition. Now tell me you are zombi or not.
Click to expand...


You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today... 

But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries... 

Blame THEM -- not Jews....


----------



## flacaltenn

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine does not exist.  Israel does not exit.  India does not exist. Pakistan does not exist.
> 
> Now we are done undoing countries and regions which never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am waiting for him to tell me who the President of “Palestine” was in 1946.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am waiting for you to tell me where was Israel before Palestine? Zoooommmmbbbbbiii.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn’t exist and then it did in 1947 on empty nomadic land owned by the UK. Now answer me. Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946? Hurry up Zombie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not owned by UK invaded by UK and now invaded by Israel. It is not legitimate country and I am not bound to answer your  stupid question.
Click to expand...


Ownership of Israel/Palestine was simply passed from ONE EMPIRE to the next.. That's the entire history of the Holy Land -- a rolling parade of occupations..  UK did not HAVE to invade. The winners of the battle with Ottomans, divided up ADMINISTRATION of the lands because these westerners did not see any history of actual GOVERNANCE *to the standards that "empires" have*... That's arrogant and stupid... But that's history... France got a piece, Russia got a piece and Britain drew the Holy Land card..


----------



## impuretrash

flacaltenn said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Israel exist?
> Israel never ever exist in 4000 years of history. Means you don't have prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not even the topic? And why 4K years? That number is arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does. It began in 1947. Listen Zombie. I am Not an Islamist so I think for myself. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? Answer that. I can name Israel’s presidents from 1947 and beyond. You zombies can never answer simple questions. And your English sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much do you earn from here to spread false propaganda. Whole world knows Israel is created on the suffering of people of Holly Land with out any mandate or false mandate when UN has member from wwii coalition. Now tell me you are zombi or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...
> 
> But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...
> 
> Blame THEM -- not Jews....
Click to expand...


Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?


----------



## flacaltenn

*Just cleaned and deleted 33 posts and issued 3 warnings... That's about 3 pages of posts that were illegal by USMB rules.. Folks with warnings tonight will be thread--banned on their next warning in this thread... 

Let me help you avoid that.... 

1) Remember the TOPIC and the scope and reason for this thread. You have to have "specific topical content" in every post.. If that content is THERE, moderators don't care about reasonable amounts of  flaming and personal shots.. 

2) NOTHING is on topic if it deals with links or references to anything AFTER the 1967 war... The rest of this forum is for everything else relatively modern.. Don't care if you take it back to the Jurassic era, but don't go past 1967... 

3) Personal exchanges with no respect for the topic are the worst offense on USMB.. AND -- no one else wants to read thru all that nonsense.   You wanna fight each other -- go use the Badlands forum or the Rubber Room where moderators are hardly there.. 

Really not gonna make a habit of cleaning and re-booting this discussion.. Folks will just get banned from this thread.. *


----------



## Shusha

impuretrash said:


> Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?



Yes.


----------



## flacaltenn

impuretrash said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not even the topic? And why 4K years? That number is arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does. It began in 1947. Listen Zombie. I am Not an Islamist so I think for myself. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? Answer that. I can name Israel’s presidents from 1947 and beyond. You zombies can never answer simple questions. And your English sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much do you earn from here to spread false propaganda. Whole world knows Israel is created on the suffering of people of Holly Land with out any mandate or false mandate when UN has member from wwii coalition. Now tell me you are zombi or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...
> 
> But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...
> 
> Blame THEM -- not Jews....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?
Click to expand...


Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.

 After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission..  Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..

But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable...  Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits...  LOL...


----------



## flacaltenn

impuretrash said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not even the topic? And why 4K years? That number is arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does. It began in 1947. Listen Zombie. I am Not an Islamist so I think for myself. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? Answer that. I can name Israel’s presidents from 1947 and beyond. You zombies can never answer simple questions. And your English sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much do you earn from here to spread false propaganda. Whole world knows Israel is created on the suffering of people of Holly Land with out any mandate or false mandate when UN has member from wwii coalition. Now tell me you are zombi or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...
> 
> But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...
> 
> Blame THEM -- not Jews....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?
Click to expand...


BTW... In terms of what we know today as the Arab states, those nations were formed LARGELY as means to resist and push out occupation and imperialism.. *Nation states are NOT an Arab tradition*.. They became a necessity.. Because older borders were based on tribal, family, culture, the new borders caused a lot of "ultra nationalism" between the Arab states themselves. All because the western empires screwed up the NATURAL borders that existed... Thus the retro move to "restore a Caliphate" based on more a more ancestral border..


----------



## impuretrash

flacaltenn said:


> Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.
> 
> After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission..  Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..
> 
> But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable...  Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits...  LOL...



Yeah I think it's probably a guilty conscience that keeps many modern day brits passive in the face of violent muslim extremism and their own government's heavy handed political censorship. Similar to what is happening in Germany, France and western Europe in general I suppose. Personally I find it all rather degrading and more than a bit...um..triggering. Even though I will probably never visit those countries, I still feel almost personally insulted when I hear about them being murdered or raped by islamic invaders. It seems so much more personal than how I felt when watching the Christchurch massacre video.


----------



## P F Tinmore

AzogtheDefiler said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never such a country as Palestine
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? LOL don’t need a link for something that doesn’t exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why did you say it if you can't prove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Patriots won the last SB. I don’t need a link to prove it. Palestine never existed as a country. I dont Need a link to prove it. Try to follow along.
Click to expand...

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.* It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. *In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia


----------



## P F Tinmore

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was Israel for 4000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares about 4K yrs lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol like you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4K is arbitrary. 1946 is pretty real with TVs and everything. Still no Palestine. Funny right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it is pretty real too, with TVs and everything that Israel pose on holly land by force, by false mandate by tiny UN at the time.
> 
> Its all rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can a mandate be false? If I own a house and you rent in it. I can kick you out and sell or give it to whom ever I want. You then tried to take it back by direct force and lost and now you whine to the same UN. I don’t follow your logic at all. The was no “Palestine” it was British land with nomads living in it. They gave it to the Jews and the Jews asked others to live there but they left. Now that it’s flourishing you want it back. Sorry it doesn’t work that way. There are 50+ other Islamist countries so feel free to move there
Click to expand...




AzogtheDefiler said:


> The was no “Palestine” it was British land with nomads living in it.


It was not British land. The Mandates were trustees.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others.* The Zionists moved in from Europe, under the gun, and violated the rights of the Palestinians. That is an act of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.  Self-determination is an inherent, inviolable right belonging to all peoples.  (You've OFTEN said that exact thing).  Thus,nobody has the right to violate the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.  It would be an act of aggression to do so.  (Also no one has the right to violate the right to self-determination of the Arab Palestinian people.)
> 
> Now, the standard in the world with multiple peoples desiring self-determination is to partition the territory and give them both self-determination.
Click to expand...




Shusha said:


> is to partition the territory


It was not "the territory," it was Palestine. The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, foreigners with guns can prevent the people's right to declare independence.
> 
> Where is that legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every word of that is wrong.
> 
> First, the Jewish people are not foreigners in their own homeland.
> 
> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.  The guns only became necessary when hostile Arabs decided to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their inherent, inviolable right to self-determination, as confirmed and written in international law by the international community from 1920 onward.  In fact, you are (again) inverting the truth.  It is the Arabs who are STILL (!) attempting to use guns and violence to reverse and erase the actual, declared and recognized independence of Israel.  With absolutely zero effect, except to entrench the Jewish peoples need for safety and security.
> 
> Third, no one is preventing the Arab Palestinians from declaring independence.  In fact, they HAVE declared independence, in 1988.  Their declaration is complete. And look! no one prevented it.  In fact, Hamas can declare independence in Gaza today, tomorrow or next week.  They meet the necessary criteria of: government, people, territory and treating with other states.
> 
> And to answer your question about legality:  the accepted legal standard in the world where different, distinct ethnic/cultural groups within a territory are each vying for self-determination and sovereignty is to partition the territory.  In other words, the accepted legal standard is that self-determination trumps territorial integrity.  Witness former Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, etc, etc, etc.  Its only the Arab Palestinians who insist on special treatment.  Why is that, do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. They moved in under the gun of the British military.
> 
> Nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others. The Zionists moved in from Europe, under the gun, and violated the rights of the Palestinians. That is an act of aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're under occupation by the BRITISH --- you follow their rules. There's a reason Britain was assigned that job to administer that part of the Ottoman Empire.. "The gun of the British military" seems to imply they had rightful title to the land and NOT the Palestinians or the Jews.. Their disposition of land took into account BOTH those interests when they left...
Click to expand...




flacaltenn said:


> "The gun of the British military" seems to imply they had rightful title to the land and NOT the Palestinians or the Jews..


Not so. The Mandates had a non annexation policy. The land was ceded to the respective new states.


----------



## Rehmani

flacaltenn said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't talk nonsense, if Palestine don't exist. Does Israel exist? NOOOOOOO, Never 4000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does. It began in 1947. Listen Zombie. I am Not an Islamist so I think for myself. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? Answer that. I can name Israel’s presidents from 1947 and beyond. You zombies can never answer simple questions. And your English sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much do you earn from here to spread false propaganda. Whole world knows Israel is created on the suffering of people of Holly Land with out any mandate or false mandate when UN has member from wwii coalition. Now tell me you are zombi or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...
> 
> But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...
> 
> Blame THEM -- not Jews....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.
> 
> After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission..  Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..
> 
> But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable...  Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits...  LOL...
Click to expand...

Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.


----------



## Rehmani

Coyote said:


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


I mean we should delete those posters posts who are responsible for derailment. means who started different debate than topic itself.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others.* The Zionists moved in from Europe, under the gun, and violated the rights of the Palestinians. That is an act of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.  Self-determination is an inherent, inviolable right belonging to all peoples.  (You've OFTEN said that exact thing).  Thus,nobody has the right to violate the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.  It would be an act of aggression to do so.  (Also no one has the right to violate the right to self-determination of the Arab Palestinian people.)
> 
> Now, the standard in the world with multiple peoples desiring self-determination is to partition the territory and give them both self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> is to partition the territory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not "the territory," it was Palestine. The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.
Click to expand...


Who was the President of this “Palestine” in 1946 please? Thank you. Me. Tinmore will not answer this so I please ask someone else to do so. Thank you.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others.* The Zionists moved in from Europe, under the gun, and violated the rights of the Palestinians. That is an act of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Nobody has the right to violate the rights of others.  Self-determination is an inherent, inviolable right belonging to all peoples.  (You've OFTEN said that exact thing).  Thus,nobody has the right to violate the right to self-determination of the Jewish people.  It would be an act of aggression to do so.  (Also no one has the right to violate the right to self-determination of the Arab Palestinian people.)
> 
> Now, the standard in the world with multiple peoples desiring self-determination is to partition the territory and give them both self-determination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> is to partition the territory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not "the territory," it was Palestine. The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.
Click to expand...


No such thing as “Palestine” it was a land without leadership with a bunch of nomadic tribes. I am not sure why it is so hard to comprehend.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, let's backup here, and understand who the players are:

✪  The *Principal (or Major- or Entente) Allied Powers* in The Great War (WWI) were:

•  Great Britain (and the British Empire),
•  France,
•  Russia
•  Japan
•  Italy​✪  The Allied Powers in The Great War (WWI) included:

Armenia, 

Belgium, 

Greece,
Hejaz, 

Poland, 

Portugal, 

Romania, 

Serb-Croat-Slovene,

Czechoslovakia.
✪  The United States was "technically speaking" an "Associate Power."​*[LINK]*
 


*•  Allied powers  •*
International Alliance
Written By:  
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica​


P F Tinmore said:


> It was not British land. The Mandates were trustees.


*(COMMENT)*

Who the players are is a very important distinction.  The "Mandate for Palestine" starts with the opening phrase:

"Whereas the _*Principal Allied Powers*_ have agreed,"​
Let there be no mistake...   The Mandate represented an agreement between the "PRINCIPAL" Allied Powers.  It was the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers that set the conditions as to the appearance of the Mandate and the Mandatories.  

✪   In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.

✪   The responsibility for implementing the Balfour Declaration was a decision by the Principal Allied Powers.​


P F Tinmore said:


> It was not "the territory," it was Palestine. The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.


*(COMMENT)*

Wrong again:

In 1920 _(during the San Remo Convention)_ → up and until August 1922_ [during the final formulation of the__ terms submitted to the Council of the League of Nations (LoN)]_ such boundaries had not yet been fixed. 

Under the description, pursuant to the *Palestine Order in Council* (August 1922) → "the limits of this Order are *the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies*, hereinafter described as Palestine."

AND: as cited in the Preamble:  And whereas, by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine.

◈  *Great Britain had the power and jurisdiction within "Palestine*" _(no matter what you want to call it)_.



P F Tinmore said:


> Not so. The Mandates had a non annexation policy. The land was ceded to the respective new states.


*(COMMENT)*

Wrong again.  The word "Annex" or "Annexation" was not used even once in the entirety of the Mandate.

Don't confuse Article 5 with a prohibition relative to Annexation.   What it says _(as agreed to by the Principal Allied Powers)_ that NO "territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power."

This is a circular order, in which the Principal Allied Power is telling itself, a Principal Allied Power,  there is a limit.  Remembering that the "Mandatory shall have *full powers of legislation and of administration*, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

What limits there are in the Mandate and in the Orders in Council are in place at the discretion of the Principal Allied Powers and no other.  And what is put in place by the Principal Allied Powers, can be lifted by the Allied Powers. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.


Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point.  Yugoslavia was a State.



> The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.


Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity.  That's the international standard.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its “right to exist.” Is- rael’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement . . . There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its “right to exist” a favor, or a negotiable concession.
> 
> —Abba Eban2
> 
> https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/mf2017.pdf#page=9
> 
> 
> 
> How many other countries bang on about their right to exist like they are trying to sell something?
Click to expand...

How many countries are assailed by hundreds of millions of hateful subhumans claiming they have no such right?


----------



## Shusha

No other actual existing State's right to exist is ever questioned.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Dogmaphobe*
> How many countries are assailed by hundreds of millions of hateful subhumans claiming they have no such right?



South Africa under Apartheid...

And ironically american Jews were the first ones in the West to denounce the supremacist state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point.  Yugoslavia was a State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity.  That's the international standard.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## flacaltenn

Rehmani said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does. It began in 1947. Listen Zombie. I am Not an Islamist so I think for myself. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946? Answer that. I can name Israel’s presidents from 1947 and beyond. You zombies can never answer simple questions. And your English sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you earn from here to spread false propaganda. Whole world knows Israel is created on the suffering of people of Holly Land with out any mandate or false mandate when UN has member from wwii coalition. Now tell me you are zombi or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...
> 
> But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...
> 
> Blame THEM -- not Jews....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.
> 
> After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission..  Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..
> 
> But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable...  Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits...  LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.
Click to expand...


This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts?? 

The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, *the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis..  Where's your blame on Jordan?*

The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West Bank and Sinai to those countries..  And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank, rather than continue the attacks from Palestinians... 

From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...


----------



## flacaltenn

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, foreigners with guns can prevent the people's right to declare independence.
> 
> Where is that legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every word of that is wrong.
> 
> First, the Jewish people are not foreigners in their own homeland.
> 
> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.  The guns only became necessary when hostile Arabs decided to prevent the Jewish people from exercising their inherent, inviolable right to self-determination, as confirmed and written in international law by the international community from 1920 onward.  In fact, you are (again) inverting the truth.  It is the Arabs who are STILL (!) attempting to use guns and violence to reverse and erase the actual, declared and recognized independence of Israel.  With absolutely zero effect, except to entrench the Jewish peoples need for safety and security.
> 
> Third, no one is preventing the Arab Palestinians from declaring independence.  In fact, they HAVE declared independence, in 1988.  Their declaration is complete. And look! no one prevented it.  In fact, Hamas can declare independence in Gaza today, tomorrow or next week.  They meet the necessary criteria of: government, people, territory and treating with other states.
> 
> And to answer your question about legality:  the accepted legal standard in the world where different, distinct ethnic/cultural groups within a territory are each vying for self-determination and sovereignty is to partition the territory.  In other words, the accepted legal standard is that self-determination trumps territorial integrity.  Witness former Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Sudan, etc, etc, etc.  Its only the Arab Palestinians who insist on special treatment.  Why is that, do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, it wasn't (and isn't) guns which gave the Jewish people the right to self-determination in their own homeland -- it is the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination and sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. They moved in under the gun of the British military.
> 
> Nobody has the "right" to violate the rights of others. The Zionists moved in from Europe, under the gun, and violated the rights of the Palestinians. That is an act of aggression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you're under occupation by the BRITISH --- you follow their rules. There's a reason Britain was assigned that job to administer that part of the Ottoman Empire.. "The gun of the British military" seems to imply they had rightful title to the land and NOT the Palestinians or the Jews.. Their disposition of land took into account BOTH those interests when they left...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The gun of the British military" seems to imply they had rightful title to the land and NOT the Palestinians or the Jews..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so. The Mandates had a non annexation policy. The land was ceded to the respective new states.
Click to expand...


A non-annexation policy means that Britain could NOT RETAIN portions.. Not that the winning team of France Russia and England couldn't dole out land and set national boundaries... Britain did that to dissuade Russia from simply retaining their 1/3 of the "conquered" Mid East.... France made entire colonies out of their holdings that turned into nation states.. And England stayed too long in Egypt and got their asses booted out... But the BOUNDARIES of all these modern Arab states WERE SET by the victors.. Not just in the Holy Land...


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I promote a wide regional cooperation, and open dialogue with honest and respectful leaders of the Muslim community.
> 
> 
> 
> While yours posts expressed, division, prolong palestine issue, scared of from your own existence. Are you people psycho? Why don't you follow the UN resolution and solved the issue? Or if scared of from the lion will come and eat you all if this the case then one day it will come and its called paranoid-ism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What posts?
> I'm not sure You understand the words You use, what makes You think that UN resolutions are obligatory, does You country follow them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
> I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.
> 
> Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
> nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
Click to expand...



International law is not a popular vote,
a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

flacaltenn said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you earn from here to spread false propaganda. Whole world knows Israel is created on the suffering of people of Holly Land with out any mandate or false mandate when UN has member from wwii coalition. Now tell me you are zombi or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...
> 
> But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...
> 
> Blame THEM -- not Jews....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.
> 
> After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission..  Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..
> 
> But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable...  Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits...  LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??
> 
> The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, *the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis..  Where's your blame on Jordan?*
> 
> The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries..  And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..
> 
> From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...
Click to expand...

Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.


----------



## rylah

AzogtheDefiler said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...
> 
> But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...
> 
> Blame THEM -- not Jews....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.
> 
> After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission..  Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..
> 
> But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable...  Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits...  LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??
> 
> The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, *the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis..  Where's your blame on Jordan?*
> 
> The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries..  And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..
> 
> From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.
Click to expand...


There's land belonging to the Jewish nation,
one such example is purchase by the charitable baron, consists of 100,000 dun. of land in Huran.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point.  Yugoslavia was a State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity.  That's the international standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Who was the President of Palestine in 1946?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point.  Yugoslavia was a State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity.  That's the international standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Um.  You want a link to what, exactly?  All the countries in the world which were partitioned to permit self-determination at the expense of territorial integrity?

Ottoman Empire
Yugoslavia
Czechoslovakia
Soviet Union
India
Sudan
Korea
Palestine

That help?  Territorial integrity is not an impediment to self-determination.  Self-determination is the norm, at the expense of territorial integrity.  Your own precious "Palestine" proves the rule.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point.  Yugoslavia was a State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity.  That's the international standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um.  You want a link to what, exactly?  All the countries in the world which were partitioned to permit self-determination at the expense of territorial integrity?
> 
> Ottoman Empire
> Yugoslavia
> Czechoslovakia
> Soviet Union
> India
> Sudan
> Korea
> Palestine
> 
> That help?  Territorial integrity is not an impediment to self-determination.  Self-determination is the norm, at the expense of territorial integrity.  Your own precious "Palestine" proves the rule.
Click to expand...


I would also kind of put Cyprus on that list, even though most of the world doesn't recognize the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus.


----------



## Shusha

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point.  Yugoslavia was a State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity.  That's the international standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um.  You want a link to what, exactly?  All the countries in the world which were partitioned to permit self-determination at the expense of territorial integrity?
> 
> Ottoman Empire
> Yugoslavia
> Czechoslovakia
> Soviet Union
> India
> Sudan
> Korea
> Palestine
> 
> That help?  Territorial integrity is not an impediment to self-determination.  Self-determination is the norm, at the expense of territorial integrity.  Your own precious "Palestine" proves the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would also kind of put Cyprus on that list, even though most of the world doesn't recognize the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus.
Click to expand...


There are a bunch of African countries which could probably be added as well. And places like East Timor declaring independence from Indonesia and Portugal. There are also a bunch of potentials:  Tibet, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc. 

I'm hard pressed, actually, to think of a national liberation movement specifically prevented from self-determination because of territorial integrity. 

They are legally two incompatible, mutually exclusive legal concepts but the NORM is for self-determination to take precedence.


----------



## flacaltenn

Shusha said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not "the territory," it was Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether Palestine was a "territory", a State (ridiculous) or a "mandate" is absolutely irrelevant to my point.  Yugoslavia was a State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Self-determination of peoples trumps territorial integrity.  That's the international standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um.  You want a link to what, exactly?  All the countries in the world which were partitioned to permit self-determination at the expense of territorial integrity?
> 
> Ottoman Empire
> Yugoslavia
> Czechoslovakia
> Soviet Union
> India
> Sudan
> Korea
> Palestine
> 
> That help?  Territorial integrity is not an impediment to self-determination.  Self-determination is the norm, at the expense of territorial integrity.  Your own precious "Palestine" proves the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would also kind of put Cyprus on that list, even though most of the world doesn't recognize the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a bunch of African countries which could probably be added as well. And places like East Timor declaring independence from Indonesia and Portugal. There are also a bunch of potentials:  Tibet, Catalonia, Kurdistan, etc.
> 
> I'm hard pressed, actually, to think of a national liberation movement specifically prevented from self-determination because of territorial integrity.
> 
> They are legally two incompatible, mutually exclusive legal concepts but the NORM is for self-determination to take precedence.
Click to expand...


Nation state status is also never JUST GIVEN to an indigenous people with any real benefits of sovereignty.. SURE -- there are sovereign American Indian nations.. But all trade with them comes thru the US customs. Any laws or treaties they might make are inferior to the laws of the country that recognized their status.. They have to BEG for waivers to hunt seal and whales and polar bears -- for instance.

*So in 1948, when the partition occurred, the Zionists HAD a nation state prepared and ready to go.. The Palestinians did not... So they ended up being "pseudo-citizens" of Trans-Jordan... And JORDAN treated them as "an indigenous people" -- not as either a case of self-determination nor territorial integrity...*

That's been the "Palestinian problem" from ancient times to today....

You don't grant EITHER of things to a people who can not form a nation that fits in with the governmental structure of the REST of the world... You just don't hand "territorial integrity" to a people who will fight amongst themselves for CONTROL of that land...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, let's backup here, and understand who the players are:
> 
> ✪  The *Principal (or Major- or Entente) Allied Powers* in The Great War (WWI) were:
> 
> •  Great Britain (and the British Empire),
> •  France,
> •  Russia
> •  Japan
> •  Italy​✪  The Allied Powers in The Great War (WWI) included:
> 
> Armenia,
> 
> Belgium,
> 
> Greece,
> Hejaz,
> 
> Poland,
> 
> Portugal,
> 
> Romania,
> 
> Serb-Croat-Slovene,
> 
> Czechoslovakia.
> ✪  The United States was "technically speaking" an "Associate Power."​*[LINK]*
> View attachment 251925
> 
> 
> *•  Allied powers  •*
> International Alliance
> Written By:
> The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not British land. The Mandates were trustees.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Who the players are is a very important distinction.  The "Mandate for Palestine" starts with the opening phrase:
> 
> "Whereas the _*Principal Allied Powers*_ have agreed,"​
> Let there be no mistake...   The Mandate represented an agreement between the "PRINCIPAL" Allied Powers.  It was the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers that set the conditions as to the appearance of the Mandate and the Mandatories.
> 
> ✪   In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.
> 
> ✪   The responsibility for implementing the Balfour Declaration was a decision by the Principal Allied Powers.​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not "the territory," it was Palestine. The Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Wrong again:
> 
> In 1920 _(during the San Remo Convention)_ → up and until August 1922_ [during the final formulation of the terms submitted to the Council of the League of Nations (LoN)]_ such boundaries had not yet been fixed.
> 
> Under the description, pursuant to the *Palestine Order in Council* (August 1922) → "the limits of this Order are *the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies*, hereinafter described as Palestine."
> 
> AND: as cited in the Preamble:  And whereas, by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine.
> 
> ◈  *Great Britain had the power and jurisdiction within "Palestine*" _(no matter what you want to call it)_.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so. The Mandates had a non annexation policy. The land was ceded to the respective new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Wrong again.  The word "Annex" or "Annexation" was not used even once in the entirety of the Mandate.
> 
> Don't confuse Article 5 with a prohibition relative to Annexation.   What it says _(as agreed to by the Principal Allied Powers)_ that NO "territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power."
> 
> This is a circular order, in which the Principal Allied Power is telling itself, a Principal Allied Power,  there is a limit.  Remembering that the "Mandatory shall have *full powers of legislation and of administration*, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."
> 
> What limits there are in the Mandate and in the Orders in Council are in place at the discretion of the Principal Allied Powers and no other.  And what is put in place by the Principal Allied Powers, can be lifted by the Allied Powers.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> ✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.


Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.

It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements ( the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.
> 
> After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission..  Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..
> 
> But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable...  Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits...  LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??
> 
> The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, *the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis..  Where's your blame on Jordan?*
> 
> The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries..  And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..
> 
> From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's land belonging to the Jewish nation,
> one such example is purchase by the charitable baron, consists of 100,000 dun. of land in Huran.
Click to expand...

But its not mean all people around the world invade USA or Canada or Europe because they have bought land as Jew did to people of Holly Land.


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...
> 
> But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...
> 
> Blame THEM -- not Jews....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.
> 
> After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission..  Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..
> 
> But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable...  Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits...  LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??
> 
> The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, *the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis..  Where's your blame on Jordan?*
> 
> The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries..  And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..
> 
> From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.
Click to expand...

But its not make Israel Legitimate.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> While yours posts expressed, division, prolong palestine issue, scared of from your own existence. Are you people psycho? Why don't you follow the UN resolution and solved the issue? Or if scared of from the lion will come and eat you all if this the case then one day it will come and its called paranoid-ism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What posts?
> I'm not sure You understand the words You use, what makes You think that UN resolutions are obligatory, does You country follow them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
> I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.
> 
> Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
> nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not a popular vote,
> a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?
Click to expand...

But israel is not a legitimate nation. 
Then what is a popular vote?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.
> 
> After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission..  Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..
> 
> But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable...  Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits...  LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??
> 
> The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, *the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis..  Where's your blame on Jordan?*
> 
> The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries..  And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..
> 
> From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But its not make Israel Legitimate.
Click to expand...


I disagree and I find you a terrible human being for not answering my question. One question. Sad really.


----------



## Rehmani

flacaltenn said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you earn from here to spread false propaganda. Whole world knows Israel is created on the suffering of people of Holly Land with out any mandate or false mandate when UN has member from wwii coalition. Now tell me you are zombi or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a valid point.. The way France, England, Russia carved up the Mid East after the Ottoman Empire was a bad atrocious act.. Very arrogant. And not that smart... Sikes -- Picot had a cup of tea and a biscuit and drew 3 lines on a map and called it day... And the world is STILL PAYING for that arrogance and stupidity today...
> 
> But neither Muslims, Jews, Israelis and Palestinians had much of a say in that matter... And the ultra nationalism in Arab Mid East today is a large part of the pain and suffering of the Arab countries today... ALL BECAUSE the British FORCED nation-states with phony boundaries...
> 
> Blame THEM -- not Jews....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would it be unfair to describe Zionism as a form of Jewish ultra-nationalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.
> 
> After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission..  Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..
> 
> But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable...  Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits...  LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??
> 
> The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, *the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis..  Where's your blame on Jordan?*
> 
> The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West Bank and Sinai to those countries..  And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank, rather than continue the attacks from Palestinians...
> 
> From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...
Click to expand...

But who the invader are to change the people life style or change the face of Holly Land by enforcing new countries in to accommodate israel ro make israel legitimate. "Quote from your previous post Brits are responsible," You are right but they have gone now israel is there and causing all this pain to Peace full holly land last for almost 1500 years while jew spend hardly 500 years in holly land in total as vagrant/gypsy. And Jew want to become the owner. Either way they can not be prove their legitimate status, means by time or by as a indigenous.


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Way I look at it is Zionism had a different mission and structure PRIOR to 1948.. It was a global "alliance" of founders intent on creating a state as a safe harbor for Jews.. PREFERABLY in the Holy land.. It held world-wide "congresses" (i think) every year and LOBBIED heavily world-wide.
> 
> After 1948, it did became a form of nationalism.. And has a newer mission to sustain an actual nation with a heritage and a mission..  Stop short of the "ultra" part, because Israel has never had any real objection to being neighborly with Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and EXTREMELY tolerant of other religions and practices..
> 
> But they live in a neighborhood that's a bit "rough" and unstable...  Not their fault.. Always remember to blame the Brits...  LOL...
> 
> 
> 
> Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??
> 
> The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, *the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis..  Where's your blame on Jordan?*
> 
> The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries..  And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..
> 
> From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But its not make Israel Legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree and I find you a terrible human being for not answering my question. One question. Sad really.
Click to expand...

Answer given to legitimate status , you are trying to change false and it is called propaganda. And who you are, have no manner.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Rehmani said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why blame to Brits? They have gone almost 80 years has been passed. It sound like that snake has gone 80 years ago, you are beating the line left on ground. Means you can not put owner of the land into camps and start calling owner yourself, it unfair and unacceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a thread about the History of the region.. And YOU know the Arabs got screwed by the imperialism that drew phony lines on the ground and decided WHO GETS TO RULE... Are you denying that now when you've already said the same thing in your posts??
> 
> The history of Israel and Palestine is one long CHAIN of imperial rule... Even when the Brit partition occurred, *the section given exclusively to Arabs living there was eventually mandated by JORDAN -- not the Israelis..  Where's your blame on Jordan?*
> 
> The 1967 war found Israel in the control of West Bank, the ENTIRE Sinai, the Golan Heights and the Lebanese border. Peace treaties RETURNED the West and Sinai to those countries..  And the king of Jordan eventually decided to withdraw any claims to the West Bank..
> 
> From the Romans to the British, never did the indigenous Arabs of the Holy land succeed in creating a nation state. I told you WHY that is so... There was a never a NATIONALIST MOVEMENT to do anything like that because Arab history and tradition is tribal, family rule NOT federations or nations...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Syria used to pepper Israel with artillery from the Golan Heights and many lost their lives taking it. You still see the impacts of the war and the histories. Jews don’t war with one another. Moslems continue to fight due to their tribal nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But its not make Israel Legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree and I find you a terrible human being for not answering my question. One question. Sad really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer given to legitimate status , you are trying to change false and it is called propaganda. And who you are, have no manner.
Click to expand...


I ask others. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946?


----------



## flacaltenn

Rehmani said:


> You are right but they have gone now israel is there and causing all this pain to Peace full holly land last for almost 1500 years while jew spend hardly 500 years in holly land in total as vagrant/gypsy. And Jew want to become the owner.



It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen..  But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..

I suspect you respect Holy books... So when "returning to Jerusalem is mentioned many times and still is recited in many prayers for 1400 years --- it's not fantasy fiction.. There are plenty of Holy sites for Jews including the 2 magnificent Temples.. Which at the time was the CENTRAL FOCUS of Jewish existence.. Many Jewish kings ruled from what is now Israel... And sites in some existing cities show Jewish heritage pre-dating the Romans.

And it's not just Old Testament tales.. All the apostles of Jesus came from cities that now span the breadth of Israel... And all those stories are Jewish stories as well... 

Vagrants/gypsies -- HARDLY...  Moses wandered 40 years in the desert to enter the Holy Land...


----------



## Dogmaphobe

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I ask others. Who was the President of Palestine in 1946?




You won't get an honest answer.

I have yet to encounter an Islamic propagandist who is willing to tell the truth.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements ( the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.


Sure.  They are.  One of the States is Jordan.  The other is the Jewish homeland.  Israel.
​


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> But israel is not a legitimate nation.


Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate".  How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not?  What is the criteria?
​


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> But who the invader are to change the people life style or change the face of Holly Land by enforcing new ...



If I understand the meaning correctly you are asking, "what right does the invader have to change the life style of the people or the face of the Holy Land by enforcing new...."

You do understand that the Muslim Arabs literally built a mosque on top of the Jewish people's Holy Place, yes?  You do understand that the Muslim Arabs actually prevent the Jewish people from prayer, worship, re-building, preservation, and agency and autonomy over their own Holy Place, yes?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is not a correct implication at all.  You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.

•  The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."

•  The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​
In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other.  The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954. 

The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. 



RoccoR said:


> ✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.





P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.
> 
> It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.


*(COMMENT)*

*POINT 1:*

Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 _(actually ealier)_.  None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.

◈  Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
..........................................------------------------------------
◈  Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
◈  Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
◈  Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​
I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine.  The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.  Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government _[the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)]_.

The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states.  The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​
*POINT 2:*

The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.

The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders.  It created military demarcation lines.  These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​
*(EPILOG)*

It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus. 

And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century.  In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined.  Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.

◈  The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes *committed after the entry into force* of this Statute.

◈  The *definition of a crime shall be strictly construed* and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted. 

◈  No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct* prior to the entry into force* of the Statute. 

◈  In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, *the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply*.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is not a correct implication at all.  You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.
> 
> •  The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."
> 
> •  The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​
> In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other.  The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.
> 
> It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *POINT 1:*
> 
> Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 _(actually ealier)_.  None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.
> 
> ◈  Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
> ..........................................------------------------------------
> ◈  Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
> ◈  Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
> ◈  Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine.  The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.  Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government _[the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)]_.
> 
> The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states.  The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​*POINT 2:*
> 
> The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.
> 
> The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders.  It created military demarcation lines.  These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​
> *(EPILOG)*
> 
> It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.
> 
> And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century.  In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined.  Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.
> 
> ◈  The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes *committed after the entry into force* of this Statute.
> 
> ◈  The *definition of a crime shall be strictly construed* and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
> 
> ◈  No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct* prior to the entry into force* of the Statute.
> 
> ◈  In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, *the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply*.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.


The Palestinians were not stateless. They were citizens of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is not a correct implication at all.  You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.
> 
> •  The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."
> 
> •  The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​
> In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other.  The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.
> 
> It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *POINT 1:*
> 
> Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 _(actually ealier)_.  None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.
> 
> ◈  Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
> ..........................................------------------------------------
> ◈  Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
> ◈  Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
> ◈  Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine.  The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.  Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government _[the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)]_.
> 
> The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states.  The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​*POINT 2:*
> 
> The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.
> 
> The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders.  It created military demarcation lines.  These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​
> *(EPILOG)*
> 
> It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.
> 
> And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century.  In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined.  Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.
> 
> ◈  The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes *committed after the entry into force* of this Statute.
> 
> ◈  The *definition of a crime shall be strictly construed* and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
> 
> ◈  No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct* prior to the entry into force* of the Statute.
> 
> ◈  In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, *the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply*.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders. It created military demarcation lines.


Indeed, and those military demarcation lines did not have any affect on Palestine's international borders when they were created or remove.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is not a correct implication at all.  You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.
> 
> •  The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."
> 
> •  The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​
> In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other.  The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.
> 
> It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *POINT 1:*
> 
> Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 _(actually ealier)_.  None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.
> 
> ◈  Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
> ..........................................------------------------------------
> ◈  Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
> ◈  Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
> ◈  Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine.  The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.  Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government _[the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)]_.
> 
> The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states.  The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​*POINT 2:*
> 
> The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.
> 
> The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders.  It created military demarcation lines.  These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​
> *(EPILOG)*
> 
> It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.
> 
> And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century.  In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined.  Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.
> 
> ◈  The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes *committed after the entry into force* of this Statute.
> 
> ◈  The *definition of a crime shall be strictly construed* and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
> 
> ◈  No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct* prior to the entry into force* of the Statute.
> 
> ◈  In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, *the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply*.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders. It created military demarcation lines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, and those military demarcation lines did not have any affect on Palestine's international borders when they were created or remove.
Click to expand...


Then tell that to your Palestinian friends.  They're the ones who consider the 1949/ 67 lines to be sacrosanct, much more so than the Israelis.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is not a correct implication at all.  You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.
> 
> •  The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."
> 
> •  The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​
> In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other.  The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.
> 
> It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *POINT 1:*
> 
> Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 _(actually ealier)_.  None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.
> 
> ◈  Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
> ..........................................------------------------------------
> ◈  Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
> ◈  Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
> ◈  Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine.  The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.  Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government _[the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)]_.
> 
> The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states.  The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​*POINT 2:*
> 
> The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.
> 
> The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders.  It created military demarcation lines.  These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​
> *(EPILOG)*
> 
> It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.
> 
> And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century.  In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined.  Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.
> 
> ◈  The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes *committed after the entry into force* of this Statute.
> 
> ◈  The *definition of a crime shall be strictly construed* and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
> 
> ◈  No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct* prior to the entry into force* of the Statute.
> 
> ◈  In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, *the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply*.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were not stateless. They were citizens of Palestine.
Click to expand...

Who was their elected leader in 1946?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

AzogtheDefiler said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is not a correct implication at all.  You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.
> 
> •  The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."
> 
> •  The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​
> In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other.  The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.
> 
> It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *POINT 1:*
> 
> Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 _(actually ealier)_.  None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.
> 
> ◈  Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
> ..........................................------------------------------------
> ◈  Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
> ◈  Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
> ◈  Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine.  The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.  Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government _[the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)]_.
> 
> The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states.  The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​*POINT 2:*
> 
> The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.
> 
> The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders.  It created military demarcation lines.  These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​
> *(EPILOG)*
> 
> It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.
> 
> And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century.  In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined.  Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.
> 
> ◈  The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes *committed after the entry into force* of this Statute.
> 
> ◈  The *definition of a crime shall be strictly construed* and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
> 
> ◈  No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct* prior to the entry into force* of the Statute.
> 
> ◈  In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, *the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply*.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians were not stateless. They were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who was their elected leader in 1946?
Click to expand...


And Palestine was not an independent country, despite the Treaty of Lausanne (which does not even mention Palestine).


----------



## flacaltenn

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> What posts?
> I'm not sure You understand the words You use, what makes You think that UN resolutions are obligatory, does You country follow them?
> 
> 
> 
> Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
> I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.
> 
> Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
> nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not a popular vote,
> a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> Then what is a popular vote?
Click to expand...


A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting... 

No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?

And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..


----------



## ForeverYoung436

flacaltenn said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.
> 
> 
> 
> Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
> I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.
> 
> Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
> nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not a popular vote,
> a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> Then what is a popular vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?
> 
> And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..
Click to expand...


If anything, it's Rehmani's country, Pakistan, which is illegitimate.  It took a huge chunk out of India, and out of the indigenous Hindus' nation, illegally.  It's funny that Rehmani keeps referring to Israel as the "Holy Land", yet who was it that made that land holy in the first place?  The Jews, of course!


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is not a correct implication at all.  You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.

•  The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."

•  The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​
In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other.  The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.

The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.



RoccoR said:


> ✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.





P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.
> 
> It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.


*(COMMENT)*

*POINT 1:*

Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 _(actually ealier)_.  None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.

◈  Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
..........................................------------------------------------
◈  Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
◈  Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
◈  Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine.  The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.  Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government _[the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)]_.

The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states.  The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​*POINT 2:*

The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.

The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders.  It created military demarcation lines.  These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​
*(EPILOG)*

It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.

And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century.  In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined.  Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.

◈  The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes *committed after the entry into force* of this Statute.

◈  The *definition of a crime shall be strictly construed* and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

◈  No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct* prior to the entry into force* of the Statute.

◈  In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, *the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply*.​



RoccoR said:


> In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.





			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> The Palestinians were not stateless. They were citizens of Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

WRONG *!*

They were citizens of the Ottoman Empire.  Then on the surrender and the renouncement of rights and title (Article 16) the Mandate for Palestine and the associated Orders in Council and the Citizenship Orders, they became citizens of the Government of Palestine _(under the control of Great Britain)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen.. But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..


Indeed, the Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial project.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate".  How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not?  What is the criteria?
> ​
Click to expand...

Surely not kicking out the natives and stealing their land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is not a correct implication at all.  You are mixing two different concepts together as if one directly implicates another.
> 
> •  The Concept of preventing "Stateless Persons."
> 
> •  The Concept of "Mandate Governments."​
> In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other.  The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.
> 
> The Arab Palestinian refugees receiving aid from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) are one of three categories of persons who are not covered by the protections of the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✪ In the case of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the PRINCIPAL Allied Powers selected Great Britain as the Mandatory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, and by 1924, Palestine, and the other new states, were territories defined by international borders. The people were the nationals of their respective states.
> 
> It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements (the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *POINT 1:*
> 
> Of the current nations that border Israel today, only Egypt was an independent state by 1924 _(actually ealier)_.  None of the other states, bordering Israel, became independent until the 1940's.
> 
> ◈  Egypt became independent and separated as a British Protectorate on 28 February 1922
> ..........................................------------------------------------
> ◈  Lebanon became independent from the French Mandate on 22 November 1943
> ◈  Syria became independent from the French Mandate on 17 April 1946
> ◈  Jordan became independent from the British Mandate on 25 May 1946​I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine.  The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.  Thus to insure the concept was implemented, the Mandate for Palestine created an artificial government _[the Government of Palestine which accepted all liabilities which maintained and exercised full powers of legislation (law making abilities)]_.
> 
> The 1924 Treaty did NOT make any new independent states.  The Treaty, to the extent possible, tried to contain the creation of stateless refugees.​*POINT 2:*
> 
> The Mandate may have terminated, but the Powers of the Mandate merely transferred to the UN via Article 77 → Chapter XII International Trustee System → UN Charter.
> 
> The Armistice Agreements of 1949 did not create borders.  It created military demarcation lines.  These lines existed only until the Treaties were signed, which THEN established permanent international boundaries relative to the territories in dispute.​
> *(EPILOG)*
> 
> It is my opinion, that the reason the Arab Palestinians are trying so desperately to establish a pre-existing claim by means of the argument for "indigenous people," is because they understand that any claim prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is bogus.
> 
> And while A/RES/61/295 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), 21st Century Laws did not apply, and cannot be retroactively applied to events and decision made in the early 20th Century.  In fact, it is still an unanswered question if Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, since the term "Indigenous Peoples" is undefined.  Some concepts that should be considered in questions such as under discussion here; especially in implied or direct accusations against Israel.
> 
> ◈  The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes *committed after the entry into force* of this Statute.
> 
> ◈  The *definition of a crime shall be strictly construed* and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.
> 
> ◈  No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct* prior to the entry into force* of the Statute.
> 
> ◈  In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, *the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply*.​
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Post-War era of 1924, (unlike today) neither implies the other. The standing of persons, who are not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, was not generalized and adopted by most nations until the convention of 1954.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians were not stateless. They were citizens of Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> WRONG *!*
> 
> They were citizens of the Ottoman Empire.  Then on the surrender and the renouncement of rights and title (Article 16) the Mandate for Palestine and the associated Orders in Council and the Citizenship Orders, they became citizens of the Government of Palestine _(under the control of Great Britain)_.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You are just trying to monkey motion the Palestinians out of their rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.
> 
> 
> 
> Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
> I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.
> 
> Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
> nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not a popular vote,
> a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> Then what is a popular vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?
> 
> And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..
Click to expand...




flacaltenn said:


> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...


The unity government of March 2007 was an excellent government. Then the US coup of June 2007 ruined the chance for elections since then.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate".  How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not?  What is the criteria?
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely not kicking out the natives and stealing their land.
Click to expand...


But they weren't "natives".  The criteria for being a "Palestinian" was being a resident of Palestine from 1946 to 1948, a mere 2 years.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen.. But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial project.
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered telling the truth?


----------



## P F Tinmore

flacaltenn said:


> And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..


And instead of asking why he says that, everybody just starts dancing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate".  How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not?  What is the criteria?
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely not kicking out the natives and stealing their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they weren't "natives".  The criteria for being a "Palestinian" was being a resident of Palestine from 1946 to 1948, a mere 2 years.
Click to expand...

Not true. That was just UNWRA's definition of who qualifies for aid.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dogmaphobe said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen.. But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever considered telling the truth?
Click to expand...

It's true. Look it up.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, Shusha, Rehmani, et al,

There is no such thing as an "Illegitimate Nation."  It is either a nation or some other category of territory.

BUT!  A nation (State) either exits or not exist.  Nature, character, or political status is irrelevant.  The choices are:

◈  Exist
. ,,.....or
◈  Not Exist​


P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate".  How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not?  What is the criteria?
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely not kicking out the natives and stealing their land.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Just because you do not like the nature of the creation _(your feelings • the people's feelings • and other external judgment)_ of a "nation" (State), does not make its existence and less stable 

I may (or may not) like you → or the relationship from which you were born → it does not change the fact that you exist.  And it really does not predict the adult character with will deveolp _(See:  __Famous 'illegitimate' children list)_.  

Just as we don't go around → killing all the "illegitimate children" on the Earth --- we don't go around trying to snuff-out the nations which were established in a manner which you do not approve.

A nation is what it is.  The nation's source or manner of creation _(this "illegitimate" tag)_ is of no relevance.

Now, if two competing people have a dispute over the size and shape of their respective sovereign territory, that is resolved in accordance with the Rule of Law (specifically):  Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States A/RES/25/2625 XXV.

If the Arab Palestinians do not want to observe the Rule of Law, then so be it.  But the question of "legitimacy" is just school yard childishness.

✦  *THE RULE OF LAW:* 

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.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ✦ *THE RULE OF LAW:*
> 
> 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.


And Israel sits inside Palestine's international borders. How can that be legal?

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Boy, do you ever twist the truth?



P F Tinmore said:


> It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements ( the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.


*(COMMENT)*

FIRST:  As far as the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip are concerned, the Arab Palestinians had no part in the establishment of the Armistice Agreements.

SECOND:  As far as the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip are concerned, the Armistice Agreement were replaced by Peace Treaties that established the Permanent International Boundaries.

THIRD:  The "international borders" of which you speak were used as reference lines only.  These demarcations outlined the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  The was territory which formerly was under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.  The Territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, was outlined →  within such boundaries that were fixed by the Principal Allied Powers.  Your assertion that the international demarcation of the territory to which the Mandate applied; having the short title of "Palestine" was some sort of permanent boundary is completely false and represents a statement attempting to be manipulative of the truth; intentionally false and misleading. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Dogmaphobe

P F Tinmore said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen.. But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever considered telling the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true. Look it up.
Click to expand...

There was no "settler colonial project".

You are simple parroting the stupid jargon created by terrorists for all their terrorist supporters .


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Boy, do you ever twist the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is said, regularly, that there was no Palestine. That the Mandate was Palestine. This is not true. The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements ( the year after the Mandate left Palestine) said that Palestine is still there. That Palestine's international borders are still there.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> FIRST:  As far as the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip are concerned, the Arab Palestinians had no part in the establishment of the Armistice Agreements.
> 
> SECOND:  As far as the West Bank (including Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip are concerned, the Armistice Agreement were replaced by Peace Treaties that established the Permanent International Boundaries.
> 
> THIRD:  The "international borders" of which you speak were used as reference lines only.  These demarcations outlined the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  The was territory which formerly was under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.  The Territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, was outlined →  within such boundaries that were fixed by the Principal Allied Powers.  Your assertion that the international demarcation of the territory to which the Mandate applied; having the short title of "Palestine" was some sort of permanent boundary is completely false and represents a statement attempting to be manipulative of the truth; intentionally false and misleading.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

My statement is true. Look it up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dogmaphobe said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen.. But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever considered telling the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no "settler colonial project".
> 
> You are simple parroting the stupid jargon created by terrorists for all their terrorist supporters .
Click to expand...

The British and the Zionists said it was. You need to read up.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

It is entirely legal → because the entirety of the boundaries that established the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, _(thereinafter described as Palestine)_ are historical only.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦ *THE RULE OF LAW:*
> 
> 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.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​And Israel sits inside Palestine's international borders. How can that be legal?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The State of Israel replaced that portion of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  It was not inserted into the territory as you imply. 

Israel DOES NOT sit inside Palestine because, in 1948, there was no territory designated as the State of Palestine.  And don't bringup that September 1948 All Palestine Government crap.   

An undefined State of Palestine was Declared in 1988 and the UN Decided to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations in 2012.

The Rule of Law says to "including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."  If the Arab Palestinians had a leg to stand-on based on this bogus claim, they would have taken legal action by now. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## flacaltenn

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen.. But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial project.
Click to expand...


The founding patriots of the USA  lobbied France heavily to assist with their independence and they were just a band of rebels.. Happens all the time.. It's the POWER that Britain had to GRANT that favor that created the State of Israel... Not the "lobbyists"... 

Kurds are doing that TODAY... You wanna tell them to just "fuck off" after the fight they've had for survival in the Levant???


----------



## flacaltenn

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
> I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.
> 
> Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
> nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?
> 
> 
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not a popular vote,
> a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> Then what is a popular vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?
> 
> And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unity government of March 2007 was an excellent government. Then the US coup of June 2007 ruined the chance for elections since then.
Click to expand...


We've been over this and it's not in right part of history to discuss here.. I only brought it up to show that ANY kind of "popular" vote is not a comfortable Arab culture..


----------



## flacaltenn

Dogmaphobe said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen.. But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever considered telling the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no "settler colonial project".
> 
> You are simple parroting the stupid jargon created by terrorists for all their terrorist supporters .
Click to expand...


Actually, that term "settler colonial project(s)" is juiced up to insight contention.. But it's not far from the truth.. All the early 20th century projects, communes, kibbutzes were coordinated and managed as international projects..

*PFT's problem is that they were NO WAY "colonial".*.  Colonial implies use of tremendous EXISTING state power and force.. And that's not part of this picture.... Organizations and Lobbies don't send navies and explorers to plant flags and DEFEND THEM BY FORCE... 

But PFT is a zealot and is attracted to fiery terminology like that...


----------



## Dogmaphobe

flacaltenn said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen.. But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Zionists mooched Britain's military to run cover for their settler colonial project.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever considered telling the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true. Look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no "settler colonial project".
> 
> You are simple parroting the stupid jargon created by terrorists for all their terrorist supporters .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, that term "settler colonial project(s)" is juiced up to insight contention.. But it's not far from the truth.. All the early 20th century projects, communes, kibbutzes were coordinated and managed as international projects..
> 
> *PFT's problem is that they were NO WAY "colonial".*.  Colonial implies use of tremendous EXISTING state power and force.. And that's not part of this picture.... Organizations and Lobbies don't send navies and explorers to plant flags and DEFEND THEM BY FORCE...
> 
> But PFT is a zealot and is attracted to fiery terminology like that...
Click to expand...

It is a simple matter to determine which sites people use to form their world view by the cliches and buzz terms they use.  His use of the term colonial project could have been Banustan, open air prison or any of a number of other cliches found at hate sites.  Others here reveal themselves in the same way.

The point I was making had more to do with the telltale nature of the childish rhetoric. There was obviously no colonialism for the reasons you gave.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> It is entirely legal → because the entirety of the boundaries that established the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, _(thereinafter described as Palestine)_ are historical only.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦ *THE RULE OF LAW:*
> 
> 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.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​And Israel sits inside Palestine's international borders. How can that be legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The State of Israel replaced that portion of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  It was not inserted into the territory as you imply.
> 
> Israel DOES NOT sit inside Palestine because, in 1948, there was no territory designated as the State of Palestine.  And don't bringup that September 1948 All Palestine Government crap.
> 
> An undefined State of Palestine was Declared in 1988 and the UN Decided to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations in 2012.
> 
> The Rule of Law says to "including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."  If the Arab Palestinians had a leg to stand-on based on this bogus claim, they would have taken legal action by now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Only Zionists will argue against actual documents with Israeli talking points. That is why I asked for a link that I will never get.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> It is entirely legal → because the entirety of the boundaries that established the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, _(thereinafter described as Palestine)_ are historical only.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦ *THE RULE OF LAW:*
> 
> 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.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​And Israel sits inside Palestine's international borders. How can that be legal?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The State of Israel replaced that portion of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.  It was not inserted into the territory as you imply.
> 
> Israel DOES NOT sit inside Palestine because, in 1948, there was no territory designated as the State of Palestine.  And don't bringup that September 1948 All Palestine Government crap.
> 
> An undefined State of Palestine was Declared in 1988 and the UN Decided to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations in 2012.
> 
> The Rule of Law says to "including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."  If the Arab Palestinians had a leg to stand-on based on this bogus claim, they would have taken legal action by now.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only Zionists will argue against actual documents with Israeli talking points. That is why I asked for a link that I will never get.
Click to expand...


You make it sound as if those are arguments brought by Israelis or Zionists,
it makes Your inability to disprove them any less a defeat.

The Jewish nation was vested with sovereignty in all of the territory alloted to Palestine,
the country's legal definition was framed in the *re-constitution* of the Jewish nation from day one.


----------



## Rehmani

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not a popular vote,
> a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> Then what is a popular vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?
> 
> And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unity government of March 2007 was an excellent government. Then the US coup of June 2007 ruined the chance for elections since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've been over this and it's not in right part of history to discuss here.. I only brought it up to show that ANY kind of "popular" vote is not a comfortable Arab culture..
Click to expand...

First what is popular?
Second, if UN vote was popular in 1947 then why Israel refusing UN popular vote today?
Now you will say an election is a popular vote.
Then I will say that popular vote for israel is only became possible, when UN gave mandate to Israel in 1947.
Then I will further say if Israel accept the UN mandate today and let the people of Palestine establish the popular vote as Israel did in 1947.
Now don't tell me that Israel want this popular vote first then israel will accept UN mandate today and give sovereignty to people of Palestine.
Israel is not a UN. Israel is a conflict and conflict is there because of Israel.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Still waiting...who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946? Thank you


----------



## Rehmani

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, Shusha, Rehmani, et al,
> 
> There is no such thing as an "Illegitimate Nation."  It is either a nation or some other category of territory.
> 
> BUT!  A nation (State) either exits or not exist.  Nature, character, or political status is irrelevant.  The choices are:
> 
> ◈  Exist
> . ,,.....or
> ◈  Not Exist​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate".  How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not?  What is the criteria?
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely not kicking out the natives and stealing their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Just because you do not like the nature of the creation _(your feelings • the people's feelings • and other external judgment)_ of a "nation" (State), does not make its existence and less stable
> 
> I may (or may not) like you → or the relationship from which you were born → it does not change the fact that you exist.  And it really does not predict the adult character with will deveolp _(See:  Famous 'illegitimate' children list)_.
> 
> Just as we don't go around → killing all the "illegitimate children" on the Earth --- we don't go around trying to snuff-out the nations which were established in a manner which you do not approve.
> 
> A nation is what it is.  The nation's source or manner of creation _(this "illegitimate" tag)_ is of no relevance.
> 
> Now, if two competing people have a dispute over the size and shape of their respective sovereign territory, that is resolved in accordance with the Rule of Law (specifically):  Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States A/RES/25/2625 XXV.
> 
> If the Arab Palestinians do not want to observe the Rule of Law, then so be it.  But the question of "legitimacy" is just school yard childishness.
> 
> ✦  *THE RULE OF LAW:*
> 
> 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.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I hope your home is not invaded and pushed you out, if this is the case what will you do then? 
Will you call their invasion legitimate and you will leave.


----------



## Rehmani

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate".  How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not?  What is the criteria?
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely not kicking out the natives and stealing their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they weren't "natives".  The criteria for being a "Palestinian" was being a resident of Palestine from 1946 to 1948, a mere 2 years.
Click to expand...

Why making false statement. whole world know Jew are not native to holly land.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> Then I will say that popular vote for israel is only became possible, when UN gave mandate to Israel in 1947.



You say many stuff,
but the UN didn't give any mandate to Israel, it was not entitled to do so, the mandate, or recognition of right to govern was given with the obligation to follow the establishment of the re-constitution of the Jewish nation. The authority of the UN itself is preconditioned on following its constitution, which includes this legal obligation.


----------



## Rehmani

flacaltenn said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.
> 
> 
> 
> Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
> I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.
> 
> Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
> nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not a popular vote,
> a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> Then what is a popular vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?
> 
> And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..
Click to expand...

It means if I have to play I have to follow yours rules.
Means how come you can call a invader or robber legitimate so please don't tell me now that robber or invader became gentleman and behaving as you want. And this country you called legitimate has huge financial and army support so it can show the world that how civilized it is (robber).


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
> I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.
> 
> Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
> nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?
> 
> 
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not a popular vote,
> a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> Then what is a popular vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?
> 
> And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means if I have to play I have to follow yours rules.
> Means how come you can call a invader or robber legitimate so please don't tell me now that robber or invader became gentleman and behaving as you want. And this country you called legitimate has huge financial and army support so it can show the world that how civilized it is (robber).
Click to expand...


Really if You want to discuss cartoons, that could be in the rubber room.

Arabs and Muslims have invaded several continents, the word "Palestinian" literally means an invader,
and it literally bears the symbols of the 4 invading caliphates that once attempted to dominate the entire middle east, Africa and Europe.

Are You one of those who also demand Madrid return to Muslim rule?


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But who the invader are to change the people life style or change the face of Holly Land by enforcing new ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand the meaning correctly you are asking, "what right does the invader have to change the life style of the people or the face of the Holy Land by enforcing new...."
> 
> You do understand that the Muslim Arabs literally built a mosque on top of the Jewish people's Holy Place, yes?  You do understand that the Muslim Arabs actually prevent the Jewish people from prayer, worship, re-building, preservation, and agency and autonomy over their own Holy Place, yes?
Click to expand...


First In 4000 years of Abraham PBUH, his PBUH race live in holly land hardly 400 years in parts.  
Second Arab Muslim got holly land from European about 1500 years ago they are there since then.
Third before Islam Arab were there as christian and pagan called native.
Means jew are vagrant they can not build anything means you don't have to change anything because nothing was there. Please talk with sense.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate".  How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not?  What is the criteria?
> ​
Click to expand...

You should tell me, if some one invade your home, will you call him legitimate owner? and you will leave.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Rehmani said:


> whole world know Jew are not native to holly land.




True.  Members of the genus Ilex are not native to Israel.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Only Zionists will argue against actual documents with Israeli talking points. That is why I asked for a link that I will never get.



LOL.  That's pretty funny coming from the guy whose sole source of documents is the Treaty of Lausanne.  And its especially funny when posted to Rocco, who posts more source material than any of us.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> First In 4000 years of Abraham PBUH, his PBUH race live in holly land hardly 400 years in parts.
> Second Arab Muslim got holly land from European about 1500 years ago they are there since then.
> Third before Islam Arab were there as christian and pagan called native.
> Means jew are vagrant they can not build anything means you don't have to change anything because nothing was there. Please talk with sense.



You are not making sense.  More specifically, you are applying different rules to the Jewish people than you do to others (Arabs, Europeans, Christians, pagans).

You admit that Arab Muslim "got" holy land from European.  You admit (Christian) Europeans "got" holy land from "pagans".  You admit that OTHER people existed there before Islam Arab.

Who was there before the Christian Europeans?  Before the Arab Muslims?  Who were the first peoples to understand that the Holy Land WAS a Holy Place?  What made it Holy?  

Are you denying the existence of G-d's Temple?  Are you saying it never happened?  It never existed?


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate".  How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not?  What is the criteria?
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should tell me, if some one invade your home, will you call him legitimate owner? and you will leave.
Click to expand...


It is the home of the Jewish people.  Has been for 4000 years.  Personally, I think the Arab invaders have rights and should have self-determination.  But if you want to play the "no invaders are legitimate" game, then I'm in.  When are the Arabs leaving, then?


----------



## Rehmani

flacaltenn said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right but they have gone now israel is there and causing all this pain to Peace full holly land last for almost 1500 years while jew spend hardly 500 years in holly land in total as vagrant/gypsy. And Jew want to become the owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen..  But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..
> 
> I suspect you respect Holy books... So when "returning to Jerusalem is mentioned many times and still is recited in many prayers for 1400 years --- it's not fantasy fiction.. There are plenty of Holy sites for Jews including the 2 magnificent Temples.. Which at the time was the CENTRAL FOCUS of Jewish existence.. Many Jewish kings ruled from what is now Israel... And sites in some existing cities show Jewish heritage pre-dating the Romans.
> 
> And it's not just Old Testament tales.. All the apostles of Jesus came from cities that now span the breadth of Israel... And all those stories are Jewish stories as well...
> 
> Vagrants/gypsies -- HARDLY...  Moses wandered 40 years in the desert to enter the Holy Land...
Click to expand...


First Moses PBUH never entered the Holy Land and quite possible Moses PBUH never directed the Jew to Jerusalem. When Moses PBUH got fed up from troubled jew He PBUH left them and disappeared in the hills.
Second we are here not to talking about Islam or Jew religion. It is a history Arab Muslim Took over from European and hold the sovereignty for almost 1500 years and they proved that Arab Muslim are sole custodian of the holy land not Persian/roman/European. 
Third jew hardly lived in holy land for four hundred years as a vagrant on either Persian  or  Roman Land and these empire keep pushing jew around how un respectful it is and now you can see those false kingdom jew establish as jew established some king dome  either jew kicked out from the land, by the empire owned the territory or taken away as slave.
Fourth, I don't know who Zionist are neither christian accept them christian nor jew accept them jew. I only know jew and I am addressing to jew in my signature comments that please live free, respectful life like others are living, like Persian and Roman are living happily whats wrong with jew when big empire can accept facts and living happily. Why not jew.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> First In 4000 years of Abraham PBUH, his PBUH race live in holly land hardly 400 years in parts.
> Second Arab Muslim got holly land from European about 1500 years ago they are there since then.
> Third before Islam Arab were there as christian and pagan called native.
> Means jew are vagrant they can not build anything means you don't have to change anything because nothing was there. Please talk with sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not making sense.  More specifically, you are applying different rules to the Jewish people than you do to others (Arabs, Europeans, Christians, pagans).
> 
> You admit that Arab Muslim "got" holy land from European.  You admit (Christian) Europeans "got" holy land from "pagans".  You admit that OTHER people existed there before Islam Arab.
> 
> Who was there before the Christian Europeans?  Before the Arab Muslims?  Who were the first peoples to understand that the Holy Land WAS a Holy Place?  What made it Holy?
> 
> Are you denying the existence of G-d's Temple?  Are you saying it never happened?  It never existed?
Click to expand...

Yes I am denying g-d because I beleave in God. Second when g-d forget about the temple why I should care about it. Third when you built temple on Persian/Roman joint empire land, what you thing the will accept yours legitimacy, of course not, they will kicked you out or slaved you as they did because you were not legitimate then too.


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate".  How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not?  What is the criteria?
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should tell me, if some one invade your home, will you call him legitimate owner? and you will leave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the home of the Jewish people.  Has been for 4000 years.  Personally, I think the Arab invaders have rights and should have self-determination.  But if you want to play the "no invaders are legitimate" game, then I'm in.  When are the Arabs leaving, then?
Click to expand...

First Moses PBUH never entered the Holy Land and quite possible Moses PBUH never directed the Jew to Jerusalem. When Moses PBUH got fed up from troubled jew He PBUH left them and disappeared in the hills.
Second we are here not to talking about Islam or Jew religion. It is a history Arab Muslim Took over from European and hold the sovereignty for almost 1500 years and they proved that Arab Muslim are sole custodian of the holy land not Persian/roman/European. 
Third jew hardly lived in holy land for four hundred years as a vagrant on either Persian  or  Roman Land and these empire keep pushing jew around how un respectful it is and now you can see those false kingdom jew establish as jew established some king dome  either jew kicked out from the land, by the empire owned the territory or taken away as slave.
Fourth, I don't know who Zionist are neither christian accept them christian nor jew accept them jew. I only know jew and I am addressing to jew in my signature comments that please live free, respectful life like others are living, like Persian and Roman are living happily whats wrong with jew when big empire can accept facts and living happily. Why not jew.


----------



## Shusha

Rehmani said:


> It is a history Arab Muslim Took over from European and hold the sovereignty for almost 1500 years and they proved that Arab Muslim are sole custodian of the holy land not Persian/roman/European.



If the criteria for "sole custodian" of the holy land is who took over from whom -- then *shrug* the Jewish took it over from the Arab Muslims.  So, by your own criteria, Jews win.  Our Holy Land again.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not a popular vote,
> a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> Then what is a popular vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?
> 
> And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means if I have to play I have to follow yours rules.
> Means how come you can call a invader or robber legitimate so please don't tell me now that robber or invader became gentleman and behaving as you want. And this country you called legitimate has huge financial and army support so it can show the world that how civilized it is (robber).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really if You want to discuss cartoons, that could be in the rubber room.
> 
> Arabs and Muslims have invaded several continents, the word "Palestinian" literally means an invader,
> and it literally bears the symbols of the 4 invading caliphates that once attempted to dominate the entire middle east, Africa and Europe.
> 
> Are You one of those who also demand Madrid return to Muslim rule?
Click to expand...

LOOK, I don't call Palestine, I used Holy Land. Palestine given to them who enforced Israel and israel never exist in history.


----------



## Rehmani

rylah said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I will say that popular vote for israel is only became possible, when UN gave mandate to Israel in 1947.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say many stuff,
> but the UN didn't give any mandate to Israel, it was not entitled to do so, the mandate, or recognition of right to govern was given with the obligation to follow the establishment of the re-constitution of the Jewish nation. The authority of the UN itself is preconditioned on following its constitution, which includes this legal obligation.
Click to expand...

Then why you are choosy, discus all.


----------



## flacaltenn

Rehmani said:


> First what is popular?
> Second, if UN vote was popular in 1947 then why Israel refusing UN popular vote today?
> Now you will say an election is a popular vote.



This is really easy to explain.. 1947 was a mandate to create Arab and Jewish zones. There were NO JEWS allowed in the Trans-Jordan section allocated to the Arabs. And there was NO occupation, no wars yet in which Israel won. So the World (UN) approved the deal.. 

Go forward to LATER UN votes..  In 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank because they were fighting for their lives and won that land. *It belonged by INTERNATIONAL "popular vote" (as you put it) by JORDAN -- not the Palestinians. *The Jordan mandate over the West Bank WAS internationally recognized by "popular vote" .

Israel negotiated with Jordan to RETURN the land, as they did successfully with Egypt, but it wasn't until the Palestinians mounted an all-out ATTACK on the King of Jordan that he decided he didn't WANT Palestinians or the West Bank anymore.. (Cool story -- I can give you the link to the official Kingdom of Jordan tales of fighting with the Palestinians -- See Black September).. Instead, Jordan/Israel signed a peace treaty AFTER Jordan renounced title to the land. 

All THAT was entirely legal and by "popular vote" of the UN and the world..

Except now the "palestinian problem" became Israel's problem..  And with no LEADERSHIP to negotiate with that represents ALL of Palestinian interests -- it's become an "occupation" gone on too long.. But if you have no LEADERSHIP accepted by PALESTINIAN "popular vote" -- you have NO ONE to negotiate with for peace.. 

King of Jordan never GAVE the West Bank to the Palestinians outright because there was no political structure to give it to that Jordan wanted to be neighbors with.. Tho HE DID -- spend lots of money and build lots of infrastructure and gave Palis seats in the Jordanian Congress..


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a history Arab Muslim Took over from European and hold the sovereignty for almost 1500 years and they proved that Arab Muslim are sole custodian of the holy land not Persian/roman/European.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the criteria for "sole custodian" of the holy land is who took over from whom -- then *shrug* the Jewish took it over from the Arab Muslims.  So, by your own criteria, Jews win.  Our Holy Land again.
Click to expand...


If you can hold it.
When you can not hold it in pass.
How you will hold it now.
First Moses PBUH never entered the Holy Land and quite possible Moses PBUH never directed the Jew to Jerusalem. When Moses PBUH got fed up from troubled jew He PBUH left them and disappeared in the hills.
Second we are here not to talking about Islam or Jew religion. It is a history Arab Muslim Took over from European and hold the sovereignty for almost 1500 years and they proved that Arab Muslim are sole custodian of the holy land not Persian/roman/European. 
Third jew hardly lived in holy land for four hundred years as a vagrant on either Persian  or  Roman Land and these empire keep pushing jew around how un respectful it is and now you can see those false kingdom jew establish as jew established some king dome  either jew kicked out from the land, by the empire owned the territory or taken away as slave.
Fourth, I don't know who Zionist are neither christian accept them christian nor jew accept them jew. I only know jew and I am addressing to jew in my signature comments that please live free, respectful life like others are living, like Persian and Roman are living happily whats wrong with jew when big empire can accept facts and living happily. Why not jew.


----------



## rylah

Rehmani said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I will say that popular vote for israel is only became possible, when UN gave mandate to Israel in 1947.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say many stuff,
> but the UN didn't give any mandate to Israel, it was not entitled to do so, the mandate, or recognition of right to govern was given with the obligation to follow the establishment of the re-constitution of the Jewish nation. The authority of the UN itself is preconditioned on following its constitution, which includes this legal obligation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why you are choosy, discus all.
Click to expand...


Because it shows the rest of Your bs to be utter nonsense.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Rehmani said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate".  How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not?  What is the criteria?
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely not kicking out the natives and stealing their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they weren't "natives".  The criteria for being a "Palestinian" was being a resident of Palestine from 1946 to 1948, a mere 2 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why making false statement. whole world know Jew are not native to holly land.
Click to expand...


I dont Know where “holly land” is? I would Like to know what land they “stole”? Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946? Thank you


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

What documents?



P F Tinmore said:


> Only Zionists will argue against actual documents with Israeli talking points. That is why I asked for a link that I will never get.


*(COMMENT)*

There is absolutely NO DOCUMENT that proves or demonstrates Arab Palestinian sovereignty over any territory formerly under the mandate and west of the Jordan River/Dead Sea line.

You hint at these "actual documents" but you never really identify them.  You talk about the period in and aroung1924, but the Treaty of Lausanne between the Allied Powers and the Turkish Republic makes no mention of an obligation to the inhabitants of the region.  And the Arabs were not a party to the Treaty, what claim do they have?

Don't dangle me... If you have some argument that has gone unspoken --- or some document went undivulged, let's make an objective evaluation... 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

Hitlers Bosnian Islamic Waffen-SS division Grand Mufti of Jerusalem with Himmler inspects the new recruits. Each Islamic SS battalion had an imam,each company had a Mullah 60K Jihadists fighting with Hitler received a Quran with a Swastika on it #StopTheRevisionism @Campaign4T

(video online)

Eye On Antisemitism (@AntisemitismEye) | Twitter


----------



## Sixties Fan

*Here is an extract from Manfred Lehmann's blog about the Baron Rothschild's purchases:*

"After making acquisitions in various places west of the Jordan, he turned his attention to buying land east of the Jordan, on the Golan. Toward the end of 1891 a certain Ahmed Pasha made it known that some 120,000 dunam of prime land in the triangle formed by the Yarmuk and the Allane rivers were up for sale at the bargain price of around 1.5 franc per dunam, provided that the sale was made "en bloc," i.e., for the total area.

When the Baron died in 1934, 80,000 dunam on the Golan were owned by the Rothschild company, PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association). The land had been registered in the name of PICA in 1929.

The Syrian government - Syria was then practically a French colony - tried in the 1940s to confiscate the land but failed.

In 1957, the son of Baron Edmond, Baron James de Rothschild (1878 - 1957), as one of his last acts in his life, transferred the deeds to the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemet) and from there to the Land Office of Israel. All deeds and other documents were transferred to Israel's Foreign Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


(full article online)

Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Jews owned more than 200,000 dunams in Golan


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> *Here is an extract from Manfred Lehmann's blog about the Baron Rothschild's purchases:*
> 
> "After making acquisitions in various places west of the Jordan, he turned his attention to buying land east of the Jordan, on the Golan. Toward the end of 1891 a certain Ahmed Pasha made it known that some 120,000 dunam of prime land in the triangle formed by the Yarmuk and the Allane rivers were up for sale at the bargain price of around 1.5 franc per dunam, provided that the sale was made "en bloc," i.e., for the total area.
> 
> When the Baron died in 1934, 80,000 dunam on the Golan were owned by the Rothschild company, PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association). The land had been registered in the name of PICA in 1929.
> 
> The Syrian government - Syria was then practically a French colony - tried in the 1940s to confiscate the land but failed.
> 
> In 1957, the son of Baron Edmond, Baron James de Rothschild (1878 - 1957), as one of his last acts in his life, transferred the deeds to the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemet) and from there to the Land Office of Israel. All deeds and other documents were transferred to Israel's Foreign Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
> 
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Jews owned mo
> Indeed.re than 200,000 dunams in Golan





Sixties Fan said:


> When the Baron died in 1934, 80,000 dunam on the Golan were owned by the Rothschild company, PICA *(Palestine Jewish Colonization Association)*.


Indeed.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Fact is you infidels there was no “Palestine” in 1946. It was a bunch of nomadic tribes in a lawless wasteland. Hence you cannot answer the simple question of who the President was in 1946. It did not exist and never existed. If you have the courage meet me in the Badlands.


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, objectively, what makes a nation "legitimate".  How can one tell whether a nation is "legitimate" or not?  What is the criteria?
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Surely not kicking out the natives and stealing their land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they weren't "natives".  The criteria for being a "Palestinian" was being a resident of Palestine from 1946 to 1948, a mere 2 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why making false statement. whole world know Jew are not native to holly land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont Know where “holly land” is? I would Like to know what land they “stole”? Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946? Thank you
Click to expand...

How dumb someone can be. 
Holy Land a territory which is invaded by Israel illegally.
And when legitimacy is concern then president of Palestine or president of Israel become irrelevant.
I will say even this debate is useless. 
That is how jew and their supporter are they trying to make right from wrong through a organize paid propaganda.


----------



## Rehmani

flacaltenn said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.
> 
> 
> 
> Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
> I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.
> 
> Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
> nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not a popular vote,
> a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> Then what is a popular vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?
> 
> And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..
Click to expand...

Means if I look at the problem from your window then I won't be foolish.
I think you are still in 30s means time will tell you that who is foolish.
I will say this thread discussing a israeli issue which is not legitimate. And why it is not legitimate because jew invade a country known Holy Land and people like you are trying to change the name from holy land to Israel which is not legitimate.


----------



## Rehmani

flacaltenn said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right but they have gone now israel is there and causing all this pain to Peace full holly land last for almost 1500 years while jew spend hardly 500 years in holly land in total as vagrant/gypsy. And Jew want to become the owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen..  But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..
> 
> I suspect you respect Holy books... So when "returning to Jerusalem is mentioned many times and still is recited in many prayers for 1400 years --- it's not fantasy fiction.. There are plenty of Holy sites for Jews including the 2 magnificent Temples.. Which at the time was the CENTRAL FOCUS of Jewish existence.. Many Jewish kings ruled from what is now Israel... And sites in some existing cities show Jewish heritage pre-dating the Romans.
> 
> And it's not just Old Testament tales.. All the apostles of Jesus came from cities that now span the breadth of Israel... And all those stories are Jewish stories as well...
> 
> Vagrants/gypsies -- HARDLY...  Moses wandered 40 years in the desert to enter the Holy Land...
Click to expand...




flacaltenn said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read all yours posts base on lies. And it is your country under discussion not mien.
> 
> 
> 
> Throwing accusation is not the same as proving them.
> I didn't see You manage to prove anything I've said was incorrect.
> 
> Now explain one thing, You expect Israel to follow resolutions that neither Your country
> nor the rest of the UN member states obliged to follow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not a popular vote,
> a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> Then what is a popular vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?
> 
> And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..
Click to expand...

Means israel formed through invasion and pretending civilized. Will It make Israel legitimate? And People of Holy Land (Palestine) or Owner of Holy Lad for many millenniums pushing them into refugee camp and denying and delaying their basic rights and on top expecting from them behave civilize, how cruel and satanic thoughts it is. Means gangster/invader asking the real genuine owner of the land for many millenniums do as gangster want. Is it legitimate?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Show me a picture of the 1936 Palestinian Olympic team.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  
⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,

 Oh come on, let's be both realistic and clear.



AzogtheDefiler said:


> ✦  I dont Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?​


​*(ANSWERS)*

✦  I don't Know where “holly land” is?

The Holy Land _(Terra Sancta)_ is not a defined term, but "words of description." is anywhere that the Messiah was claimed to have roamed.

✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?

This is a different emotional level question that is dependent on who you ask (like the thermotropic liquid crystals in Mood Rings).  The PLO _("the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated"_ I say again → _any Palestinian territory *that is liberated*")_ Negotiation Affairs Department _(the authoritative voice of the people) _answer this question with: "The delineation and demarcation of agreed-upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution."



			
				PLO Negotiation Affairs Department said:
			
		

> Our national movement once laid claim to its rights over all of historic Palestine, an area that includes modern-day Israel. Since 1988, however, in the interest of achieving peace and ending the conflict, we limited our national aspirations to statehood to 22 percent of historic Palestine, seeking a state of our own in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital (that is, all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967). Despite this, Israel continues to create “facts on the ground,” building the Wall, expanding settlements, confiscating and grabbing Palestinian Land, demolishing of Palestinian homes, in violation of international law.



It should be noted that the PLO-NAD recognizes:  "Historic Palestine (pre-1948) encompasses all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1922, historic Palestine was placed under a British Mandate by the League of Nations."

✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?

The anti-government coalition of the Arab Palestinians attempted, under the protection of the Egyptian Military Governorship, assembled a makeshift organization called the All Palestine Government (APG).

The Prime Minister was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha; a former General Officer in the Enemy Army of the Ottoman Empire.

The President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and a significant collaborator with NAZI Leaders, including the Chancellor of Germany - The Fuhrer.​


Rehmani said:


> How dumb someone can be.
> Holy Land a territory which is invaded by Israel illegally.


*(COMMENT)*

The vast majority of the Jewish population in the first half of the 20th Century were Article 4 Immigrants"

"The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation 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 Jewish Agency → recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine →  assisting the Administration in the successful Jewish immigration under Article 6 procedures →  encouraging settlement by Jews on the land.

This was agreed upon by the Principal Allied Powers on the assumption of territorial rights and title.



Rehmani said:


> And when legitimacy is concern then president of Palestine or president of Israel become irrelevant.
> I will say even this debate is useless.
> That is how jew and their supporter are they trying to make right from wrong through a organize paid propaganda.


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure what this is asking.  I'm not sure what it says.  BUT, by Convention, a STATE mush has:

a ) a permanent population;

◈  It is not quite known what portion of what populations, associated with what territories were supoorting the APG.​b ) a defined territory;

◈  The APG cannot declare Independence over any territory it did not have sovergn control of  →  nor the territory over which another independent entity (the State of Israel) held sovereign control.​c ) government; and

◈ While there was an intrim cabinet established by the APG, there was no functional government activities.  The Arab Palestinians, on a number of occassions, rejected the opportunities in the building of self-governing institutions.  That included a number of rejections by the Arab Higher Committee which was Chaired by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and NAZI collaborator with the enemy.​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

◈ The APG did not ever demonstrate the capacity to concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here is an extract from Manfred Lehmann's blog about the Baron Rothschild's purchases:*
> 
> "After making acquisitions in various places west of the Jordan, he turned his attention to buying land east of the Jordan, on the Golan. Toward the end of 1891 a certain Ahmed Pasha made it known that some 120,000 dunam of prime land in the triangle formed by the Yarmuk and the Allane rivers were up for sale at the bargain price of around 1.5 franc per dunam, provided that the sale was made "en bloc," i.e., for the total area.
> 
> When the Baron died in 1934, 80,000 dunam on the Golan were owned by the Rothschild company, PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association). The land had been registered in the name of PICA in 1929.
> 
> The Syrian government - Syria was then practically a French colony - tried in the 1940s to confiscate the land but failed.
> 
> In 1957, the son of Baron Edmond, Baron James de Rothschild (1878 - 1957), as one of his last acts in his life, transferred the deeds to the Jewish National Fund (Keren Kayemet) and from there to the Land Office of Israel. All deeds and other documents were transferred to Israel's Foreign Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
> 
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Point of No Return: Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries: Jews owned mo
> Indeed.re than 200,000 dunams in Golan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Baron died in 1934, 80,000 dunam on the Golan were owned by the Rothschild company, PICA *(Palestine Jewish Colonization Association)*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...


Indeed what?
That association treated the settlement of  refugees in several countries at the same time.
Lands were bought in the US, Canada, S. America, Syria-Palestine, and Turkey for families fleeing from pogroms to legally build their homes.

That's essentially no different from UNHCR accepted standard of treating refugees.

Can You point to the country of which sovereignty did Jews, or other refugees, infringe upon when purchasing and settling those lands, and in the name of which other sovereign country?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate 
⁜→ rylah,  P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan,
et al,

I'm sure that I mentioned this before, but there are wholly legitimate reasons for the Israelis to retain certain key terrain given _(in the 1967 Time Frame then aggravated in 1973)_ the aggressive nature of the Arab League at that time, and no encouraging results from diplomatic efforts.



rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed what?
> That association treated the settlement of Jews in several countries at the same time.
> Lands were bought in the US, Canada, S. America, Syria-Palestine, and Turkey for families fleeing from pogroms to legally build their homes.
> 
> Can You point to the country of which sovereignty did Jews infringe upon when purchasing and settling those lands, and in the name of which other sovereign country?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

  Whether the terrain was privately purchased or publicly acquired is really not the issue.  The issue has to do with the necessity to militarily preserved for protection.  To prevent, ever again, that terrain from being exploited by Hostile Syrian Forces _(elements of the Arab League)_.  This is not just an excuse, it was *noted by the US Joint Chiefs* back in 1967.




 ​
Relative to _(specifically)_ the Golan Heights area, it was further noted that:



			
				Paragraph 2b said:
			
		

> b. Syrian Territory Contiguous to Israel. Israel is particularly sensitive to the prevalence of terrorist raids and border incidents in this area. The presently occupied territory, the high ground running generally north-south on a line with Qnaitra about 15 miles inside the Syrian border, would give Israel control of the terrain which Syria has used effectively in harassing the border area.



Conventional Military Logic of the late 20th Century doesn't seem to apply in the Middle East.  The US thought that Egypt and Syria would not attack.  But they each made the fatal maneuvers that triggered the war in 1967 and then launched the coordinated surprise attack in 1973. 

Yeah, so someone bought some land.  It was purchased long before the ground became a strategic consideration.  It was not the purpose of the purchase to facilitate annexation.  That annexation was to close-off the high-ground from the Syrians.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

Professor Susser acknowledged that Israel would never accept five million Arab refugees (this number, uniquely among all other refugees in the world, includes the descendants of the original refugees). The responsibility, he said, should be shared with the Palestinians and the other Arab states.

Maybe the professor was playing Devil’s advocate, but his reply is one I have heard from Arab sources: What have the Palestinians got to do with Jewish refugees?

When I replied that the Mufti of Jerusalem embodied Palestinian antisemitism, inciting the 1941 Farhud massacre of the Jews in Iraq, the professor countered by saying the Mufti was just one man, and there were other causal factors behind the Farhud.

Yes, the Palestinian Mufti was just one man. But he was the de facto leader of the Arab world, where popular opinion was overwhelmingly pro-Nazi. He aligned himself with pro-Nazi nationalists to overthrow the Iraqi government. He took refuge in Berlin with 60 other influential Arabs, and broadcast virulent anti-Jewish propaganda over Radio Berlin with a view to facilitating the extermination of the Jews not just in Palestine, but across the Arab world. Palestinian and Syrian pro-Nazi nationalists had taken control of levers of power in Iraq, and they too bore responsibility for inciting anti-Jewish hatred.

The Palestinians, therefore, helped lay the groundwork for the forced exodus and dispossession, under cover of law, of the peaceful, non-combatant Jews from the Arab world — branded by Arab League states “the Jewish minority of Palestine.” Seven Arab League states, egged on by the Palestinian leadership, made the fateful decision to wage a war of annihilation against Israel. They must bear responsibility for creating both refugee problems.

Israel took responsibility for resettling 650,000 people over the years — the majority of Jewish refugees. But by Professor Susser’s logic, responsibility for causing the Jewish refugees should also be shared with the Palestinians and Arab states.

(full article online)

Palestinians Share Responsibility for Jewish Refugees, Too


----------



## ForeverYoung436

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right but they have gone now israel is there and causing all this pain to Peace full holly land last for almost 1500 years while jew spend hardly 500 years in holly land in total as vagrant/gypsy. And Jew want to become the owner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was Britain that CREATED the state of Israel... There was no "Zionist invasion". Yes Zionists lobbied hard for that to happen..  But they ALONE could not MAKE that happen..
> 
> I suspect you respect Holy books... So when "returning to Jerusalem is mentioned many times and still is recited in many prayers for 1400 years --- it's not fantasy fiction.. There are plenty of Holy sites for Jews including the 2 magnificent Temples.. Which at the time was the CENTRAL FOCUS of Jewish existence.. Many Jewish kings ruled from what is now Israel... And sites in some existing cities show Jewish heritage pre-dating the Romans.
> 
> And it's not just Old Testament tales.. All the apostles of Jesus came from cities that now span the breadth of Israel... And all those stories are Jewish stories as well...
> 
> Vagrants/gypsies -- HARDLY...  Moses wandered 40 years in the desert to enter the Holy Land...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like israel is not a legitimate country. It was given mandate/status when there was only few WII Coalition country were UN member and Israelis accepted that UN order immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> International law is not a popular vote,
> a *contract between sovereign nations* is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> Then what is a popular vote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?
> 
> And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means israel formed through invasion and pretending civilized. Will It make Israel legitimate? And People of Holy Land (Palestine) or Owner of Holy Lad for many millenniums pushing them into refugee camp and denying and delaying their basic rights and on top expecting from them behave civilize, how cruel and satanic thoughts it is. Means gangster/invader asking the real genuine owner of the land for many millenniums do as gangster want. Is it legitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last chance. Badlands or are you a coward? All your posts are made up lies.
Click to expand...


He probably doesn't know what the Badlands means and/or how to go there.  Remember, this guy is from Pakistan.


----------



## P F Tinmore

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> But israel is not a legitimate nation.
> Then what is a popular vote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A popular vote is not a thing the Palestinians have shown to appreciate.. There IS no more "popular vote" in Palestine.. That was a brief shiny moment in Palestinian history when they HAD a national govt.. That govt has been functionally dissolved for the past 12 years or so because of civil war and fighting...
> 
> No other period in "Palestinian history" featured a "national" popular vote. So why are you talking about popular votes??? WHOSE popular vote?
> 
> And this is about the 10th time you've repeated that Israel is illegitimate.. Saying it an 11th or 12th time, without discussing the ACTUAL history of this region -- just makes you look foolish..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Means if I look at the problem from your window then I won't be foolish.
> I think you are still in 30s means time will tell you that who is foolish.
> I will say this thread discussing a israeli issue which is not legitimate. And why it is not legitimate because jew invade a country known Holy Land and people like you are trying to change the name from holy land to Israel which is not legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I say it is legitimate and you are a coward for not going to the Badlands. Je Suis Charlie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not legitimate propagandist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allah is ashamed of your cowardice.  Shows why Israel defeated your people in only six days. It IS legitimate.
Click to expand...

Link to where Palestine was defeated.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on, let's be both realistic and clear.
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦  I dont Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(ANSWERS)*
> 
> ✦  I don't Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> The Holy Land _(Terra Sancta)_ is not a defined term, but "words of description." is anywhere that the Messiah was claimed to have roamed.
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> This is a different emotional level question that is dependent on who you ask (like the thermotropic liquid crystals in Mood Rings).  The PLO _("the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated"_ I say again → _any Palestinian territory *that is liberated*")_ Negotiation Affairs Department _(the authoritative voice of the people) _answer this question with: "The delineation and demarcation of agreed-upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLO Negotiation Affairs Department said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our national movement once laid claim to its rights over all of historic Palestine, an area that includes modern-day Israel. Since 1988, however, in the interest of achieving peace and ending the conflict, we limited our national aspirations to statehood to 22 percent of historic Palestine, seeking a state of our own in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital (that is, all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967). Despite this, Israel continues to create “facts on the ground,” building the Wall, expanding settlements, confiscating and grabbing Palestinian Land, demolishing of Palestinian homes, in violation of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should be noted that the PLO-NAD recognizes:  "Historic Palestine (pre-1948) encompasses all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1922, historic Palestine was placed under a British Mandate by the League of Nations."
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?
> 
> The anti-government coalition of the Arab Palestinians attempted, under the protection of the Egyptian Military Governorship, assembled a makeshift organization called the All Palestine Government (APG).
> 
> The Prime Minister was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha; a former General Officer in the Enemy Army of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and a significant collaborator with NAZI Leaders, including the Chancellor of Germany - The Fuhrer.​
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb someone can be.
> Holy Land a territory which is invaded by Israel illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The vast majority of the Jewish population in the first half of the 20th Century were Article 4 Immigrants"
> 
> "The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation 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 Jewish Agency → recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine →  assisting the Administration in the successful Jewish immigration under Article 6 procedures →  encouraging settlement by Jews on the land.
> 
> This was agreed upon by the Principal Allied Powers on the assumption of territorial rights and title.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when legitimacy is concern then president of Palestine or president of Israel become irrelevant.
> I will say even this debate is useless.
> That is how jew and their supporter are they trying to make right from wrong through a organize paid propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what this is asking.  I'm not sure what it says.  BUT, by Convention, a STATE mush has:
> 
> a ) a permanent population;
> 
> ◈  It is not quite known what portion of what populations, associated with what territories were supoorting the APG.​b ) a defined territory;
> 
> ◈  The APG cannot declare Independence over any territory it did not have sovergn control of  →  nor the territory over which another independent entity (the State of Israel) held sovereign control.​c ) government; and
> 
> ◈ While there was an intrim cabinet established by the APG, there was no functional government activities.  The Arab Palestinians, on a number of occassions, rejected the opportunities in the building of self-governing institutions.  That included a number of rejections by the Arab Higher Committee which was Chaired by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and NAZI collaborator with the enemy.​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> ◈ The APG did not ever demonstrate the capacity to concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.​Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on, let's be both realistic and clear.
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦  I dont Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(ANSWERS)*
> 
> ✦  I don't Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> The Holy Land _(Terra Sancta)_ is not a defined term, but "words of description." is anywhere that the Messiah was claimed to have roamed.
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> This is a different emotional level question that is dependent on who you ask (like the thermotropic liquid crystals in Mood Rings).  The PLO _("the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated"_ I say again → _any Palestinian territory *that is liberated*")_ Negotiation Affairs Department _(the authoritative voice of the people) _answer this question with: "The delineation and demarcation of agreed-upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLO Negotiation Affairs Department said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our national movement once laid claim to its rights over all of historic Palestine, an area that includes modern-day Israel. Since 1988, however, in the interest of achieving peace and ending the conflict, we limited our national aspirations to statehood to 22 percent of historic Palestine, seeking a state of our own in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital (that is, all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967). Despite this, Israel continues to create “facts on the ground,” building the Wall, expanding settlements, confiscating and grabbing Palestinian Land, demolishing of Palestinian homes, in violation of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should be noted that the PLO-NAD recognizes:  "Historic Palestine (pre-1948) encompasses all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1922, historic Palestine was placed under a British Mandate by the League of Nations."
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?
> 
> The anti-government coalition of the Arab Palestinians attempted, under the protection of the Egyptian Military Governorship, assembled a makeshift organization called the All Palestine Government (APG).
> 
> The Prime Minister was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha; a former General Officer in the Enemy Army of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and a significant collaborator with NAZI Leaders, including the Chancellor of Germany - The Fuhrer.​
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb someone can be.
> Holy Land a territory which is invaded by Israel illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The vast majority of the Jewish population in the first half of the 20th Century were Article 4 Immigrants"
> 
> "The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation 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 Jewish Agency → recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine →  assisting the Administration in the successful Jewish immigration under Article 6 procedures →  encouraging settlement by Jews on the land.
> 
> This was agreed upon by the Principal Allied Powers on the assumption of territorial rights and title.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when legitimacy is concern then president of Palestine or president of Israel become irrelevant.
> I will say even this debate is useless.
> That is how jew and their supporter are they trying to make right from wrong through a organize paid propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what this is asking.  I'm not sure what it says.  BUT, by Convention, a STATE mush has:
> 
> a ) a permanent population;
> 
> ◈  It is not quite known what portion of what populations, associated with what territories were supoorting the APG.​b ) a defined territory;
> 
> ◈  The APG cannot declare Independence over any territory it did not have sovergn control of  →  nor the territory over which another independent entity (the State of Israel) held sovereign control.​c ) government; and
> 
> ◈ While there was an intrim cabinet established by the APG, there was no functional government activities.  The Arab Palestinians, on a number of occassions, rejected the opportunities in the building of self-governing institutions.  That included a number of rejections by the Arab Higher Committee which was Chaired by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and NAZI collaborator with the enemy.​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> ◈ The APG did not ever demonstrate the capacity to concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?
Click to expand...


Because they lost the war.


----------



## P F Tinmore

AzogtheDefiler said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on, let's be both realistic and clear.
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦  I dont Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(ANSWERS)*
> 
> ✦  I don't Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> The Holy Land _(Terra Sancta)_ is not a defined term, but "words of description." is anywhere that the Messiah was claimed to have roamed.
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> This is a different emotional level question that is dependent on who you ask (like the thermotropic liquid crystals in Mood Rings).  The PLO _("the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated"_ I say again → _any Palestinian territory *that is liberated*")_ Negotiation Affairs Department _(the authoritative voice of the people) _answer this question with: "The delineation and demarcation of agreed-upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLO Negotiation Affairs Department said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our national movement once laid claim to its rights over all of historic Palestine, an area that includes modern-day Israel. Since 1988, however, in the interest of achieving peace and ending the conflict, we limited our national aspirations to statehood to 22 percent of historic Palestine, seeking a state of our own in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital (that is, all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967). Despite this, Israel continues to create “facts on the ground,” building the Wall, expanding settlements, confiscating and grabbing Palestinian Land, demolishing of Palestinian homes, in violation of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should be noted that the PLO-NAD recognizes:  "Historic Palestine (pre-1948) encompasses all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1922, historic Palestine was placed under a British Mandate by the League of Nations."
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?
> 
> The anti-government coalition of the Arab Palestinians attempted, under the protection of the Egyptian Military Governorship, assembled a makeshift organization called the All Palestine Government (APG).
> 
> The Prime Minister was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha; a former General Officer in the Enemy Army of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and a significant collaborator with NAZI Leaders, including the Chancellor of Germany - The Fuhrer.​
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb someone can be.
> Holy Land a territory which is invaded by Israel illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The vast majority of the Jewish population in the first half of the 20th Century were Article 4 Immigrants"
> 
> "The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation 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 Jewish Agency → recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine →  assisting the Administration in the successful Jewish immigration under Article 6 procedures →  encouraging settlement by Jews on the land.
> 
> This was agreed upon by the Principal Allied Powers on the assumption of territorial rights and title.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when legitimacy is concern then president of Palestine or president of Israel become irrelevant.
> I will say even this debate is useless.
> That is how jew and their supporter are they trying to make right from wrong through a organize paid propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what this is asking.  I'm not sure what it says.  BUT, by Convention, a STATE mush has:
> 
> a ) a permanent population;
> 
> ◈  It is not quite known what portion of what populations, associated with what territories were supoorting the APG.​b ) a defined territory;
> 
> ◈  The APG cannot declare Independence over any territory it did not have sovergn control of  →  nor the territory over which another independent entity (the State of Israel) held sovereign control.​c ) government; and
> 
> ◈ While there was an intrim cabinet established by the APG, there was no functional government activities.  The Arab Palestinians, on a number of occassions, rejected the opportunities in the building of self-governing institutions.  That included a number of rejections by the Arab Higher Committee which was Chaired by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and NAZI collaborator with the enemy.​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> ◈ The APG did not ever demonstrate the capacity to concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they lost the war.
Click to expand...

What war did they lose?

Link?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on, let's be both realistic and clear.
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦  I dont Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(ANSWERS)*
> 
> ✦  I don't Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> The Holy Land _(Terra Sancta)_ is not a defined term, but "words of description." is anywhere that the Messiah was claimed to have roamed.
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> This is a different emotional level question that is dependent on who you ask (like the thermotropic liquid crystals in Mood Rings).  The PLO _("the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated"_ I say again → _any Palestinian territory *that is liberated*")_ Negotiation Affairs Department _(the authoritative voice of the people) _answer this question with: "The delineation and demarcation of agreed-upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLO Negotiation Affairs Department said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our national movement once laid claim to its rights over all of historic Palestine, an area that includes modern-day Israel. Since 1988, however, in the interest of achieving peace and ending the conflict, we limited our national aspirations to statehood to 22 percent of historic Palestine, seeking a state of our own in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital (that is, all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967). Despite this, Israel continues to create “facts on the ground,” building the Wall, expanding settlements, confiscating and grabbing Palestinian Land, demolishing of Palestinian homes, in violation of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should be noted that the PLO-NAD recognizes:  "Historic Palestine (pre-1948) encompasses all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1922, historic Palestine was placed under a British Mandate by the League of Nations."
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?
> 
> The anti-government coalition of the Arab Palestinians attempted, under the protection of the Egyptian Military Governorship, assembled a makeshift organization called the All Palestine Government (APG).
> 
> The Prime Minister was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha; a former General Officer in the Enemy Army of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and a significant collaborator with NAZI Leaders, including the Chancellor of Germany - The Fuhrer.​
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb someone can be.
> Holy Land a territory which is invaded by Israel illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The vast majority of the Jewish population in the first half of the 20th Century were Article 4 Immigrants"
> 
> "The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation 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 Jewish Agency → recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine →  assisting the Administration in the successful Jewish immigration under Article 6 procedures →  encouraging settlement by Jews on the land.
> 
> This was agreed upon by the Principal Allied Powers on the assumption of territorial rights and title.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when legitimacy is concern then president of Palestine or president of Israel become irrelevant.
> I will say even this debate is useless.
> That is how jew and their supporter are they trying to make right from wrong through a organize paid propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what this is asking.  I'm not sure what it says.  BUT, by Convention, a STATE mush has:
> 
> a ) a permanent population;
> 
> ◈  It is not quite known what portion of what populations, associated with what territories were supoorting the APG.​b ) a defined territory;
> 
> ◈  The APG cannot declare Independence over any territory it did not have sovergn control of  →  nor the territory over which another independent entity (the State of Israel) held sovereign control.​c ) government; and
> 
> ◈ While there was an intrim cabinet established by the APG, there was no functional government activities.  The Arab Palestinians, on a number of occassions, rejected the opportunities in the building of self-governing institutions.  That included a number of rejections by the Arab Higher Committee which was Chaired by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and NAZI collaborator with the enemy.​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> ◈ The APG did not ever demonstrate the capacity to concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they lost the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did they lose?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian


----------



## P F Tinmore

AzogtheDefiler said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on, let's be both realistic and clear.
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦  I dont Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(ANSWERS)*
> 
> ✦  I don't Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> The Holy Land _(Terra Sancta)_ is not a defined term, but "words of description." is anywhere that the Messiah was claimed to have roamed.
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> This is a different emotional level question that is dependent on who you ask (like the thermotropic liquid crystals in Mood Rings).  The PLO _("the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated"_ I say again → _any Palestinian territory *that is liberated*")_ Negotiation Affairs Department _(the authoritative voice of the people) _answer this question with: "The delineation and demarcation of agreed-upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLO Negotiation Affairs Department said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our national movement once laid claim to its rights over all of historic Palestine, an area that includes modern-day Israel. Since 1988, however, in the interest of achieving peace and ending the conflict, we limited our national aspirations to statehood to 22 percent of historic Palestine, seeking a state of our own in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital (that is, all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967). Despite this, Israel continues to create “facts on the ground,” building the Wall, expanding settlements, confiscating and grabbing Palestinian Land, demolishing of Palestinian homes, in violation of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should be noted that the PLO-NAD recognizes:  "Historic Palestine (pre-1948) encompasses all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1922, historic Palestine was placed under a British Mandate by the League of Nations."
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?
> 
> The anti-government coalition of the Arab Palestinians attempted, under the protection of the Egyptian Military Governorship, assembled a makeshift organization called the All Palestine Government (APG).
> 
> The Prime Minister was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha; a former General Officer in the Enemy Army of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and a significant collaborator with NAZI Leaders, including the Chancellor of Germany - The Fuhrer.​
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb someone can be.
> Holy Land a territory which is invaded by Israel illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The vast majority of the Jewish population in the first half of the 20th Century were Article 4 Immigrants"
> 
> "The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation 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 Jewish Agency → recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine →  assisting the Administration in the successful Jewish immigration under Article 6 procedures →  encouraging settlement by Jews on the land.
> 
> This was agreed upon by the Principal Allied Powers on the assumption of territorial rights and title.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when legitimacy is concern then president of Palestine or president of Israel become irrelevant.
> I will say even this debate is useless.
> That is how jew and their supporter are they trying to make right from wrong through a organize paid propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what this is asking.  I'm not sure what it says.  BUT, by Convention, a STATE mush has:
> 
> a ) a permanent population;
> 
> ◈  It is not quite known what portion of what populations, associated with what territories were supoorting the APG.​b ) a defined territory;
> 
> ◈  The APG cannot declare Independence over any territory it did not have sovergn control of  →  nor the territory over which another independent entity (the State of Israel) held sovereign control.​c ) government; and
> 
> ◈ While there was an intrim cabinet established by the APG, there was no functional government activities.  The Arab Palestinians, on a number of occassions, rejected the opportunities in the building of self-governing institutions.  That included a number of rejections by the Arab Higher Committee which was Chaired by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and NAZI collaborator with the enemy.​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> ◈ The APG did not ever demonstrate the capacity to concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they lost the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did they lose?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
Click to expand...

Where does it say that Palestine lost a war?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?



Because they had no effective government, no control of territory, and no population willing to accept them.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on, let's be both realistic and clear.
> 
> ​*(ANSWERS)*
> 
> ✦  I don't Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> The Holy Land _(Terra Sancta)_ is not a defined term, but "words of description." is anywhere that the Messiah was claimed to have roamed.
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> This is a different emotional level question that is dependent on who you ask (like the thermotropic liquid crystals in Mood Rings).  The PLO _("the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated"_ I say again → _any Palestinian territory *that is liberated*")_ Negotiation Affairs Department _(the authoritative voice of the people) _answer this question with: "The delineation and demarcation of agreed-upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution."
> 
> ​
> It should be noted that the PLO-NAD recognizes:  "Historic Palestine (pre-1948) encompasses all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1922, historic Palestine was placed under a British Mandate by the League of Nations."
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?
> 
> The anti-government coalition of the Arab Palestinians attempted, under the protection of the Egyptian Military Governorship, assembled a makeshift organization called the All Palestine Government (APG).
> 
> The Prime Minister was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha; a former General Officer in the Enemy Army of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and a significant collaborator with NAZI Leaders, including the Chancellor of Germany - The Fuhrer.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The vast majority of the Jewish population in the first half of the 20th Century were Article 4 Immigrants"
> 
> "The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation 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 Jewish Agency → recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine →  assisting the Administration in the successful Jewish immigration under Article 6 procedures →  encouraging settlement by Jews on the land.
> 
> This was agreed upon by the Principal Allied Powers on the assumption of territorial rights and title.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what this is asking.  I'm not sure what it says.  BUT, by Convention, a STATE mush has:
> 
> a ) a permanent population;
> 
> ◈  It is not quite known what portion of what populations, associated with what territories were supoorting the APG.​b ) a defined territory;
> 
> ◈  The APG cannot declare Independence over any territory it did not have sovergn control of  →  nor the territory over which another independent entity (the State of Israel) held sovereign control.​c ) government; and
> 
> ◈ While there was an intrim cabinet established by the APG, there was no functional government activities.  The Arab Palestinians, on a number of occassions, rejected the opportunities in the building of self-governing institutions.  That included a number of rejections by the Arab Higher Committee which was Chaired by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and NAZI collaborator with the enemy.​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> ◈ The APG did not ever demonstrate the capacity to concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they lost the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did they lose?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine lost a war?
Click to expand...

There are no wars in the Middle East; only skirmishes.
Like ISIS murdering tens of thousands of Muslims over a weekend is a skirmish.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on, let's be both realistic and clear.
> 
> ​*(ANSWERS)*
> 
> ✦  I don't Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> The Holy Land _(Terra Sancta)_ is not a defined term, but "words of description." is anywhere that the Messiah was claimed to have roamed.
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> This is a different emotional level question that is dependent on who you ask (like the thermotropic liquid crystals in Mood Rings).  The PLO _("the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated"_ I say again → _any Palestinian territory *that is liberated*")_ Negotiation Affairs Department _(the authoritative voice of the people) _answer this question with: "The delineation and demarcation of agreed-upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution."
> 
> ​
> It should be noted that the PLO-NAD recognizes:  "Historic Palestine (pre-1948) encompasses all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1922, historic Palestine was placed under a British Mandate by the League of Nations."
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?
> 
> The anti-government coalition of the Arab Palestinians attempted, under the protection of the Egyptian Military Governorship, assembled a makeshift organization called the All Palestine Government (APG).
> 
> The Prime Minister was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha; a former General Officer in the Enemy Army of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and a significant collaborator with NAZI Leaders, including the Chancellor of Germany - The Fuhrer.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The vast majority of the Jewish population in the first half of the 20th Century were Article 4 Immigrants"
> 
> "The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation 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 Jewish Agency → recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine →  assisting the Administration in the successful Jewish immigration under Article 6 procedures →  encouraging settlement by Jews on the land.
> 
> This was agreed upon by the Principal Allied Powers on the assumption of territorial rights and title.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what this is asking.  I'm not sure what it says.  BUT, by Convention, a STATE mush has:
> 
> a ) a permanent population;
> 
> ◈  It is not quite known what portion of what populations, associated with what territories were supoorting the APG.​b ) a defined territory;
> 
> ◈  The APG cannot declare Independence over any territory it did not have sovergn control of  →  nor the territory over which another independent entity (the State of Israel) held sovereign control.​c ) government; and
> 
> ◈ While there was an intrim cabinet established by the APG, there was no functional government activities.  The Arab Palestinians, on a number of occassions, rejected the opportunities in the building of self-governing institutions.  That included a number of rejections by the Arab Higher Committee which was Chaired by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and NAZI collaborator with the enemy.​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> ◈ The APG did not ever demonstrate the capacity to concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they lost the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did they lose?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine lost a war?
Click to expand...


This thread says it. If Palestine won you would not be bitching all the time.


----------



## P F Tinmore

AzogtheDefiler said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they lost the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did they lose?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine lost a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread says it. If Palestine won you would not be bitching all the time.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they lost the war.
> 
> 
> 
> What war did they lose?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine lost a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread says it. If Palestine won you would not be bitching all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge.
Click to expand...


The Truth is not a dodge. Obviously Israel is undefeated in its wars and that angers the likes of you. It started in 1947 and has continued to this date.


----------



## P F Tinmore

AzogtheDefiler said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What war did they lose?
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine lost a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread says it. If Palestine won you would not be bitching all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Truth is not a dodge. Obviously Israel is undefeated in its wars and that angers the likes of you. It started in 1947 and has continued to this date.
Click to expand...

Now you are dancing.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine lost a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread says it. If Palestine won you would not be bitching all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Truth is not a dodge. Obviously Israel is undefeated in its wars and that angers the likes of you. It started in 1947 and has continued to this date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are dancing.
Click to expand...

 = you

All these anti Israel threads and rhetoric exists because:

5 Reasons No Nation Wants to Go to War with Israel

So all you can do is whine and moan with your history challenged friends.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler




----------



## P F Tinmore

AzogtheDefiler said:


>


Again, what war did Palestine lose?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office of the Historian
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine lost a war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread says it. If Palestine won you would not be bitching all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Truth is not a dodge. Obviously Israel is undefeated in its wars and that angers the likes of you. It started in 1947 and has continued to this date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are dancing.
Click to expand...


You two are arguing at cross purposes and over each others' heads.  Tinmore is maintaining that the Israelis fought other Arab armies, not the army of the Palestinians.  AzogtheDefiler is maintaining that the Israelis defeated all of the Arab armies in general, which includes the Palestinians.  Actually, Israelis DID fight Palestinians directly--first in a civil war prior to 1948, when 5 other Arab armies joined in to destroy the new Jewish state.  Israel then fought the PLO in Lebanon in 1982.  Israel and Hamas, who represent part of the Palestinians in Gaza, have also fought several wars--all of which have been won by the Israelis.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what war did Palestine lose?
Click to expand...


Well "Palestine" doesn't exist but the people who claim to be "Palestinian" have lost every war and conflict. Both physical and intellectual. At least they are consistent. Thank you for all that territory btw.

Now cry me a river....


----------



## P F Tinmore

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine lost a war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread says it. If Palestine won you would not be bitching all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Truth is not a dodge. Obviously Israel is undefeated in its wars and that angers the likes of you. It started in 1947 and has continued to this date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are dancing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You two are arguing at cross purposes and over each others' heads.  Tinmore is maintaining that the Israelis fought other Arab armies, not the army of the Palestinians.  AzogtheDefiler is maintaining that the Israelis defeated all of the Arab armies in general, which includes the Palestinians.  Actually, Israelis DID fight Palestinians directly--first in a civil war prior to 1948, when 5 other Arab armies joined in to destroy the new Jewish state.  Israel then fought the PLO in Lebanon in 1982.  Israel and Hamas, who represent part of the Palestinians in Gaza, have also fought several wars--all of which have been won by the Israelis.
Click to expand...




ForeverYoung436 said:


> Actually, Israelis DID fight Palestinians directly--first in a civil war prior to 1948,


There was no civil war.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread says it. If Palestine won you would not be bitching all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Truth is not a dodge. Obviously Israel is undefeated in its wars and that angers the likes of you. It started in 1947 and has continued to this date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are dancing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You two are arguing at cross purposes and over each others' heads.  Tinmore is maintaining that the Israelis fought other Arab armies, not the army of the Palestinians.  AzogtheDefiler is maintaining that the Israelis defeated all of the Arab armies in general, which includes the Palestinians.  Actually, Israelis DID fight Palestinians directly--first in a civil war prior to 1948, when 5 other Arab armies joined in to destroy the new Jewish state.  Israel then fought the PLO in Lebanon in 1982.  Israel and Hamas, who represent part of the Palestinians in Gaza, have also fought several wars--all of which have been won by the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Israelis DID fight Palestinians directly--first in a civil war prior to 1948,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no civil war.
Click to expand...


There is nothing civil about war. But it was a conflict and Israel won. The sooner you admit that the sooner the healing process may begin. Or is your argument that the North did not beat the South in the US Civil War?


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread says it. If Palestine won you would not be bitching all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Truth is not a dodge. Obviously Israel is undefeated in its wars and that angers the likes of you. It started in 1947 and has continued to this date.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are dancing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You two are arguing at cross purposes and over each others' heads.  Tinmore is maintaining that the Israelis fought other Arab armies, not the army of the Palestinians.  AzogtheDefiler is maintaining that the Israelis defeated all of the Arab armies in general, which includes the Palestinians.  Actually, Israelis DID fight Palestinians directly--first in a civil war prior to 1948, when 5 other Arab armies joined in to destroy the new Jewish state.  Israel then fought the PLO in Lebanon in 1982.  Israel and Hamas, who represent part of the Palestinians in Gaza, have also fought several wars--all of which have been won by the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Israelis DID fight Palestinians directly--first in a civil war prior to 1948,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no civil war.
Click to expand...


I'd beg to differ.  Jews and Arabs and British were all in a 3-way match in the area known as Palestine between 1947 and 1948.  Then in 1948, when Israel declared independence in the area allotted to it under the Partition Plan, 5 other Arab armies joined in the brawl.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  
⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,

 We've talked about this many times.



P F Tinmore said:


> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?


*(COMMENT)*

•  Israel's claim for Independence came first, in May 1948.  The Arab Palestinians declined (making a HARD rejection) with threats.

•  THe All Palestine Government (APG) came in September and tried to claim the same territory already declared Independent by the Israelis.  *See Posting #205* (Excerpt):

*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure what this is asking. I'm not sure what it says. BUT, by Convention, a STATE mush has:

a ) a permanent population;

◈ It is not quite known what portion of what populations, associated with what territories were supoorting the APG.​
b ) a defined territory;

◈ The APG cannot declare Independence over any territory it did not have sovergn control of → nor the territory over which another independent entity (the State of Israel) held sovereign control.​
c ) government; and

◈  While there was an intrim cabinet established by the APG, there was no functional government activities. The Arab Palestinians, on a number of occassions, rejected the opportunities in the building of self-governing institutions. That included a number of rejections by the Arab Higher Committee which was Chaired by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and NAZI collaborator with the enemy.

◈  The APG Government was not a functioning government able to immediately state the process of Government.  They declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing Institutions.​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

◈ The APG did not ever demonstrate the capacity to concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.​
There is more to being a Government than just saying you are a government.  And, the Arab League, on behalf of the Arab Palestinians, helped to prove the territorial limits of Israeli sovereignty.  Certainly, the APG could not prove they had sovereign governmental control over even the small patch of Gaza.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> We've talked about this many times.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  Israel's claim for Independence came first, in May 1948.  The Arab Palestinians declined (making a HARD rejection) with threats.
> 
> •  THe All Palestine Government (APG) came in September and tried to claim the same territory already declared Independent by the Israelis.  *See Posting #205* (Excerpt):
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what this is asking. I'm not sure what it says. BUT, by Convention, a STATE mush has:
> 
> a ) a permanent population;
> 
> ◈ It is not quite known what portion of what populations, associated with what territories were supoorting the APG.​b ) a defined territory;
> 
> ◈ The APG cannot declare Independence over any territory it did not have sovergn control of → nor the territory over which another independent entity (the State of Israel) held sovereign control.​c ) government; and
> 
> ◈  While there was an intrim cabinet established by the APG, there was no functional government activities. The Arab Palestinians, on a number of occassions, rejected the opportunities in the building of self-governing institutions. That included a number of rejections by the Arab Higher Committee which was Chaired by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and NAZI collaborator with the enemy.
> 
> ◈  The APG Government was not a functioning government able to immediately state the process of Government.  They declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing Institutions.​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> ◈ The APG did not ever demonstrate the capacity to concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.​
> There is more to being a Government than just saying you are a government.  And, the Arab League, on behalf of the Arab Palestinians, helped to prove the territorial limits of Israeli sovereignty.  Certainly, the APG could not prove they had sovereign governmental control over even the small patch of Gaza.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> • THe All Palestine Government (APG) came in September and tried to claim the same territory already declared Independent by the Israelis. *See Posting #205* (Excerpt):


I don't think so.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  
⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,

Actually you are correct.  There was no "State of Palestine!"  Thus they were not a party to the 1948, the 1967, or the 1973 Conflicts.  Some other Arab League Members fought on behalf of the Arab Palestinians. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Where does it say that Palestine lost a war?


*(COMMENT)*

Politically and diplomatically, each of the conflicts left the Arab Palestinian worse-off then they were before the conflict.  

When participant say that the Arab Palestinians "lost the war," what they mean is that the Arab League proxy on the Arab Palestinians behalf, in the post-conflict experienced a decisive military failure; I say again:  the Arab League combatants "experienced a decisive military failure."  

The consequences of those _(Arab League)_ failures had the cumulative negative effect on the limitations to establish Arab Palestinians sovereignty.   Not only that! → but as a consequence of those failures, the Arab Palestinians failed to have any positive impact on the Armistice Agreements or the follow-on Peace Treaties _(Egypt and Jordan) (Letter of Understanding from Lebanon)_ that followed.  Nor have the Arab Palestinians able to make any significant political-military advancements.  They are continually setting the condition to actually loose control of ever-increasing parcels of territory. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> There was no civil war.



Because you erase the Jewish people and pretend that they don't exist.


----------



## Shusha

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> We've talked about this many times.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  Israel's claim for Independence came first, in May 1948.  The Arab Palestinians declined (making a HARD rejection) with threats.
> 
> •  THe All Palestine Government (APG) came in September and tried to claim the same territory already declared Independent by the Israelis.  *See Posting #205* (Excerpt):
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what this is asking. I'm not sure what it says. BUT, by Convention, a STATE mush has:
> 
> a ) a permanent population;
> 
> ◈ It is not quite known what portion of what populations, associated with what territories were supoorting the APG.​b ) a defined territory;
> 
> ◈ The APG cannot declare Independence over any territory it did not have sovergn control of → nor the territory over which another independent entity (the State of Israel) held sovereign control.​c ) government; and
> 
> ◈  While there was an intrim cabinet established by the APG, there was no functional government activities. The Arab Palestinians, on a number of occassions, rejected the opportunities in the building of self-governing institutions. That included a number of rejections by the Arab Higher Committee which was Chaired by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and NAZI collaborator with the enemy.
> 
> ◈  The APG Government was not a functioning government able to immediately state the process of Government.  They declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing Institutions.​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> ◈ The APG did not ever demonstrate the capacity to concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.​
> There is more to being a Government than just saying you are a government.  And, the Arab League, on behalf of the Arab Palestinians, helped to prove the territorial limits of Israeli sovereignty.  Certainly, the APG could not prove they had sovereign governmental control over even the small patch of Gaza.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...



Yep.  And why Palestine is still not accepted fully as a State.  Haven't met the criteria.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Actually you are correct.  There was no "State of Palestine!"  Thus they were not a party to the 1948, the 1967, or the 1973 Conflicts.  Some other Arab League Members fought on behalf of the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine lost a war?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Politically and diplomatically, each of the conflicts left the Arab Palestinian worse-off then they were before the conflict.
> 
> When participant say that the Arab Palestinians "lost the war," what they mean is that the Arab League proxy on the Arab Palestinians behalf, in the post-conflict experienced a decisive military failure; I say again:  the Arab League combatants "experienced a decisive military failure."
> 
> The consequences of those _(Arab League)_ failures had the cumulative negative effect on the limitations to establish Arab Palestinians sovereignty.   Not only that! → but as a consequence of those failures, the Arab Palestinians failed to have any positive impact on the Armistice Agreements or the follow-on Peace Treaties _(Egypt and Jordan) (Letter of Understanding from Lebanon)_ that followed.  Nor have the Arab Palestinians able to make any significant political-military advancements.  They are continually setting the condition to actually loose control of ever-increasing parcels of territory.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Actually you are correct.  There was no "State of Palestine!"  Thus they were not a party to the 1948, the 1967, or the 1973 Conflicts.  Some other Arab League Members fought on behalf of the Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Palestine lost a war?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Politically and diplomatically, each of the conflicts left the Arab Palestinian worse-off then they were before the conflict.
> 
> When participant say that the Arab Palestinians "lost the war," what they mean is that the Arab League proxy on the Arab Palestinians behalf, in the post-conflict experienced a decisive military failure; I say again:  the Arab League combatants "experienced a decisive military failure."
> 
> The consequences of those _(Arab League)_ failures had the cumulative negative effect on the limitations to establish Arab Palestinians sovereignty.   Not only that! → but as a consequence of those failures, the Arab Palestinians failed to have any positive impact on the Armistice Agreements or the follow-on Peace Treaties _(Egypt and Jordan) (Letter of Understanding from Lebanon)_ that followed.  Nor have the Arab Palestinians able to make any significant political-military advancements.  They are continually setting the condition to actually loose control of ever-increasing parcels of territory.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.
Click to expand...


Indeed, nothing but an Islamic schoolboy’s understanding of history.


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ rylah,  P F Tinmore, Sixties Fan,
> et al,
> 
> I'm sure that I mentioned this before, but there are wholly legitimate reasons for the Israelis to retain certain key terrain given _(in the 1967 Time Frame then aggravated in 1973)_ the aggressive nature of the Arab League at that time, and no encouraging results from diplomatic efforts.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed what?
> That association treated the settlement of Jews in several countries at the same time.
> Lands were bought in the US, Canada, S. America, Syria-Palestine, and Turkey for families fleeing from pogroms to legally build their homes.
> 
> Can You point to the country of which sovereignty did Jews infringe upon when purchasing and settling those lands, and in the name of which other sovereign country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Whether the terrain was privately purchased or publicly acquired is really not the issue.  The issue has to do with the necessity to militarily preserved for protection.  To prevent, ever again, that terrain from being exploited by Hostile Syrian Forces _(elements of the Arab League)_.  This is not just an excuse, it was *noted by the US Joint Chiefs* back in 1967.
> 
> View attachment 252486​
> Relative to _(specifically)_ the Golan Heights area, it was further noted that:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paragraph 2b said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> b. Syrian Territory Contiguous to Israel. Israel is particularly sensitive to the prevalence of terrorist raids and border incidents in this area. The presently occupied territory, the high ground running generally north-south on a line with Qnaitra about 15 miles inside the Syrian border, would give Israel control of the terrain which Syria has used effectively in harassing the border area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conventional Military Logic of the late 20th Century doesn't seem to apply in the Middle East.  The US thought that Egypt and Syria would not attack.  But they each made the fatal maneuvers that triggered the war in 1967 and then launched the coordinated surprise attack in 1973.
> 
> Yeah, so someone bought some land.  It was purchased long before the ground became a strategic consideration.  It was not the purpose of the purchase to facilitate annexation.  That annexation was to close-off the high-ground from the Syrians.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Indeed the Conventional Military Logic of late 20 Century doesn't apply in the ME, and especially when Israel was involved. All those big victories happened in spite of our numbers, mistakes and dysfunction on the command level,  thanks to circumstance and mistakes, or sudden retreats of the enemy at crucial moments. As Ben- Gurion said:_ "In Israel to be a realist, one has to believe in miracles". 
_
The second point is regarding the land purchase. When discussing such terms as annexation we have to separate 2 things:

it was specifically bought for local Jews to build their homes legally. This was specifically mentioned in the Kushan, it was Mulk land, meaning the ownership was full. The purpose was specifically to take care of the refugees and local Jews who were left homeless under the burden of triple Ottoman tax and the numerous pogroms and persecutions by the local population. Eventually those Kushans (Ottoman ownership license) were transferred to the Jewish nation through the INF, and as far as I know including the Kushans of the Golan Heights, that were later registered under the Jewish nation by the owners who fled or were expelled and became Israeli citizens. As a main political representative of the Jewish refugees from Arab countries, the govt of the Jewish nation is obliged to put forth this issue (estimated $250bil), and specifically in the context of each negotiation brought to the table.
The Jewish nation was vested with sovereignty under international law in all territory that was alloted to Palestine, before parts of the territory were illegally ceded to the Mandate of Trans-Jordan and Mandate of Syria. Jewish presence, settlement and holding are all protected by international agreements that precede British and French mandates, neither, as far as I understand did they follow the procedures of the LoN constitution changing those borders. In this aspect too, Israeli government must take a more concrete position regarding the Golan Heights and other territories that lawfully belong to the Jewish nation.
This is an interesting map I've found on the _"Palestinian Academic Society for The Study of International Affairs"_ website:






PASSIA -  MAPS - Palestine - PALESTINE UNDER THE BRITISH MANDATE


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate 
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Sometimes I get so confused.

◈  The Arab Palestinians are charging the border, but they did not lose anything.  What's that about?

◈   The Hostile Arab Palestinians keep showing this (inaccurate) chart.  Yet they did not lose anything.  What's that about?



​


P F Tinmore said:


> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently, nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.


*(COMMENT)*

◈    The "cessation of hostilities" and the "end of a conflict" are entirely two different things.

◈   Relative to the 1949 Armistice Arrangements, two Armistice Agreements have been supercededd by Peace Treaties _(Egyptian and Jordanian issues)_. 

◈   Relative to the 1949 Armistice, the year 2000 Agreement Letter essentially overtakes the Armistice.  The letter is found at A/54/914  S/2000/564 12 June 200*0 *from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-Genera*l* and the arrangement is still one of peace.

◈  The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.​
Back in 1949, a lot of things were true or different from today.  However, the four arrangements were independent of each other and none of them were carve-outs; although I understand what you mean.  None of the Agrrementstoday are active in the sense they were before each was negated by a follow-on agreement.  They are great historical documents, but each has been legally replaced.

The demarcations of the Armistice Lines have no validity today.



P F Tinmore said:


> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.


*(COMMENT)*

◈    I would be ever so greatfulif you could send me the link to the imfamous "Talk Point Memo" (TPM) you have mentioned so often as some sort of response to facts I mention.

◈   IF "Nobody won or lost that war," then what is the current dispute about?​
My understanding is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have nine major areas of concern.

Borders
Jerusalem
Refugees
Political Prisoners
Water
Security
Economy
State to State
Claims Resolution
"The Palestinian position seeks to end Israeli occupation, exercise the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and establish an independent, viable and sovereign state on the 1967 borders."

There are so many things at issue (that have not been lost), with my limited capacity, I can only tackle one at a time.  If you have a specific in which you want to hold a discussion as to whether or not the HoAP has a sound and valid complaint, then, by all means, let's tackle them one at a time.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Rehmani

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they had no effective government, no control of territory, and no population willing to accept them.
Click to expand...

Because their Home Land / Holy land invaded illegally. Because invader created Israel illegally with help of lethal force/super power.


----------



## Rehmani

AzogtheDefiler said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Rehmani,  et al,
> 
> Oh come on, let's be both realistic and clear.
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ✦  I dont Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?​
> 
> 
> 
> ​*(ANSWERS)*
> 
> ✦  I don't Know where “holly land” is?
> 
> The Holy Land _(Terra Sancta)_ is not a defined term, but "words of description." is anywhere that the Messiah was claimed to have roamed.
> 
> ✦  I would Like to know what land they “stole”?
> 
> This is a different emotional level question that is dependent on who you ask (like the thermotropic liquid crystals in Mood Rings).  The PLO _("the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated"_ I say again → _any Palestinian territory *that is liberated*")_ Negotiation Affairs Department _(the authoritative voice of the people) _answer this question with: "The delineation and demarcation of agreed-upon borders are central to reaching an end of conflict on the basis of the two-state solution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLO Negotiation Affairs Department said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our national movement once laid claim to its rights over all of historic Palestine, an area that includes modern-day Israel. Since 1988, however, in the interest of achieving peace and ending the conflict, we limited our national aspirations to statehood to 22 percent of historic Palestine, seeking a state of our own in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital (that is, all of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967). Despite this, Israel continues to create “facts on the ground,” building the Wall, expanding settlements, confiscating and grabbing Palestinian Land, demolishing of Palestinian homes, in violation of international law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should be noted that the PLO-NAD recognizes:  "Historic Palestine (pre-1948) encompasses all of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Jerusalem. In 1922, historic Palestine was placed under a British Mandate by the League of Nations."
> 
> ✦  Who was the President of “Palestine” in 1946?
> 
> The anti-government coalition of the Arab Palestinians attempted, under the protection of the Egyptian Military Governorship, assembled a makeshift organization called the All Palestine Government (APG).
> 
> The Prime Minister was Ahmed Hilmi Pasha; a former General Officer in the Enemy Army of the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> The President was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and a significant collaborator with NAZI Leaders, including the Chancellor of Germany - The Fuhrer.​
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dumb someone can be.
> Holy Land a territory which is invaded by Israel illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The vast majority of the Jewish population in the first half of the 20th Century were Article 4 Immigrants"
> 
> "The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation 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 Jewish Agency → recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine →  assisting the Administration in the successful Jewish immigration under Article 6 procedures →  encouraging settlement by Jews on the land.
> 
> This was agreed upon by the Principal Allied Powers on the assumption of territorial rights and title.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehmani said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when legitimacy is concern then president of Palestine or president of Israel become irrelevant.
> I will say even this debate is useless.
> That is how jew and their supporter are they trying to make right from wrong through a organize paid propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I'm not sure what this is asking.  I'm not sure what it says.  BUT, by Convention, a STATE mush has:
> 
> a ) a permanent population;
> 
> ◈  It is not quite known what portion of what populations, associated with what territories were supoorting the APG.​b ) a defined territory;
> 
> ◈  The APG cannot declare Independence over any territory it did not have sovergn control of  →  nor the territory over which another independent entity (the State of Israel) held sovereign control.​c ) government; and
> 
> ◈ While there was an intrim cabinet established by the APG, there was no functional government activities.  The Arab Palestinians, on a number of occassions, rejected the opportunities in the building of self-governing institutions.  That included a number of rejections by the Arab Higher Committee which was Chaired by Hajj Amin al-Husseini, former chairman of the Arab Higher Committee and NAZI collaborator with the enemy.​d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
> 
> ◈ The APG did not ever demonstrate the capacity to concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.​Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was Palestine's 1948 declaration of independence illegitimate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they lost the war.
Click to expand...

Because their country invaded with the help of super power. Otherwise Israeli can not win at all means israel should not be there if super power did not support.
It was a gift by the coalition power to jews in return to help in wwI and II. Because Coalition thought at the time that jew paid heavy price to won war against Germany like sacrificed 6 ml jews. 
Which was wrong or false claim by the jew. Now these powers realized that jew lied to them because no mas grave found about jew yet as compare to other countries mass graved already founded.


----------



## flacaltenn

All of that discussion that was just mostly removed needs some explanation..  *It's TRUE -- biblical Jews did not live in Israel*....  Don't jump my bones yet....  

























They lived in CANAAN... The ancestral home for all THREE of the world's major religions... Because Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael all derive from there. Isaac and Ishmael both prophets.  Abraham the roots of Islam, Christianity and Judaism... For those of you who can't PLACE this strange country of Canaan (like the Pakistani formerly in this thread)  --- here's a map..








Can't be argued by Jews, Muslims or Christians.. It's ALL in the same book...

Glad to be done with that "technicality....


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Sometimes I get so confused.
> 
> ◈  The Arab Palestinians are charging the border, but they did not lose anything.  What's that about?
> 
> ◈   The Hostile Arab Palestinians keep showing this (inaccurate) chart.  Yet they did not lose anything.  What's that about?
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently, nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈    The "cessation of hostilities" and the "end of a conflict" are entirely two different things.
> 
> ◈   Relative to the 1949 Armistice Arrangements, two Armistice Agreements have been supercededd by Peace Treaties _(Egyptian and Jordanian issues)_.
> 
> ◈   Relative to the 1949 Armistice, the year 2000 Agreement Letter essentially overtakes the Armistice.  The letter is found at A/54/914  S/2000/564 12 June 200*0 *from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-Genera*l* and the arrangement is still one of peace.
> 
> ◈  The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.​
> Back in 1949, a lot of things were true or different from today.  However, the four arrangements were independent of each other and none of them were carve-outs; although I understand what you mean.  None of the Agrrementstoday are active in the sense they were before each was negated by a follow-on agreement.  They are great historical documents, but each has been legally replaced.
> 
> The demarcations of the Armistice Lines have no validity today.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈    I would be ever so greatfulif you could send me the link to the imfamous "Talk Point Memo" (TPM) you have mentioned so often as some sort of response to facts I mention.
> 
> ◈   IF "Nobody won or lost that war," then what is the current dispute about?​
> My understanding is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have nine major areas of concern.
> 
> Borders
> Jerusalem
> Refugees
> Political Prisoners
> Water
> Security
> Economy
> State to State
> Claims Resolution
> "The Palestinian position seeks to end Israeli occupation, exercise the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and establish an independent, viable and sovereign state on the 1967 borders."
> 
> There are so many things at issue (that have not been lost), with my limited capacity, I can only tackle one at a time.  If you have a specific in which you want to hold a discussion as to whether or not the HoAP has a sound and valid complaint, then, by all means, let's tackle them one at a time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> ◈ IF "Nobody won or lost that war," then what is the current dispute about?


Good question.What is disputed and whose dispute is it?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Sometimes I get so confused.
> 
> ◈  The Arab Palestinians are charging the border, but they did not lose anything.  What's that about?
> 
> ◈   The Hostile Arab Palestinians keep showing this (inaccurate) chart.  Yet they did not lose anything.  What's that about?
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently, nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈    The "cessation of hostilities" and the "end of a conflict" are entirely two different things.
> 
> ◈   Relative to the 1949 Armistice Arrangements, two Armistice Agreements have been supercededd by Peace Treaties _(Egyptian and Jordanian issues)_.
> 
> ◈   Relative to the 1949 Armistice, the year 2000 Agreement Letter essentially overtakes the Armistice.  The letter is found at A/54/914  S/2000/564 12 June 200*0 *from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-Genera*l* and the arrangement is still one of peace.
> 
> ◈  The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.​
> Back in 1949, a lot of things were true or different from today.  However, the four arrangements were independent of each other and none of them were carve-outs; although I understand what you mean.  None of the Agrrementstoday are active in the sense they were before each was negated by a follow-on agreement.  They are great historical documents, but each has been legally replaced.
> 
> The demarcations of the Armistice Lines have no validity today.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈    I would be ever so greatfulif you could send me the link to the imfamous "Talk Point Memo" (TPM) you have mentioned so often as some sort of response to facts I mention.
> 
> ◈   IF "Nobody won or lost that war," then what is the current dispute about?​
> My understanding is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have nine major areas of concern.
> 
> Borders
> Jerusalem
> Refugees
> Political Prisoners
> Water
> Security
> Economy
> State to State
> Claims Resolution
> "The Palestinian position seeks to end Israeli occupation, exercise the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and establish an independent, viable and sovereign state on the 1967 borders."
> 
> There are so many things at issue (that have not been lost), with my limited capacity, I can only tackle one at a time.  If you have a specific in which you want to hold a discussion as to whether or not the HoAP has a sound and valid complaint, then, by all means, let's tackle them one at a time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ IF "Nobody won or lost that war," then what is the current dispute about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question.What is disputed and whose dispute is it?
Click to expand...


Indeed, after all this time, you still don’t understand the most basic premise of an Islamist waqf?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Sometimes I get so confused.
> 
> ◈  The Arab Palestinians are charging the border, but they did not lose anything.  What's that about?
> 
> ◈   The Hostile Arab Palestinians keep showing this (inaccurate) chart.  Yet they did not lose anything.  What's that about?
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently, nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈    The "cessation of hostilities" and the "end of a conflict" are entirely two different things.
> 
> ◈   Relative to the 1949 Armistice Arrangements, two Armistice Agreements have been supercededd by Peace Treaties _(Egyptian and Jordanian issues)_.
> 
> ◈   Relative to the 1949 Armistice, the year 2000 Agreement Letter essentially overtakes the Armistice.  The letter is found at A/54/914  S/2000/564 12 June 200*0 *from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-Genera*l* and the arrangement is still one of peace.
> 
> ◈  The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.​
> Back in 1949, a lot of things were true or different from today.  However, the four arrangements were independent of each other and none of them were carve-outs; although I understand what you mean.  None of the Agrrementstoday are active in the sense they were before each was negated by a follow-on agreement.  They are great historical documents, but each has been legally replaced.
> 
> The demarcations of the Armistice Lines have no validity today.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈    I would be ever so greatfulif you could send me the link to the imfamous "Talk Point Memo" (TPM) you have mentioned so often as some sort of response to facts I mention.
> 
> ◈   IF "Nobody won or lost that war," then what is the current dispute about?​
> My understanding is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have nine major areas of concern.
> 
> Borders
> Jerusalem
> Refugees
> Political Prisoners
> Water
> Security
> Economy
> State to State
> Claims Resolution
> "The Palestinian position seeks to end Israeli occupation, exercise the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and establish an independent, viable and sovereign state on the 1967 borders."
> 
> There are so many things at issue (that have not been lost), with my limited capacity, I can only tackle one at a time.  If you have a specific in which you want to hold a discussion as to whether or not the HoAP has a sound and valid complaint, then, by all means, let's tackle them one at a time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ IF "Nobody won or lost that war," then what is the current dispute about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question.What is disputed and whose dispute is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, after all this time, you still don’t understand the most basic premise of an Islamist waqf?
Click to expand...

An endowment made by a Muslim to a religious, educational, or charitable cause.

waqf | Definition of waqf in English by Oxford Dictionaries


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Sometimes I get so confused.
> 
> ◈  The Arab Palestinians are charging the border, but they did not lose anything.  What's that about?
> 
> ◈   The Hostile Arab Palestinians keep showing this (inaccurate) chart.  Yet they did not lose anything.  What's that about?
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently, nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈    The "cessation of hostilities" and the "end of a conflict" are entirely two different things.
> 
> ◈   Relative to the 1949 Armistice Arrangements, two Armistice Agreements have been supercededd by Peace Treaties _(Egyptian and Jordanian issues)_.
> 
> ◈   Relative to the 1949 Armistice, the year 2000 Agreement Letter essentially overtakes the Armistice.  The letter is found at A/54/914  S/2000/564 12 June 200*0 *from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-Genera*l* and the arrangement is still one of peace.
> 
> ◈  The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.​
> Back in 1949, a lot of things were true or different from today.  However, the four arrangements were independent of each other and none of them were carve-outs; although I understand what you mean.  None of the Agrrementstoday are active in the sense they were before each was negated by a follow-on agreement.  They are great historical documents, but each has been legally replaced.
> 
> The demarcations of the Armistice Lines have no validity today.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈    I would be ever so greatfulif you could send me the link to the imfamous "Talk Point Memo" (TPM) you have mentioned so often as some sort of response to facts I mention.
> 
> ◈   IF "Nobody won or lost that war," then what is the current dispute about?​
> My understanding is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have nine major areas of concern.
> 
> Borders
> Jerusalem
> Refugees
> Political Prisoners
> Water
> Security
> Economy
> State to State
> Claims Resolution
> "The Palestinian position seeks to end Israeli occupation, exercise the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and establish an independent, viable and sovereign state on the 1967 borders."
> 
> There are so many things at issue (that have not been lost), with my limited capacity, I can only tackle one at a time.  If you have a specific in which you want to hold a discussion as to whether or not the HoAP has a sound and valid complaint, then, by all means, let's tackle them one at a time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ IF "Nobody won or lost that war," then what is the current dispute about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good question.What is disputed and whose dispute is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, after all this time, you still don’t understand the most basic premise of an Islamist waqf?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An endowment made by a Muslim to a religious, educational, or charitable cause.
> 
> waqf | Definition of waqf in English by Oxford Dictionaries
Click to expand...


The Islamist settler colonial project defines it as such:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day.

That's from the Hamas charter. 

The lands conquered by the Islamist settler colonial project do not become eternally Islamist, despite what Muhammud promised you.


----------



## Sixties Fan

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

"Out of the world War came a matter of great spiritual significance — the establishment of a Homeland for the Jewish people, recognized as such  by the public law of the world. In the realization of this aim the United States played a leading role.  I know how close it was to the wish of President Wilson. The formal terms of its expression during the War, the so-called Balfour Declaration, had his personal approval, and he did much to have it written into the peace treaty. The subsequent unanimous endorsement or the Balfour Declaration by both Houses of the United States Congress gave further proof of the deep interest or the American people in the purposes of the Declaration and in the fulfilment the moral obligation which it involved.

Jewish achievement in Palestine since the Balfour Declaration vindicates the high hope which lay behind the sponsorship of the Homeland. The Jewish development in Palestine since the Balfour Declaration is not only a tribute to the creative powers of the Jewish people, but by bringing great advancement into the sacred Land has promoted the well-being of all the inhabitants thereof.

I shall personally watch with deep sympathy the progress of Palestine."
---------------
Franklin D. RooseveltIt looks like most of this letter was actually written in 1932, with the last paragraph perhaps added for the exhibition.

In this letter, FDR confirms that the building of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was enshrined in international law. This means building through the entire area of the British Mandate.

Has the status of the land changed since then?

The areas illegally seized by Jordan in 1948, now known as the "West Bank," did not change their status since Jordan's annexation was not recognized by the international community. In 1967, when Israel gained those lands back, nothing changed from the San Remo conference and other nations' recognition of all of British Mandate Palestine as being the area where the Jewish homeland should be built - which of course includes towns and villages.

The first change to the status of those territories came during the Oslo process when Israel apparently gave Area A to the PLO. The areas where Jews have moved to live are still fully within the areas covered by San Remo and international law since the early 1920s.

(full article online)

FDR's letter to the Palestine Pavilion at the World's Fair and the legality of Jewish settlements ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

[ " A Land without *A *people"  not a land without people, as so many interpret those words.  *A* People, as in Germany there are the Germans, in Italy there are the Italians, etc.    In the Land of Israel, that People would be the Jews ]


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ The Hostile Arab Palestinians keep showing this (inaccurate) chart. Yet they did not lose anything. What's that about?
> 
> 
> 
> ​


As far as I can tell from documents, that is a map of Palestine and the green is occupied territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.


It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The world still recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory. As they should.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The world still recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory. As they should.
Click to expand...


"The World" also literally elected a Nazi officer as the UN secretary-general.

If 2 billion Muslims all jump together in coordination shouting "Israel does not exist" for 70 years, it only means that if their collective intelligence was transformed into electricity - would  barely suffice to toast a piece of bread...

*And yet, international law is not a popularity contest.*


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, let's go back to my target to this response.  Maybe it will jog your memory.   You said:



P F Tinmore said:


> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. *Nobody won or lost that war.* Consequently *nobody won or lost any land*. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.



You can clearly see that the Map you posted then, and you post here again is Titled of bold print:  "LOSS OF LAND"



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ The Hostile Arab Palestinians keep showing this (inaccurate) chart. Yet they did not lose anything. What's that about?
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell from documents, that is a map of Palestine and the green is occupied territory.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The caption under Phase Map #2 claims that the yellow portion belonged to:

​In point of fact, the territory was under Ottoman/Turkish Sovereignty until the Rights and Title were renounced and placed into the hands of the Allied Powers.  It was NOT a case that "90% of the land belongs to Palestinians."



​None of the 4 Armistice Agreements reallocated any territory to any party.  Nor  did the agreements established a permanent boundary.  The Agreements approximate the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) used and agreed upon as the Armistice Lines.  The Armistice Line would remain a demarcation until a Treaty of Peace were negotiated.  (See:  *Posting #2054* • Palestine Massing...)

❖ The *Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty* was signed on October 26, 1994 →
◈ Article 3 - *International Boundary*

❖ The *Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel*, 26 March 1979
◈ Article II T*he permanent boundary between* Egypt and Israel​That portion of the "Green Line" _(demarcation line set out in the 1949 Armistice Agreements)_ separating Israeli Force from Arab Forces _(Egypt and Jordan)_ was dissolved by the Treaties.

In my opinion, the 5th and 6th Phase Maps are an oversimplification of the current situation and that period beginning 1956-1967.  It is also obvious that the last Phase Map suggests that all of Area "C" was Annexed, as opposed to the Arab Palestinian Agreement which created the Palestinian Authority.

Anyone that actually studies Map_ (which you posted)_ will realize that this is a Disinformation effort on the part of Arab Palestinians to seek sympathy for their political position.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The world still recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory. As they should.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

•  International Law says:
*ARTICLE 6  •  Convention on Rights and Duties of States •*
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.​
In this regard, it is pure disinformation to suggest that the recognition by the "World" affects the reality of the ground truth.

"Acts of Aggression" are different from the "Acts necessary for Defense."  The territory was assumed as a result of the active pursuit of Hostile Military Forces.  The Golan Height were occupied to deny Hostile Military Forces from gaining the high ground _(military advantage)_.  Since Israel determined that there would be no future in which the High Ground would give a military advantage to the enemy, it would be occupied forever (no expected termination).  Therefore, it would be best in the long term to Annex the ground, so as to avail it to the laws and care → the entirety of the nation.

It may be a topic of disagreement, but it will be the best for all concerned.  

And, already, the nations operating in the immediate vicinity of the Golan Heights recognize the sovereign control, both in the air defense and ground situations.

Most Respectively,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Sometimes I get so confused.
> 
> ◈  The Arab Palestinians are charging the border, but they did not lose anything.  What's that about?
> 
> ◈   The Hostile Arab Palestinians keep showing this (inaccurate) chart.  Yet they did not lose anything.  What's that about?
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently, nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈    The "cessation of hostilities" and the "end of a conflict" are entirely two different things.
> 
> ◈   Relative to the 1949 Armistice Arrangements, two Armistice Agreements have been supercededd by Peace Treaties _(Egyptian and Jordanian issues)_.
> 
> ◈   Relative to the 1949 Armistice, the year 2000 Agreement Letter essentially overtakes the Armistice.  The letter is found at A/54/914  S/2000/564 12 June 200*0 *from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-Genera*l* and the arrangement is still one of peace.
> 
> ◈  The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.​
> Back in 1949, a lot of things were true or different from today.  However, the four arrangements were independent of each other and none of them were carve-outs; although I understand what you mean.  None of the Agrrementstoday are active in the sense they were before each was negated by a follow-on agreement.  They are great historical documents, but each has been legally replaced.
> 
> The demarcations of the Armistice Lines have no validity today.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pfffft, Israeli talking points. The fighting ended when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. Nobody won or lost that war. Consequently nobody won or lost any land. In 1949 the UN carved Palestine into three areas of occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> ◈    I would be ever so greatfulif you could send me the link to the imfamous "Talk Point Memo" (TPM) you have mentioned so often as some sort of response to facts I mention.
> 
> ◈   IF "Nobody won or lost that war," then what is the current dispute about?​
> My understanding is that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have nine major areas of concern.
> 
> Borders
> Jerusalem
> Refugees
> Political Prisoners
> Water
> Security
> Economy
> State to State
> Claims Resolution
> "The Palestinian position seeks to end Israeli occupation, exercise the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and establish an independent, viable and sovereign state on the 1967 borders."
> 
> There are so many things at issue (that have not been lost), with my limited capacity, I can only tackle one at a time.  If you have a specific in which you want to hold a discussion as to whether or not the HoAP has a sound and valid complaint, then, by all means, let's tackle them one at a time.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> There are so many things at issue (that have not been lost), with my limited capacity, I can only tackle one at a time. If you have a specific in which you want to hold a discussion as to whether or not the HoAP has a sound and valid complaint, then, by all means, let's tackle them one at a time.


That is a good idea. Take one little issue at a time that way we will not have to search through a data dump trying to find something relevant.

In Israel's declaration of independence, they did not define their territory. They did mention the partition resolution but never claimed those recommended borders. Since that resolution was rejected and never implemented, I wonder why it was even mentioned.`

In the drafting documents for Israel's request for UN membership other countries were concerned about this lack of defined territory. They were also concerned about Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and other issues like implementing resolution 194.

To my knowledge, none of these issues have been resolved.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ The Armistice with Syria was overtaken by the Annexation of the Golan Heights.
> 
> 
> 
> It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The world still recognizes the Golan as Syrian territory. As they should.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  International Law says:
> *ARTICLE 6  •  Convention on Rights and Duties of States •*
> 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.​
> In this regard, it is pure disinformation to suggest that the recognition by the "World" affects the reality of the ground truth.
> 
> "Acts of Aggression" are different from the "Acts necessary for Defense."  The territory was assumed as a result of the active pursuit of Hostile Military Forces.  The Golan Height were occupied to deny Hostile Military Forces from gaining the high ground _(military advantage)_.  Since Israel determined that there would be no future in which the High Ground would give a military advantage to the enemy, it would be occupied forever (no expected termination).  Therefore, it would be best in the long term to Annex the ground, so as to avail it to the laws and care → the entirety of the nation.
> 
> It may be a topic of disagreement, but it will be the best for all concerned.
> 
> And, already, the nations operating in the immediate vicinity of the Golan Heights recognize the sovereign control, both in the air defense and ground situations.
> 
> Most Respectively,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> In this regard, it is pure disinformation to suggest that the recognition by the "World" affects the reality of the ground truth.


The reality on the ground is that the Golan is inside Syria's international borders. International borders cannot be changed unilaterally.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

There is you reading a book and say--- this is the way it should be.  Then there is what actually happens. 



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this regard, it is pure disinformation to suggest that the recognition by the "World" affects the reality of the ground truth.
> 
> 
> 
> The reality on the ground is that the Golan is inside Syria's international borders. International borders cannot be changed unilaterally.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

The world isn't prefect.  And your interpretation of what should be, is very questionable.  

Now the Golan Heights (annexed nearly 4 decades ago) may not be recognized politically or legally in some eyes, but make no mistake, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan all know not to cross the Israeli Air Defense Zone over the Golan Height.  And that is "recognition." 

And under international law → recognition is NOT necessary for the establishment of sovereign control (state).  It is what it is.  And it is as real as China annexing Tibet, Russia annexing the Crimea, or the Svalbard Islands in 1925, annexed by Norway.

And, the Arab Palestinians, as dangerous as they are, will probably not see any lifting of Article 42 Effective Control.

Most Respectively,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The reality on the ground is that the Golan is inside Syria's international borders. International borders cannot be changed unilaterally.



Sure.  And that is why there are dozens of border disputes and contested areas all over the world.  Mostly the disputes just sit there and no one cares.  Eventually, some of them get solved with a treaty.  Shrug.  

Have you heard about the dispute of Hans Island between Denmark and Canada?  Every time we visit the island we leave a bottle of Canadian whiskey.  Every time they visit the island they leave a bottle of Schnapps.  Spirits war.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,

Just as the JCS Mmo indicated, it is a matter of establishing a defendable border.

The "law" assumes that most countries are not going to attack their neighbors.  Syria has been found wanting in terms of "trust."  Syria has used the Golan Heights to establish a military advantage in the offensive role.  



			
				Sun Sentinel 2 April 2019 said:
			
		

> When the Yom Kippur war broke out in 1973, more than 1,400 Syrians tanks poured into the Golan. Opposing them were just 170 Israeli tanks, led by Lt. Avigdor Kahalani. At first, the Syrians seemed poised to push into the Jordan Valley. Over several weeks of intensive fighting and suffering horrendous casualties, Kahalani managed to hold off the Syrian attack and eventually push them out of the Golan.
> STORY SOURCE:  By Avrohom Shmuel Lewin JNS



It is an unacceptable risk to allow the Syrian to maintain the Golan Height.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Just as the JCS Mmo indicated, it is a matter of establishing a defendable border.
> 
> The "law" assumes that most countries are not going to attack their neighbors.  Syria has been found wanting in terms of "trust."  Syria has used the Golan Heights to establish a military advantage in the offensive role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Sentinel 2 April 2019 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Yom Kippur war broke out in 1973, more than 1,400 Syrians tanks poured into the Golan. Opposing them were just 170 Israeli tanks, led by Lt. Avigdor Kahalani. At first, the Syrians seemed poised to push into the Jordan Valley. Over several weeks of intensive fighting and suffering horrendous casualties, Kahalani managed to hold off the Syrian attack and eventually push them out of the Golan.
> STORY SOURCE:  By Avrohom Shmuel Lewin JNS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an unacceptable risk to allow the Syrian to maintain the Golan Height.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. You cannot unilaterally change someone else's international borders.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ Shusha, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Just as the JCS Mmo indicated, it is a matter of establishing a defendable border.
> 
> The "law" assumes that most countries are not going to attack their neighbors.  Syria has been found wanting in terms of "trust."  Syria has used the Golan Heights to establish a military advantage in the offensive role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Sentinel 2 April 2019 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the Yom Kippur war broke out in 1973, more than 1,400 Syrians tanks poured into the Golan. Opposing them were just 170 Israeli tanks, led by Lt. Avigdor Kahalani. At first, the Syrians seemed poised to push into the Jordan Valley. Over several weeks of intensive fighting and suffering horrendous casualties, Kahalani managed to hold off the Syrian attack and eventually push them out of the Golan.
> STORY SOURCE:  By Avrohom Shmuel Lewin JNS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an unacceptable risk to allow the Syrian to maintain the Golan Height.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter. You cannot unilaterally change someone else's international borders.
Click to expand...

And you say it in such a natural way.

What do you think Egypt and Jordan were doing  in 1948 when they invaded and took Gaza and Judea and Samaria?

Oh, by the way, the official "International Borders" have not yet been drawn.  But since the Arabs choose to attack and take.....and never negotiate, it is more than possible that there will never be a negotiation and Israel may have to take unilateral actions.

Let us put it this way.

Israel GAVE all of Gaza to the Arabs, regardless of how safe it would have been to Israel.  It will NOT make the same mistake with the Golan Heights where the Syrians did attack Israelis from above on a basically daily basis.

Syria has no claims to the Golan Heights since it chose to use it to launch attacks on Israeli civilians for the 19 years it had the area in its possession.

The Arabs did it with Jewish Land.  And of course there is no complaint from anyone about the Arabs keeping land they have stolen from the Jews.  No matter how much of it they took.

(Oh, and there is also the 78% of stolen Jewish land of TransJordan.  See how easy it is for SOME groups to just take and define what their "international borders" are going to be?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> It doesn't matter. You cannot unilaterally change someone else's international borders.



Syria unilaterally violated Israel's borders and attacked her.  The change was a result of the ensuing conflict.  It was Syria which was the precipitating actor here.


----------



## RoccoR

ct of aggression RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate 
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is something wrong here!



P F Tinmore said:


> In the drafting documents for Israel's request for UN membership other countries were concerned about this lack of defined territory. They were also concerned about Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and other issues like implementing resolution 194.
> 
> To my knowledge, none of these issues have been resolved.



*(COMMENT)*

I grant you that in 1949, when the application was being vetted through the Security Council and then the General Assembly, there was quite a debate about the requirement for a "defined territory" in statehood affects the  _(Article 1, Convention on Rights and Duties of States • Montevideo Convention • )_.  That "statehood" is a prerequisite for full "membership" in the UN. 



Mindful said:


> Recognized international boundaries come into being in one of three ways: Two bordering countries can agree on them by treaty, a newly independent country can inherit the boundaries drawn by a previous colonial power, or, finally, internal boundaries may be held over after a country splits up to form new international borders.
> 
> Respecting these boundaries is a bedrock of international norms, though hardly an absolute. In extreme cases, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and enslavement, even a recognized international border cannot provide legal immunity from foreign attack. That, at least, was the justification for the Kosovo War, which began 20 years ago this week.
> 
> Israel presents a special case when it comes to borders, as the new country did not unequivocally inherit the borders of the land’s previous British and Ottoman rulers, nor was there a chance for bilateral treaties to establish new ones since all of its neighbors rejected its very existence for the first four decades after independence.
> 
> The Golan Heights and the Depths of Hypocrisy


*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish State made application for the membership in September 1948, however the Arab League 'vs' Israel conflict created a problem in that the Armistice Boundaries (1949) did not quite conform with the borders invisioned by A/RES/181 (II).  The Arab League attempted to use these artificially induced discrepencies_ (through acts of aggression)_ to interfere and delay the application and acceptance process for membership; having failed politically, diplomatically, and militarily in their attempt to deny the Jewish people of in their ability to exercise their right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

◈  Statehood is unaffected by "recognition."  It neither enhances or detract the issue. 

◈   The current activity opposing Israel and its territorial integrity is totally inconistant with A/RES/2131 (XX) Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty.

✦  No State _(Arab Palestinians)_ has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State _(Israel)_. Consequently, armed intervention _(There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. --- Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.)_ and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State_ (Israel)_ or against its political, economic_ (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement)_ and cultural elements, are condemned.

✦  No State  _(Arab Palestinians)_ may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State _(Israel) _ in order to obtain from it the subordination of_ (Jewish People)_ the exercise of its sovereign rights.  The Jewish People hold exclusive rule in the territory it maintains with regard to its own sovereignty. 

✦  The use of force to deprive _(Jewish)_ peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.  All States _(Arab Palestinians)_ shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of_ (the Jewish)_ peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure, and with absolute respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.​Finally, the explicit inference → "even a recognized international border cannot provide legal immunity from foreign attack." → is a direct threat levied against the Jewish State.  It is at variance to the Interanational Law:

*Article 2 UN CHATER*
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

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.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ct of aggression RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> There is something wrong here!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the drafting documents for Israel's request for UN membership other countries were concerned about this lack of defined territory. They were also concerned about Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and other issues like implementing resolution 194.
> 
> To my knowledge, none of these issues have been resolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I grant you that in 1949, when the application was being vetted through the Security Council and then the General Assembly, there was quite a debate about the requirement for a "defined territory" in statehood affects the  _(Article 1, Convention on Rights and Duties of States • Montevideo Convention • )_.  That "statehood" is a prerequisite for full "membership" in the UN.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recognized international boundaries come into being in one of three ways: Two bordering countries can agree on them by treaty, a newly independent country can inherit the boundaries drawn by a previous colonial power, or, finally, internal boundaries may be held over after a country splits up to form new international borders.
> 
> Respecting these boundaries is a bedrock of international norms, though hardly an absolute. In extreme cases, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and enslavement, even a recognized international border cannot provide legal immunity from foreign attack. That, at least, was the justification for the Kosovo War, which began 20 years ago this week.
> 
> Israel presents a special case when it comes to borders, as the new country did not unequivocally inherit the borders of the land’s previous British and Ottoman rulers, nor was there a chance for bilateral treaties to establish new ones since all of its neighbors rejected its very existence for the first four decades after independence.
> 
> The Golan Heights and the Depths of Hypocrisy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish State made application for the membership in September 1948, however the Arab League 'vs' Israel conflict created a problem in that the Armistice Boundaries (1949) did not quite conform with the borders invisioned by A/RES/181 (II).  The Arab League attempted to use these artificially induced discrepencies_ (through acts of aggression)_ to interfere and delay the application and acceptance process for membership; having failed politically, diplomatically, and militarily in their attempt to deny the Jewish people of in their ability to exercise their right to sovereignty and territorial integrity.
> 
> ◈  Statehood is unaffected by "recognition."  It neither enhances or detract the issue.
> 
> ◈   The current activity opposing Israel and its territorial integrity is totally inconistant with A/RES/2131 (XX) Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty.
> 
> ✦  No State _(Arab Palestinians)_ has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State _(Israel)_. Consequently, armed intervention _(There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. --- Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.)_ and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State_ (Israel)_ or against its political, economic_ (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement)_ and cultural elements, are condemned.
> 
> ✦  No State  _(Arab Palestinians)_ may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State _(Israel) _ in order to obtain from it the subordination of_ (Jewish People)_ the exercise of its sovereign rights.  The Jewish People hold exclusive rule in the territory it maintains with regard to its own sovereignty.
> 
> ✦  The use of force to deprive _(Jewish)_ peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.  All States _(Arab Palestinians)_ shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of_ (the Jewish)_ peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure, and with absolute respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.​Finally, the explicit inference → "even a recognized international border cannot provide legal immunity from foreign attack." → is a direct threat levied against the Jewish State.  It is at variance to the Interanational Law:
> 
> *Article 2 UN CHATER*
> The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
> 
> 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.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> The Jewish State made application for the membership in September 1948, however the Arab League 'vs' Israel conflict created a problem in that the Armistice Boundaries (1949) did not quite conform with the borders invisioned by A/RES/181 (II).


The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were *specifically not* to by political or territorial boundaries.

There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ct of aggression RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> There is something wrong here!
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the drafting documents for Israel's request for UN membership other countries were concerned about this lack of defined territory. They were also concerned about Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and other issues like implementing resolution 194.
> 
> To my knowledge, none of these issues have been resolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I grant you that in 1949, when the application was being vetted through the Security Council and then the General Assembly, there was quite a debate about the requirement for a "defined territory" in statehood affects the  _(Article 1, Convention on Rights and Duties of States • Montevideo Convention • )_.  That "statehood" is a prerequisite for full "membership" in the UN.
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recognized international boundaries come into being in one of three ways: Two bordering countries can agree on them by treaty, a newly independent country can inherit the boundaries drawn by a previous colonial power, or, finally, internal boundaries may be held over after a country splits up to form new international borders.
> 
> Respecting these boundaries is a bedrock of international norms, though hardly an absolute. In extreme cases, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and enslavement, even a recognized international border cannot provide legal immunity from foreign attack. That, at least, was the justification for the Kosovo War, which began 20 years ago this week.
> 
> Israel presents a special case when it comes to borders, as the new country did not unequivocally inherit the borders of the land’s previous British and Ottoman rulers, nor was there a chance for bilateral treaties to establish new ones since all of its neighbors rejected its very existence for the first four decades after independence.
> 
> The Golan Heights and the Depths of Hypocrisy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Jewish State made application for the membership in September 1948, however the Arab League 'vs' Israel conflict created a problem in that the Armistice Boundaries (1949) did not quite conform with the borders invisioned by A/RES/181 (II).  The Arab League attempted to use these artificially induced discrepencies_ (through acts of aggression)_ to interfere and delay the application and acceptance process for membership; having failed politically, diplomatically, and militarily in their attempt to deny the Jewish people of in their ability to exercise their right to sovereignty and territorial integrity.
> 
> ◈  Statehood is unaffected by "recognition."  It neither enhances or detract the issue.
> 
> ◈   The current activity opposing Israel and its territorial integrity is totally inconistant with A/RES/2131 (XX) Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty.
> 
> ✦  No State _(Arab Palestinians)_ has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State _(Israel)_. Consequently, armed intervention _(There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. --- Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.)_ and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State_ (Israel)_ or against its political, economic_ (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement)_ and cultural elements, are condemned.
> 
> ✦  No State  _(Arab Palestinians)_ may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State _(Israel) _ in order to obtain from it the subordination of_ (Jewish People)_ the exercise of its sovereign rights.  The Jewish People hold exclusive rule in the territory it maintains with regard to its own sovereignty.
> 
> ✦  The use of force to deprive _(Jewish)_ peoples of their national identity constitutes a violation of their inalienable rights and of the principle of non-intervention.  All States _(Arab Palestinians)_ shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of_ (the Jewish)_ peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure, and with absolute respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.​Finally, the explicit inference → "even a recognized international border cannot provide legal immunity from foreign attack." → is a direct threat levied against the Jewish State.  It is at variance to the Interanational Law:
> 
> *Article 2 UN CHATER*
> The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
> 
> 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.​
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish State made application for the membership in September 1948, however the Arab League 'vs' Israel conflict created a problem in that the Armistice Boundaries (1949) did not quite conform with the borders invisioned by A/RES/181 (II).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were *specifically not* to by political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?
Click to expand...


Just your usual whining about the existence of Israel. Hamas, Fatah and others can show you precisely where the Israeli border is.

Stop whining.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?



What about the border between Israel and Jordan?


----------



## Hollie

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the border between Israel and Jordan?
Click to expand...

He will deny it exists. 

His whining about Res.184 and Israeli borders established by Treaty have been addressed for him countless times before. He denies his denial. 

He cuts and pastes the same whiny complaints endlessly because it placates his need to deny the existence of Israel.


----------



## Shusha

Hollie said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the border between Israel and Jordan?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will deny it exists.
> 
> His whining about Res.184 and Israeli borders established by Treaty have been addressed for him countless times before. He denies his denial.
> 
> He cuts and pastes the same whiny complaints endlessly because it placates his need to deny the existence of Israel.
Click to expand...


Oh, totally.  

See, ALL the borders are legitimate except anything that says "Israel".  Those are all automatically not legit.  Because....Israel.  

He claims that it is impossible for a State of Israel to come into being and to exist. Because ... Israel.  

He is claiming that a State of Palestine, uniquely in the world, because ... Israel (read: Jews), has absolutely permanent, inviolable borders that can never, ever be changed.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah Yeah.  Here we go,  I think you'll like my alternative history better.  It has much more credibility.



P F Tinmore said:


> The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to by political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?


*(COMMENT)*

I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.

Another point you get confused is that the Arab League could not lose any territory because contrary to international law, they crossed into the Trustee Territory and Israel.  HOWEVER!  In the case of the 1948 conflict, while they did not lose any territory, they attempted to snatch and grab territory.  Jordan secured the Werst Bank and the Egyptians secured the Gaza Strip.   The Arab Palestinians could not lose any territory because they had no stake in the game.

If you go to the Middle East, and you run into an official wearing this patch, I want you to free to express yourself and tell them all about your concept about these various notions here.  I will be especially interested in how they take the notion that there are no borders.  I wonder if we should consult the protesters in Gaza?




​The denial of reality is not really a good mental sign on the side of sanity.

It is the appearance of being a psychologically uncomfortable truth.  You are just one-step away from the "Flat Earth" believers.

I wonder:


			
				Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) UN Palestine Commission said:
			
		

> ✪  "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been "*implemented.*" (PAL/196 17 May 1948)​


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yeah Yeah.  Here we go,  I think you'll like my alternative history better.  It has much more credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to by political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.
> 
> Another point you get confused is that the Arab League could not lose any territory because contrary to international law, they crossed into the Trustee Territory and Israel.  HOWEVER!  In the case of the 1948 conflict, while they did not lose any territory, they attempted to snatch and grab territory.  Jordan secured the Werst Bank and the Egyptians secured the Gaza Strip.   The Arab Palestinians could not lose any territory because they had no stake in the game.
> 
> If you go to the Middle East, and you run into an official wearing this patch, I want you to free to express yourself and tell them all about your concept about these various notions here.  I will be especially interested in how they take the notion that there are no borders.  I wonder if we should consult the protesters in Gaza?
> 
> View attachment 253920​The denial of reality is not really a good mental sign on the side of sanity.
> 
> It is the appearance of being a psychologically uncomfortable truth.  You are just one-step away from the "Flat Earth" believers.
> 
> I wonder:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) UN Palestine Commission said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ✪  "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been "*implemented.*" (PAL/196 17 May 1948)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Holy deflection, Batman!!!



RoccoR said:


> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.



So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yeah Yeah.  Here we go,  I think you'll like my alternative history better.  It has much more credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to by political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.
> 
> Another point you get confused is that the Arab League could not lose any territory because contrary to international law, they crossed into the Trustee Territory and Israel.  HOWEVER!  In the case of the 1948 conflict, while they did not lose any territory, they attempted to snatch and grab territory.  Jordan secured the Werst Bank and the Egyptians secured the Gaza Strip.   The Arab Palestinians could not lose any territory because they had no stake in the game.
> 
> If you go to the Middle East, and you run into an official wearing this patch, I want you to free to express yourself and tell them all about your concept about these various notions here.  I will be especially interested in how they take the notion that there are no borders.  I wonder if we should consult the protesters in Gaza?
> 
> View attachment 253920​The denial of reality is not really a good mental sign on the side of sanity.
> 
> It is the appearance of being a psychologically uncomfortable truth.  You are just one-step away from the "Flat Earth" believers.
> 
> I wonder:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) UN Palestine Commission said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ✪  "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been "*implemented.*" (PAL/196 17 May 1948)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy deflection, Batman!!!
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
Click to expand...


Why do you assume they are not borders?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yeah Yeah.  Here we go,  I think you'll like my alternative history better.  It has much more credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to by political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.
> 
> Another point you get confused is that the Arab League could not lose any territory because contrary to international law, they crossed into the Trustee Territory and Israel.  HOWEVER!  In the case of the 1948 conflict, while they did not lose any territory, they attempted to snatch and grab territory.  Jordan secured the Werst Bank and the Egyptians secured the Gaza Strip.   The Arab Palestinians could not lose any territory because they had no stake in the game.
> 
> If you go to the Middle East, and you run into an official wearing this patch, I want you to free to express yourself and tell them all about your concept about these various notions here.  I will be especially interested in how they take the notion that there are no borders.  I wonder if we should consult the protesters in Gaza?
> 
> View attachment 253920​The denial of reality is not really a good mental sign on the side of sanity.
> 
> It is the appearance of being a psychologically uncomfortable truth.  You are just one-step away from the "Flat Earth" believers.
> 
> I wonder:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) UN Palestine Commission said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ✪  "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been "*implemented.*" (PAL/196 17 May 1948)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy deflection, Batman!!!
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you assume they are not borders?
Click to expand...

Why do you assume they are?

Got a link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yeah Yeah.  Here we go,  I think you'll like my alternative history better.  It has much more credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conflict was not the problem. The five Arab states lost no land in that war. Their borders were not in dispute. Here is the problem. Resolution 181 did not happen. Neither Israel, Palestine, not the UN, or anyone else, recognize those proposed borders as Israel's borders. The armistice lines were specifically not to by political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> There is nothing inside Palestine that can be called an Israeli border. So, where is Israel?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.
> 
> Another point you get confused is that the Arab League could not lose any territory because contrary to international law, they crossed into the Trustee Territory and Israel.  HOWEVER!  In the case of the 1948 conflict, while they did not lose any territory, they attempted to snatch and grab territory.  Jordan secured the Werst Bank and the Egyptians secured the Gaza Strip.   The Arab Palestinians could not lose any territory because they had no stake in the game.
> 
> If you go to the Middle East, and you run into an official wearing this patch, I want you to free to express yourself and tell them all about your concept about these various notions here.  I will be especially interested in how they take the notion that there are no borders.  I wonder if we should consult the protesters in Gaza?
> 
> View attachment 253920​The denial of reality is not really a good mental sign on the side of sanity.
> 
> It is the appearance of being a psychologically uncomfortable truth.  You are just one-step away from the "Flat Earth" believers.
> 
> I wonder:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) UN Palestine Commission said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ✪  "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been "*implemented.*" (PAL/196 17 May 1948)​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy deflection, Batman!!!
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you assume they are not borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you assume they are?
> 
> Got a link?
Click to expand...


Why do you assume they are not?

Does Israel not have a border with Egypt and Jordan?

Got a link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't think there is any "deflection" here at all.



P F Tinmore said:


> Holy deflection, Batman!!!





RoccoR said:


> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.





P F Tinmore said:


> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?


*(COMMENT)*

For the greater part of understanding, the 1949 Armistice Lines represented the adjusted FEBA agreed upon by the warring parties.  On one side of the line, Israel established a form of jurisdiction under international
law which became a territory of full and unchallengeable governmental power.  We refer to this as "sovereign territory."  It is not about the "Armistice Lines" but rather about the territory under full and unchallengeable governmental power.   The Sovereign territory is characterized by the power of law-making unrestricted by other external powers _(the idea expressed in the UN Charter that its members will not interfere with the domestic jurisdiction of any state)_.  This is key.  It is not about who draws a line on a map.  It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.


			
				Michael Sfard → a lawyer and political activist specializing in international human rights law and the laws of war. said:
			
		

> The policies that evolved over decades—a creeping process of _de facto_ annexation—stopped short of a wholesale application of Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories; the legal and political distinctions between the West Bank and Israel were preserved.
> SOURCE:  New York Book Review • Israel and Annexation by Lawfare • 2018 •


---------------------------------------------------------​*This is what most people have difficulty with: *
When we talk about "borders" or _(as the treaties say "permanent international boundaries")_ what we are saying in a short form is a demarcation where (1) on one side is one law _(Israeli Domestic Law)_, and (2) a different law on the other side _(Occupation Law, Egyptian Law, Jordanian Law, Lebanese Law, as examples)_.
---------------------------------------------------------​Now, this is legal tanglefoot → and a complaint often vocalized by the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement; the complaint there is "apartheid."  What would the impact be if → Israeli Lawmakers gave in to the Arab Palestinian complaint and → extended Israel domestic the territories → everyone under one law _(the same Israeli domestic law)_ with all the same Israeli protections for everyone?  *IF* all Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were given all the same rights, privileges, and protections as ordinary Israeli Citizens → *THEN* how could you tell the difference between one side of the demarcation from the other side?  The answer is, you can't.  Both sides look the same.  Both sides would essentially be _de jure_ Israel _(rightful entitlement)_.  This is the Article 25 • CCPR  Dilemma, one which presents an interesting problem.  

This is generally more complex for most people because of the problems of a pre-determined loyalty to one side or the other.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is an unfair question to pose to the pro-Arab Palestinian. 



Hollie said:


> Does Israel not have a border with Egypt and Jordan?
> Got a link?


*(COMMENT)*

Most of them do not know what a border is!

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I don't think there is any "deflection" here at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy deflection, Batman!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For the greater part of understanding, the 1949 Armistice Lines represented the adjusted FEBA agreed upon by the warring parties.  On one side of the line, Israel established a form of jurisdiction under international
> law which became a territory of full and unchallengeable governmental power.  We refer to this as "sovereign territory."  It is not about the "Armistice Lines" but rather about the territory under full and unchallengeable governmental power.   The Sovereign territory is characterized by the power of law-making unrestricted by other external powers _(the idea expressed in the UN Charter that its members will not interfere with the domestic jurisdiction of any state)_.  This is key.  It is not about who draws a line on a map.  It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Sfard → a lawyer and political activist specializing in international human rights law and the laws of war. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The policies that evolved over decades—a creeping process of _de facto_ annexation—stopped short of a wholesale application of Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories; the legal and political distinctions between the West Bank and Israel were preserved.
> SOURCE:  New York Book Review • Israel and Annexation by Lawfare • 2018 •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------​*This is what most people have difficulty with: *
> When we talk about "borders" or _(as the treaties say "permanent international boundaries")_ what we are saying in a short form is a demarcation where (1) on one side is one law _(Israeli Domestic Law)_, and (2) a different law on the other side _(Occupation Law, Egyptian Law, Jordanian Law, Lebanese Law, as examples)_.
> ---------------------------------------------------------​Now, this is legal tanglefoot → and a complaint often vocalized by the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement; the complaint there is "apartheid."  What would the impact be if → Israeli Lawmakers gave in to the Arab Palestinian complaint and → extended Israel domestic the territories → everyone under one law _(the same Israeli domestic law)_ with all the same Israeli protections for everyone?  *IF* all Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were given all the same rights, privileges, and protections as ordinary Israeli Citizens → *THEN* how could you tell the difference between one side of the demarcation from the other side?  The answer is, you can't.  Both sides look the same.  Both sides would essentially be _de jure_ Israel _(rightful entitlement)_.  This is the Article 25 • CCPR  Dilemma, one which presents an interesting problem.
> 
> This is generally more complex for most people because of the problems of a pre-determined loyalty to one side or the other.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Where in all of this smoke is the answer to my simple question?



P F Tinmore said:


> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I don't think there is any "deflection" here at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy deflection, Batman!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For the greater part of understanding, the 1949 Armistice Lines represented the adjusted FEBA agreed upon by the warring parties.  On one side of the line, Israel established a form of jurisdiction under international
> law which became a territory of full and unchallengeable governmental power.  We refer to this as "sovereign territory."  It is not about the "Armistice Lines" but rather about the territory under full and unchallengeable governmental power.   The Sovereign territory is characterized by the power of law-making unrestricted by other external powers _(the idea expressed in the UN Charter that its members will not interfere with the domestic jurisdiction of any state)_.  This is key.  It is not about who draws a line on a map.  It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Sfard → a lawyer and political activist specializing in international human rights law and the laws of war. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The policies that evolved over decades—a creeping process of _de facto_ annexation—stopped short of a wholesale application of Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories; the legal and political distinctions between the West Bank and Israel were preserved.
> SOURCE:  New York Book Review • Israel and Annexation by Lawfare • 2018 •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------​*This is what most people have difficulty with: *
> When we talk about "borders" or _(as the treaties say "permanent international boundaries")_ what we are saying in a short form is a demarcation where (1) on one side is one law _(Israeli Domestic Law)_, and (2) a different law on the other side _(Occupation Law, Egyptian Law, Jordanian Law, Lebanese Law, as examples)_.
> ---------------------------------------------------------​Now, this is legal tanglefoot → and a complaint often vocalized by the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement; the complaint there is "apartheid."  What would the impact be if → Israeli Lawmakers gave in to the Arab Palestinian complaint and → extended Israel domestic the territories → everyone under one law _(the same Israeli domestic law)_ with all the same Israeli protections for everyone?  *IF* all Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were given all the same rights, privileges, and protections as ordinary Israeli Citizens → *THEN* how could you tell the difference between one side of the demarcation from the other side?  The answer is, you can't.  Both sides look the same.  Both sides would essentially be _de jure_ Israel _(rightful entitlement)_.  This is the Article 25 • CCPR  Dilemma, one which presents an interesting problem.
> 
> This is generally more complex for most people because of the problems of a pre-determined loyalty to one side or the other.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Your daily clunker.


RoccoR said:


> This is key. It is not about who draws a line on a map. It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.



Again you are confusing military occupation with sovereignty.

*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.

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​
The question is not about who has the guns but who has the territory.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I don't think there is any "deflection" here at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy deflection, Batman!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For the greater part of understanding, the 1949 Armistice Lines represented the adjusted FEBA agreed upon by the warring parties.  On one side of the line, Israel established a form of jurisdiction under international
> law which became a territory of full and unchallengeable governmental power.  We refer to this as "sovereign territory."  It is not about the "Armistice Lines" but rather about the territory under full and unchallengeable governmental power.   The Sovereign territory is characterized by the power of law-making unrestricted by other external powers _(the idea expressed in the UN Charter that its members will not interfere with the domestic jurisdiction of any state)_.  This is key.  It is not about who draws a line on a map.  It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Sfard → a lawyer and political activist specializing in international human rights law and the laws of war. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The policies that evolved over decades—a creeping process of _de facto_ annexation—stopped short of a wholesale application of Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories; the legal and political distinctions between the West Bank and Israel were preserved.
> SOURCE:  New York Book Review • Israel and Annexation by Lawfare • 2018 •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------​*This is what most people have difficulty with: *
> When we talk about "borders" or _(as the treaties say "permanent international boundaries")_ what we are saying in a short form is a demarcation where (1) on one side is one law _(Israeli Domestic Law)_, and (2) a different law on the other side _(Occupation Law, Egyptian Law, Jordanian Law, Lebanese Law, as examples)_.
> ---------------------------------------------------------​Now, this is legal tanglefoot → and a complaint often vocalized by the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement; the complaint there is "apartheid."  What would the impact be if → Israeli Lawmakers gave in to the Arab Palestinian complaint and → extended Israel domestic the territories → everyone under one law _(the same Israeli domestic law)_ with all the same Israeli protections for everyone?  *IF* all Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were given all the same rights, privileges, and protections as ordinary Israeli Citizens → *THEN* how could you tell the difference between one side of the demarcation from the other side?  The answer is, you can't.  Both sides look the same.  Both sides would essentially be _de jure_ Israel _(rightful entitlement)_.  This is the Article 25 • CCPR  Dilemma, one which presents an interesting problem.
> 
> This is generally more complex for most people because of the problems of a pre-determined loyalty to one side or the other.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in all of this smoke is the answer to my simple question?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

\
PASSIA - MAPS - Palestine - PALESTINE UNDER THE BRITISH MANDATE






Because most of territory originally assigned to the Jewish nation under international law,
is effectively under foreign occupation.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al

Oh for heaven's sake.  Open your mind.  The question is not focus on territory.  Please read it carefully.  Don't get fixated on the associate activities.

*BLUF:*  It is a matter of establishing Self-Governing Institution supported by Law Making Capacities --- neither of which the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(to include Jerusalem)_ have.

  BTW:  You will notice that what influence and power the Arab Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip do have is attained through (largely) the civilians either used in the direct action or as shields and hostages for direct action.  

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(to include Jerusalem)_ are largely involved criminal acts directed against Israel with the intention of - or calculated to - cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population _(both sides)_, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do _(or to abstain from doing)_ some act that furthers the quasi-political objective.

The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(to include Jerusalem)_ do not engage seeking to establish any self-governing institutions; but rather to amase wealth and power. 



P F Tinmore said:


> ]Again you are confusing military occupation with sovereignty.
> 
> *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.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​
> The question is not about who has the guns but who has the territory.


*(COMMENT)*

I did not mention the armed force at all.  That is merely your interpretation.

It is about who makes the laws.  

It is NOT about military force _(which may or may not be an element)_.
It is NOT about the inhabitants _(although often times it can be a part of it)_. 
In this regard, we use the terminology:  "Self-governing Institutions"

You may recall, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the establishment of self-Governing Institutions.



			
				[B]The Political History of Palestine under British Administration[/B] said:
			
		

> 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 recognized 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 recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> 
> 
> “The British Government desired to establish self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
> In practice, it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has *governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials*.
> SOURCE:  A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947 •



As you can see, the British were making the law indefinitely simply because the Arab Leadership did not want to participate.  You cannot have self-governing institutions if you don't get involved.  That is what "SELF-governing " means.  In fact, it cannot be a foreign government in the sense that the High Commissioner just replaces the Ottoman Sultan.  It did not take over from an Arab Palestinian Ruler.

This nonsense continued into the post-WWII era:



			
				UNPC First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council said:
			
		

> The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”
> No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
> SOURCE:  A/AC.21/7  29 January *1948* •


 
And then we can say again, the non-participatory attitude presented by the Arab Palestinians persisted further into the late 1960s, the 1970s and through to the mid-1990s and the Oslo Accords:



			
				Arab Summit Conference in Khartoum - Sudan said:
			
		

> This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.
> SOURCE:  The Khartoum Resolutions; September 1, *1967* •





			
				Palestine National Charter said:
			
		

> Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.
> SOURCE:  Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations  -  July 1, *1968 *•





			
				HAMAS Covenant said:
			
		

> Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
> 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
> SOURCE:  Islamic Resistance Movement  18 August *1988* •





			
				HAMAS Policy Statement said:
			
		

> Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights,
> SOURCE:  Khaled Meshal, Hamas' "political" leader *2012* •





			
				The New Hamas Policy Document: Same Old Same Old (Mostly) said:
			
		

> There is no sign of “moderation” here, despite Hamas’s description of Islam as a religion of “the middle way (_wasatiyyah_) and of moderation”. The document aggressively repeats the familiar themes of Hamas ideology – Palestine in its entirety is indivisible, and the rights of the Palestinian people are eternally inalienable. No facts created on the ground by the “Zionist Project” are to be allowed to survive.
> SOURCE:  by Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 462, May9, *2017*  •



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ph3iron

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh yes Israel EXISTS as a Sovereign Nation and no amount of complaining from the Arabs or the Jew haters in the West can change the fact that the UN RECOGNIZED Israel as did most civilized Nation States. After they were created every Arab Nation attacked them and tried in vain to kill all the Jews. Yet Israel prevailed then and now.



Thanks to the uk banker Rothschild
Palestine were one of the few on our side in WWII.
I hear Italy is claiming the uk?
They were there 2000 years ago too.
"If you are not smart enough to get a real job, join the military. Great indoctrination and socialist benefits"
Enjoying the benefits?


----------



## ph3iron

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al
> 
> Oh for heaven's sake.  Open your mind.  The question is not focus on territory.  Please read it carefully.  Don't get fixated on the associate activities.
> 
> *BLUF:*  It is a matter of establishing Self-Governing Institution supported by Law Making Capacities --- neither of which the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(to include Jerusalem)_ have.
> 
> BTW:  You will notice that what influence and power the Arab Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip do have is attained through (largely) the civilians either used in the direct action or as shields and hostages for direct action.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(to include Jerusalem)_ are largely involved criminal acts directed against Israel with the intention of - or calculated to - cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population _(both sides)_, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do _(or to abstain from doing)_ some act that furthers the quasi-political objective.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(to include Jerusalem)_ do not engage seeking to establish any self-governing institutions; but rather to amase wealth and power.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]Again you are confusing military occupation with sovereignty.
> 
> *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.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​
> The question is not about who has the guns but who has the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I did not mention the armed force at all.  That is merely your interpretation.
> 
> It is about who makes the laws.
> 
> It is NOT about military force _(which may or may not be an element)_.
> It is NOT about the inhabitants _(although often times it can be a part of it)_.
> In this regard, we use the terminology:  "Self-governing Institutions"
> 
> You may recall, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the establishment of self-Governing Institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [B]The Political History of Palestine under British Administration[/B] said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 recognized 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 recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> 
> 
> “The British Government desired to establish self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
> In practice, it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has *governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials*.
> SOURCE:  A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947 •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you can see, the British were making the law indefinitely simply because the Arab Leadership did not want to participate.  You cannot have self-governing institutions if you don't get involved.  That is what "SELF-governing " means.  In fact, it cannot be a foreign government in the sense that the High Commissioner just replaces the Ottoman Sultan.  It did not take over from an Arab Palestinian Ruler.
> 
> This nonsense continued into the post-WWII era:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNPC First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”
> No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
> SOURCE:  A/AC.21/7  29 January *1948* •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we can say again, the non-participatory attitude presented by the Arab Palestinians persisted further into the late 1960s, the 1970s and through to the mid-1990s and the Oslo Accords:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Summit Conference in Khartoum - Sudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.
> SOURCE:  The Khartoum Resolutions; September 1, *1967* •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine National Charter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.
> SOURCE:  Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations  -  July 1, *1968 *•
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAMAS Covenant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
> 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
> SOURCE:  Islamic Resistance Movement  18 August *1988* •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAMAS Policy Statement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights,
> SOURCE:  Khaled Meshal, Hamas' "political" leader *2012* •
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Hamas Policy Document: Same Old Same Old (Mostly) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sign of “moderation” here, despite Hamas’s description of Islam as a religion of “the middle way (_wasatiyyah_) and of moderation”. The document aggressively repeats the familiar themes of Hamas ideology – Palestine in its entirety is indivisible, and the rights of the Palestinian people are eternally inalienable. No facts created on the ground by the “Zionist Project” are to be allowed to survive.
> SOURCE:  by Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 462, May9, *2017*  •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Weeelll.
The first terrorist was the first PM of Israel
Who was the French philosopher?
At the end of a letter
"Apologies for the length. I didn't have time to make it shorter"
Good advice for us cut ant paste all


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I did not mention the armed force at all. That is merely your interpretation.


Yes you did.

This is key. It is not about who draws a line on a map. It is about which country *has the power *to make and enforce domestic laws.​
It's all about the guns, baby.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al
> 
> Oh for heaven's sake.  Open your mind.  The question is not focus on territory.  Please read it carefully.  Don't get fixated on the associate activities.
> 
> *BLUF:*  It is a matter of establishing Self-Governing Institution supported by Law Making Capacities --- neither of which the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(to include Jerusalem)_ have.
> 
> BTW:  You will notice that what influence and power the Arab Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip do have is attained through (largely) the civilians either used in the direct action or as shields and hostages for direct action.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(to include Jerusalem)_ are largely involved criminal acts directed against Israel with the intention of - or calculated to - cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population _(both sides)_, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do _(or to abstain from doing)_ some act that furthers the quasi-political objective.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip _(to include Jerusalem)_ do not engage seeking to establish any self-governing institutions; but rather to amase wealth and power.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]Again you are confusing military occupation with sovereignty.
> 
> *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.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933​
> The question is not about who has the guns but who has the territory.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I did not mention the armed force at all.  That is merely your interpretation.
> 
> It is about who makes the laws.
> 
> It is NOT about military force _(which may or may not be an element)_.
> It is NOT about the inhabitants _(although often times it can be a part of it)_.
> In this regard, we use the terminology:  "Self-governing Institutions"
> 
> You may recall, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the establishment of self-Governing Institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [B]The Political History of Palestine under British Administration[/B] said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 recognized 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 recognized the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> 
> 
> “The British Government desired to establish self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
> In practice, it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has *governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials*.
> SOURCE:  A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947 •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you can see, the British were making the law indefinitely simply because the Arab Leadership did not want to participate.  You cannot have self-governing institutions if you don't get involved.  That is what "SELF-governing " means.  In fact, it cannot be a foreign government in the sense that the High Commissioner just replaces the Ottoman Sultan.  It did not take over from an Arab Palestinian Ruler.
> 
> This nonsense continued into the post-WWII era:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNPC First Monthly Progress Report to the Security Council said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:
> 
> 
> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”
> No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.
> SOURCE:  A/AC.21/7  29 January *1948* •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then we can say again, the non-participatory attitude presented by the Arab Palestinians persisted further into the late 1960s, the 1970s and through to the mid-1990s and the Oslo Accords:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Summit Conference in Khartoum - Sudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.
> SOURCE:  The Khartoum Resolutions; September 1, *1967* •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine National Charter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.
> SOURCE:  Permanent Observer Mission of the State of Palestine to the United Nations  -  July 1, *1968 *•
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAMAS Covenant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.
> 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
> SOURCE:  Islamic Resistance Movement  18 August *1988* •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAMAS Policy Statement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights,
> SOURCE:  Khaled Meshal, Hamas' "political" leader *2012* •
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Hamas Policy Document: Same Old Same Old (Mostly) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no sign of “moderation” here, despite Hamas’s description of Islam as a religion of “the middle way (_wasatiyyah_) and of moderation”. The document aggressively repeats the familiar themes of Hamas ideology – Palestine in its entirety is indivisible, and the rights of the Palestinian people are eternally inalienable. No facts created on the ground by the “Zionist Project” are to be allowed to survive.
> SOURCE:  by Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 462, May9, *2017*  •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Your clunker of the day.



RoccoR said:


> You may recall, the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the establishment of self-Governing Institutions.



Every attempt at self governing by the Palestinians was smashed by the British military.

That is some heavy duty "administrative assistance and advise."


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Every attempt at self governing by the Palestinians was smashed by the British military.



Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  ph3iron, et al

Yeah, I get that a lot.  But I found that if I don't cite a reference, I'm almost immediately asked for a "link" or otherwise challenged.



ph3iron said:


> Weeelll.
> The first terrorist was the first PM of Israel
> Who was the French philosopher?
> At the end of a letter
> "Apologies for the length. I didn't have time to make it shorter"
> Good advice for us cut ant paste all


*(COMMENT)*

Let's see how this works.

David Ben-Gurion was the first PM.  He was born in Poland.  Immigrated to Palestine in 1906; but was exiled by the Ottoman authorities in WWI.  David Ben-Gurion enlisted in the British Army _(Jewish volunteers, with a Service Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers)_. 

I think you will find that David Ben-Gurion was still with the Fusiliers during the 1920 Riots, although he may have been recruited shortly afterward.   And afterward, came to be a distinguished member of the Histadrut until 1935.  In 1935 he became one of the Major Leaders of the Jewish Agency.  I think you will find that David Ben-Gurion considered the Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people" after the bombing of the King David Hotel _(British Army HQ)_.

I think you will find that well before David Ben-Gurion fell in with the Jewish Agency, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, was the first pronounced leader of a terrorist group; the Palestinian Black Hand.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al

"Knowledge" is "Power."  These are the words engraved in stone on the archway to the high school I attended.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not mention the armed force at all. That is merely your interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did.
> 
> This is key. It is not about who draws a line on a map. It is about which country *has the power *to make and enforce domestic laws.​
> It's all about the guns, baby.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Although an armed force does represent a form of power → it is by no means the only form of power.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## ph3iron

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  ph3iron, et al
> 
> Yeah, I get that a lot.  But I found that if I don't cite a reference, I'm almost immediately asked for a "link" or otherwise challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weeelll.
> The first terrorist was the first PM of Israel
> Who was the French philosopher?
> At the end of a letter
> "Apologies for the length. I didn't have time to make it shorter"
> Good advice for us cut ant paste all
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Let's see how this works.
> 
> David Ben-Gurion was the first PM.  He was born in Poland.  Immigrated to Palestine in 1906; but was exiled by the Ottoman authorities in WWI.  David Ben-Gurion enlisted in the British Army _(Jewish volunteers, with a Service Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers)_.
> 
> I think you will find that David Ben-Gurion was still with the Fusiliers during the 1920 Riots, although he may have been recruited shortly afterward.   And afterward, came to be a distinguished member of the Histadrut until 1935.  In 1935 he became one of the Major Leaders of the Jewish Agency.  I think you will find that David Ben-Gurion considered the Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people" after the bombing of the King David Hotel _(British Army HQ)_.
> 
> I think you will find that well before David Ben-Gurion fell in with the Jewish Agency, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, was the first pronounced leader of a terrorist group; the Palestinian Black Hand.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Appreciate it and I stand corrected for my simple reply (I think)
Must have been my Brit education
Brit Soldiers hanging from trees etc
Complicated but it seems like bens hands were not squeaky clean
Are Begin and Shamir also considered terrorists?


----------



## rylah

ph3iron said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  ph3iron, et al
> 
> Yeah, I get that a lot.  But I found that if I don't cite a reference, I'm almost immediately asked for a "link" or otherwise challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weeelll.
> The first terrorist was the first PM of Israel
> Who was the French philosopher?
> At the end of a letter
> "Apologies for the length. I didn't have time to make it shorter"
> Good advice for us cut ant paste all
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Let's see how this works.
> 
> David Ben-Gurion was the first PM.  He was born in Poland.  Immigrated to Palestine in 1906; but was exiled by the Ottoman authorities in WWI.  David Ben-Gurion enlisted in the British Army _(Jewish volunteers, with a Service Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers)_.
> 
> I think you will find that David Ben-Gurion was still with the Fusiliers during the 1920 Riots, although he may have been recruited shortly afterward.   And afterward, came to be a distinguished member of the Histadrut until 1935.  In 1935 he became one of the Major Leaders of the Jewish Agency.  I think you will find that David Ben-Gurion considered the Irgun "the enemy of the Jewish people" after the bombing of the King David Hotel _(British Army HQ)_.
> 
> I think you will find that well before David Ben-Gurion fell in with the Jewish Agency, Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, was the first pronounced leader of a terrorist group; the Palestinian Black Hand.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appreciate it and I stand corrected for my simple reply (I think)
> Must have been my Brit education
> Brit Soldiers hanging from trees etc
> Complicated but it seems like bens hands were not squeaky clean
> Are Begin and Shamir also considered terrorists?
Click to expand...


You forget to mention that after Begin hanged those soldiers,
not a single Jew was executed again by the Brits.


----------



## rylah

That's before we even discuss how Brits illegally slashed 77% of the land assigned to the Jewish nation to Arabs, and prevented most of the Jews fleeing WWII from reaching the country, either turning them away or literally putting them in concentration camps in Cyprus.

You know how Brits used to run trains?
They had a spacial carriage at the front of the train where they'd put sons and cousins of Arab sheikhs, of several warring villages, and thus if there were road bombs or a shootout, they were the first in line.

Brits betrayed each and every side, and drew the most ridiculous borders in history, squeezing groups of warring tribes together into impossible borders, and at the same time drew the most ridiculous borders fro big countries,  dividing biggest clans into chunks of several new nonexistent national identities that had little to do with actual social structure of the region.

Not that the region was in any way 'quiet' before, and not that Brits don't have also their part, a merit, in spite of all the mess the caused, in actually helping create the most free and happy country in the entire middle east. Not all black and white.

I think Jews and Arabs understood each other well, and knew what to expect from each other,
while neither really understood the Brits, or could predict whom they would abandon or attack in the next battle.


----------



## Sixties Fan

For centuries, Jews have lived alongside their neighbors in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Tunisia, Algeria and other countries, but were seldom treated as equals. Jews were often considered “dhimmis,” which means “protected person” and refers to non-Muslims living in Islamic territory who receive safety in return for paying capital tax. They were subjected to dhimmi laws, which prevented them from serving in the military, bearing arms, riding horses or camels, having houses taller than their Muslim neighbors, or synagogues taller than their neighboring mosques. A dhimmi was also not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim in an Islamic court and a dhimmi’s oath was found unacceptable. While some people even today say that because “dhimmi” is a word that means “protected,” that somehow these laws were good for the Jews and later on, the Christians. In actuality, these Jim Crow-like practices oppressed the Mizrahi Jewish communities. In fact, historically, the times when the Jews seemed the most “safe” was when they were the most subordinate to these laws. Some of the dhimmi laws inspired the genocide of European Jews in the 1940s. In the ninth century, for example, Baghdad’s Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.

Not only was Adolf Hitler inspired by dhimmi laws, he even met with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini in 1941. This, of course, was before Israel had been reborn, so Jerusalem belonged to British Mandate Palestine at the time. Among the many things they discussed: how to destroy the Jews of both Europe and the Arab lands. They also discussed their disdain for a Jewish homeland.

How did a German supremacist Nazi dictator get to teaming up with Arab nationalist leader? The same way Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke defends Louis “I’m anti-termite” Farrakhan and his blatant anti-Semitic teachings. A common ideology brings together the strangest of bedfellows. Just as early as 2017, we learned of the neo-Nazis of Germany forming an allyship with Syria’s Assad regime, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, hatred of the West and Israel being their common guiding principle.

One reason why the rebirth of the Jewish homeland is so important is that this evil ideology, though ancient, is very much alive today. 850,000 Mizrahi Jews were expelled from countries like Iraq, Egypt and Syria upon the rebirth of the State of Israel, and 650,000 of them would still be refugees today had it not been for the Jewish state — the very state that Hitler and al-Husseini were very much against, a state that instantly became the largest refugee camp in the Middle East because of the expulsion of Mizrahi Jews from Arab lands. Over half of Israel’s population is Jews of color whose families came as refugees from Middle Eastern and North African countries. And much like their European brethren, they are returning to the land after centuries of being exiled.

Ironically, the same Arab lands that expelled the Jews immediately descended upon Israel to obliterate the nascent state. Arab leaders have always known the multi-ethnic makeup of Israel. They did not attack Israel because they believed the Jews to be colonial expansionists; they attacked because they could not bear the sight of the very people they treated as subhuman now having the dignity of having their own land again. This was also true for Hitler and the Jews living in Germany. That spirit of blind hatred has not gone away.


(full article online)

Hitler knew of the Mizrahi Jews. Why don’t we?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Transjordan comprised 78 per cent of the territory placed under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine after being wrested from 400 years of Ottoman Empire sovereignty during World War One.

Mandatory Palestine was designated in April 1920 by the Principal Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference and in August 1920 by article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres as the location for reconstitution of the ancient and biblical homeland of the Jewish people.

Transjordan’s first Hashemite ruler – Abdullah I – arrived there in *November 1920*.

Abdullah was en route by train from Hijaz to Syria with armed forces to assist his brother Feisal in his struggle with France to retain power in Syria. Winston Churchill – at France’s request – offered Abdullah an Emirate in Transjordan – which Abdullah gratefully accepted on *11 April 1921*.

Feisal was removed from Syria by the French and installed as ruler of Iraq under the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty dated 10 October 1922.  France became the Mandatory for the territory comprised in the *Mandate for Syria and Lebanon*.

These British-Franco machinations cost the Jewish people dearly, when the Mandate for Palestine – adopted unanimously by all 51 members of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 – denied the Jewish people the right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in any part of Transjordan (Eastern Palestine) and restricted that right to the remaining 22 percent (Western Palestine).

The Jews reluctantly accepted this decision. The Arabs didn’t.

In 1946 Transjordan was granted independence by Great Britain.

In 1948 – immediately after the Mandate ended and Jews declared the State of Israel – Transjordan invaded Western Palestine, conquering Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem (comprising 4 per cent of Mandatory Palestine) – and unified these areas with Transjordan to form a new territorial entity – Jordan – encompassing 82 per cent of Mandatory Palestine completely devoid of Jews.

The founding Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) Charter in 1964 specifically excluded any PLO claim to sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

In the 1967 Six Day War Israel captured Judea and Samaria from Jordan. The PLO – claiming Jordan and Israel to be one indivisible territorial unit – removed its non-claim to sovereignty from the revised 1968 Charter.

In September 1970 the PLO unsuccessfully tried to overthrow Jordan’s Hashemite ruler King Hussein. Israel helped save Hussein.

Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty 1994 (Peace Treaty) – which has withstood many events that could have seen its termination.

(full article online)

Daphne Anson: David Singer: Hashemite Rule in Jordan on Collision Course with Trump and Israel


----------



## Sixties Fan

My Right Word: TransJordan, 1933


----------



## P F Tinmore

*RoccoR, you are still ducking my question.*



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I don't think there is any "deflection" here at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy deflection, Batman!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For the greater part of understanding, the 1949 Armistice Lines represented the adjusted FEBA agreed upon by the warring parties.  On one side of the line, Israel established a form of jurisdiction under international
> law which became a territory of full and unchallengeable governmental power.  We refer to this as "sovereign territory."  It is not about the "Armistice Lines" but rather about the territory under full and unchallengeable governmental power.   The Sovereign territory is characterized by the power of law-making unrestricted by other external powers _(the idea expressed in the UN Charter that its members will not interfere with the domestic jurisdiction of any state)_.  This is key.  It is not about who draws a line on a map.  It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Sfard → a lawyer and political activist specializing in international human rights law and the laws of war. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The policies that evolved over decades—a creeping process of _de facto_ annexation—stopped short of a wholesale application of Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories; the legal and political distinctions between the West Bank and Israel were preserved.
> SOURCE:  New York Book Review • Israel and Annexation by Lawfare • 2018 •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------​*This is what most people have difficulty with: *
> When we talk about "borders" or _(as the treaties say "permanent international boundaries")_ what we are saying in a short form is a demarcation where (1) on one side is one law _(Israeli Domestic Law)_, and (2) a different law on the other side _(Occupation Law, Egyptian Law, Jordanian Law, Lebanese Law, as examples)_.
> ---------------------------------------------------------​Now, this is legal tanglefoot → and a complaint often vocalized by the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement; the complaint there is "apartheid."  What would the impact be if → Israeli Lawmakers gave in to the Arab Palestinian complaint and → extended Israel domestic the territories → everyone under one law _(the same Israeli domestic law)_ with all the same Israeli protections for everyone?  *IF* all Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were given all the same rights, privileges, and protections as ordinary Israeli Citizens → *THEN* how could you tell the difference between one side of the demarcation from the other side?  The answer is, you can't.  Both sides look the same.  Both sides would essentially be _de jure_ Israel _(rightful entitlement)_.  This is the Article 25 • CCPR  Dilemma, one which presents an interesting problem.
> 
> This is generally more complex for most people because of the problems of a pre-determined loyalty to one side or the other.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in all of this smoke is the answer to my simple question?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *RoccoR, you are still ducking my question.*
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I don't think there is any "deflection" here at all.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy deflection, Batman!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, the Green Line (which do not exist anymore) are, by definition, not borders. All borders are demarcation lines, but all demarcation lines are not borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For the greater part of understanding, the 1949 Armistice Lines represented the adjusted FEBA agreed upon by the warring parties.  On one side of the line, Israel established a form of jurisdiction under international
> law which became a territory of full and unchallengeable governmental power.  We refer to this as "sovereign territory."  It is not about the "Armistice Lines" but rather about the territory under full and unchallengeable governmental power.   The Sovereign territory is characterized by the power of law-making unrestricted by other external powers _(the idea expressed in the UN Charter that its members will not interfere with the domestic jurisdiction of any state)_.  This is key.  It is not about who draws a line on a map.  It is about which country has the power to make and enforce domestic laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Sfard → a lawyer and political activist specializing in international human rights law and the laws of war. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The policies that evolved over decades—a creeping process of _de facto_ annexation—stopped short of a wholesale application of Israel’s sovereignty over the Occupied Territories; the legal and political distinctions between the West Bank and Israel were preserved.
> SOURCE:  New York Book Review • Israel and Annexation by Lawfare • 2018 •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------​*This is what most people have difficulty with: *
> When we talk about "borders" or _(as the treaties say "permanent international boundaries")_ what we are saying in a short form is a demarcation where (1) on one side is one law _(Israeli Domestic Law)_, and (2) a different law on the other side _(Occupation Law, Egyptian Law, Jordanian Law, Lebanese Law, as examples)_.
> ---------------------------------------------------------​Now, this is legal tanglefoot → and a complaint often vocalized by the pro-Arab Palestinian Movement; the complaint there is "apartheid."  What would the impact be if → Israeli Lawmakers gave in to the Arab Palestinian complaint and → extended Israel domestic the territories → everyone under one law _(the same Israeli domestic law)_ with all the same Israeli protections for everyone?  *IF* all Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip were given all the same rights, privileges, and protections as ordinary Israeli Citizens → *THEN* how could you tell the difference between one side of the demarcation from the other side?  The answer is, you can't.  Both sides look the same.  Both sides would essentially be _de jure_ Israel _(rightful entitlement)_.  This is the Article 25 • CCPR  Dilemma, one which presents an interesting problem.
> 
> This is generally more complex for most people because of the problems of a pre-determined loyalty to one side or the other.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in all of this smoke is the answer to my simple question?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

For the 100th time -

*Because Israel has not yet liberated all of its land.*


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you might be confusing two issues.

I've provided this to you on several different occasions, and I don't think you grasped the importance.

It is also important to note that there is a set of boundaries the Arab Palestinians want _(wishful thinking)_, and then there is that → which is recognized as the reality (where Israel enforces its sovereignty.  And that reality is reinforced each time people from all over the world pass through Israeli Immigration, Customs and Border Security.



P F Tinmore said:


> *RoccoR, you are still ducking my question.*
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

•  To the West of the Jordan River, the border most often depicted is not the 1949 Armistice Line, but rather the current demarcations by the Israelis. 

•  There are many that simply have never read the Armistice Agreements, so they do not understand the termination.  Nor do they understand the difference between a Demarcation Line and a international boundary.



			
				Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States said:
			
		

> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate *international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
> SOURCE:  A/RES/25/2625  •



•  There are many that use the old Green Line simply because that is the Line used by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD).   The PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people - LAS Rabat Summit - Resolution (28 October 1974).  This continues to be recognized even after the change in Status of Palestine in the United Nations of 4 December 2012.



			
				PLO-NAD Official Site said:
			
		

> The 1967 border, *which is defined as the 1949 Armistice Line* along with all legal modification thereto up to June 4th 1967,  is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine. A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967. The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the occupied State of Palestine, including East Jerusalem.
> SOURCE:  PLO-NAD • Borders •



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, you might be confusing two issues.
> 
> I've provided this to you on several different occasions, and I don't think you grasped the importance.
> 
> It is also important to note that there is a set of boundaries the Arab Palestinians want _(wishful thinking)_, and then there is that → which is recognized as the reality (where Israel enforces its sovereignty.  And that reality is reinforced each time people from all over the world pass through Israeli Immigration, Customs and Border Security.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RoccoR, you are still ducking my question.*
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why do all maps of Israel use these lines that are specifically not to be borders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> •  To the West of the Jordan River, the border most often depicted is not the 1949 Armistice Line, but rather the current demarcations by the Israelis.
> 
> •  There are many that simply have never read the Armistice Agreements, so they do not understand the termination.  Nor do they understand the difference between a Demarcation Line and a international boundary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate *international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.
> SOURCE:  A/RES/25/2625  •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> •  There are many that use the old Green Line simply because that is the Line used by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) - Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD).   The PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people - LAS Rabat Summit - Resolution (28 October 1974).  This continues to be recognized even after the change in Status of Palestine in the United Nations of 4 December 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLO-NAD Official Site said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1967 border, *which is defined as the 1949 Armistice Line* along with all legal modification thereto up to June 4th 1967,  is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine. A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967. The international community does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over any part of the occupied State of Palestine, including East Jerusalem.
> SOURCE:  PLO-NAD • Borders •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> • To the West of the Jordan River, the border most often depicted is not the 1949 Armistice Line, but rather the current demarcations by the Israelis.


It is still not an international border. It is just a unilaterally imposed line.



RoccoR said:


> • There are many that simply have never read the Armistice Agreements, so they do not understand the termination. Nor do they understand the difference between a Demarcation Line and a international boundary.


An armistice line is not a political or territorial boundary. It is just a line that the Israeli and Jordanian forces are not to cross. Since it is not a border, and it runs through Palestine, it is Palestine on both sides. It is not a border between two countries.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, I just don't know what to say...



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • To the West of the Jordan River, the border most often depicted is not the 1949 Armistice Line, but rather the current demarcations by the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> It is still not an international border. It is just a unilaterally imposed line.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

I have given you the reference for the International Understanding of how to treat an Armistice Line.   While it appears you understand something of what it attempts to convey, you seem to not fully understand its meaning.


			
				Paragraph 2 • Article XII • Israeli - Jordan Armistice Agreement said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				Article 3. International Boundary • Israeli - Jordan Peace Treaty said:
			
		

> 1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan 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 the international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.






P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • There are many that simply have never read the Armistice Agreements, so they do not understand the termination. Nor do they understand the difference between a Demarcation Line and an international boundary.
> 
> 
> 
> An armistice line is not a political or territorial boundary. It is just a line that the Israeli and Jordanian forces are not to cross. Since it is not a border, and it runs through Palestine, it is Palestine on both sides. It is not a border between two countries.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

Yes, well → → → There is not much I can say about what you believe to be true.  And, as is cited in the definition, I did not refer to the Armistice Line as a Boundary or Border.  As is previously cited, supra, both the Armistice and the International Boundaries are the references you should be using.

As far as the International Boundaries concerned, the treaty defines them (Volume 2042).  I fully understand your theory → Palestine on both sides.  That has not been address in that fashion.  The West Bank,  given in the context of those lands that hold the status of → "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" → have been recognized as Areas "A" - "B" and "C" in the Oslo Accords.  And that is what carries the weight of the territorial limits as an agreement: “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; Vienna Convention Law Treaties _(1969 - EIF:1980)._..

In terms of the reality of the day, there is no demarcation line in which the State of Palestine exists on both sides.  Not today, not in the mid-1990s, and not immediately after the 1967 Six-Day War → except as was delineated by the Oslo Accords_ [(Oslo I 1993) Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements] and (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip] _and not altering the Jericho Agreement (1994).

Your theory is just that, some half baked theory that cannot stand the test of reality.




Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OH, I just don't know what to say...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • To the West of the Jordan River, the border most often depicted is not the 1949 Armistice Line, but rather the current demarcations by the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> It is still not an international border. It is just a unilaterally imposed line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have given you the reference for the International Understanding of how to treat an Armistice Line.   While it appears you understand something of what it attempts to convey, you seem to not fully understand its meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> Paragraph 2 • Article XII • Israeli - Jordan Armistice Agreement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 3. International Boundary • Israeli - Jordan Peace Treaty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan 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 the international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • There are many that simply have never read the Armistice Agreements, so they do not understand the termination. Nor do they understand the difference between a Demarcation Line and an international boundary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An armistice line is not a political or territorial boundary. It is just a line that the Israeli and Jordanian forces are not to cross. Since it is not a border, and it runs through Palestine, it is Palestine on both sides. It is not a border between two countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, well → → → There is not much I can say about what you believe to be true.  And, as is cited in the definition, I did not refer to the Armistice Line as a Boundary or Border.  As is previously cited, supra, both the Armistice and the International Boundaries are the references you should be using.
> 
> As far as the International Boundaries concerned, the treaty defines them (Volume 2042).  I fully understand your theory → Palestine on both sides.  That has not been address in that fashion.  The West Bank,  given in the context of those lands that hold the status of → "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" → have been recognized as Areas "A" - "B" and "C" in the Oslo Accords.  And that is what carries the weight of the territorial limits as an agreement: “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; Vienna Convention Law Treaties _(1969 - EIF:1980)._..
> 
> In terms of the reality of the day, there is no demarcation line in which the State of Palestine exists on both sides.  Not today, not in the mid-1990s, and not immediately after the 1967 Six-Day War → except as was delineated by the Oslo Accords_ [(Oslo I 1993) Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements] and (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip] _and not altering the Jericho Agreement (1994).
> 
> Your theory is just that, some half baked theory that cannot stand the test of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
Click to expand...

Oslo was not a border treaty. And besides it is dead.

If a line is drawn through Palestine, that is not a border, it is still Palestine on both sides.

What you are trying to say makes no sense.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OH, I just don't know what to say...
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • To the West of the Jordan River, the border most often depicted is not the 1949 Armistice Line, but rather the current demarcations by the Israelis.
> 
> 
> 
> It is still not an international border. It is just a unilaterally imposed line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have given you the reference for the International Understanding of how to treat an Armistice Line.   While it appears you understand something of what it attempts to convey, you seem to not fully understand its meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> Paragraph 2 • Article XII • Israeli - Jordan Armistice Agreement said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Article 3. International Boundary • Israeli - Jordan Peace Treaty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan 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 the international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> • There are many that simply have never read the Armistice Agreements, so they do not understand the termination. Nor do they understand the difference between a Demarcation Line and an international boundary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An armistice line is not a political or territorial boundary. It is just a line that the Israeli and Jordanian forces are not to cross. Since it is not a border, and it runs through Palestine, it is Palestine on both sides. It is not a border between two countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Yes, well → → → There is not much I can say about what you believe to be true.  And, as is cited in the definition, I did not refer to the Armistice Line as a Boundary or Border.  As is previously cited, supra, both the Armistice and the International Boundaries are the references you should be using.
> 
> As far as the International Boundaries concerned, the treaty defines them (Volume 2042).  I fully understand your theory → Palestine on both sides.  That has not been address in that fashion.  The West Bank,  given in the context of those lands that hold the status of → "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967" → have been recognized as Areas "A" - "B" and "C" in the Oslo Accords.  And that is what carries the weight of the territorial limits as an agreement: “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; Vienna Convention Law Treaties _(1969 - EIF:1980)._..
> 
> In terms of the reality of the day, there is no demarcation line in which the State of Palestine exists on both sides.  Not today, not in the mid-1990s, and not immediately after the 1967 Six-Day War → except as was delineated by the Oslo Accords_ [(Oslo I 1993) Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements] and (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip] _and not altering the Jericho Agreement (1994).
> 
> Your theory is just that, some half baked theory that cannot stand the test of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oslo was not a border treaty. And besides it is dead.
> 
> If a line is drawn through Palestine, that is not a border, it is still Palestine on both sides.
> 
> What you are trying to say makes no sense.
Click to expand...

The Final Borders are Negotiable for when a peace treaty is signed, as it happened with Egypt and Jordan.

Is that clear, now?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> If a line is drawn through Palestine, that is not a border, it is still Palestine on both sides.



Your denial of reality is astonishing.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Shusha,  et al,

Now you've switched to being a comedian again.



P F Tinmore said:


> If a line is drawn through Palestine, that is not a border, it is still Palestine on both sides.


*(COMMENT)*

Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.  You know this.  You also know that your recognition of that border is irrelevant _(The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.)_.  That means that without regard to the opinion of the international community, the Arab League, or any member thereof, the border is there.

Now, what happens when you travel across that border and are required to get a visa, or clearance of some type, and you follow those procedures?  You have just given your recognition to that state _(Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. - The recognition of a state may be express or tacit.)_.   What does that mean?  Well, for one thing,  IF you complain that there is a locked and guarded obstacle _(a "Wall, fencing or another barrier - for instance) _that controls traffic from moving across this barrier, THEN you have just recognized that one-side has different sovereignty over the other side.  Each time you pass through an Immigration, Customs, Border Protection and Security Control Point and process through or are restricted in some manner, you have just given recognition.  IF you get an entry or exit stamp put in your Passport THEN you have given recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Shusha,  et al,
> 
> Now you've switched to being a comedian again.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a line is drawn through Palestine, that is not a border, it is still Palestine on both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.  You know this.  You also know that your recognition of that border is irrelevant _(The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.)_.  That means that without regard to the opinion of the international community, the Arab League, or any member thereof, the border is there.
> 
> Now, what happens when you travel across that border and are required to get a visa, or clearance of some type, and you follow those procedures?  You have just given your recognition to that state _(Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. - The recognition of a state may be express or tacit.)_.   What does that mean?  Well, for one thing,  IF you complain that there is a locked and guarded obstacle _(a "Wall, fencing or another barrier - for instance) _that controls traffic from moving across this barrier, THEN you have just recognized that one-side has different sovereignty over the other side.  Each time you pass through an Immigration, Customs, Border Protection and Security Control Point and process through or are restricted in some manner, you have just given recognition.  IF you get an entry or exit stamp put in your Passport THEN you have given recognition.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.



2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​
So, how can this define two different entities? You make no sense.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Shusha,  et al,
> 
> Now you've switched to being a comedian again.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a line is drawn through Palestine, that is not a border, it is still Palestine on both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.  You know this.  You also know that your recognition of that border is irrelevant _(The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.)_.  That means that without regard to the opinion of the international community, the Arab League, or any member thereof, the border is there.
> 
> Now, what happens when you travel across that border and are required to get a visa, or clearance of some type, and you follow those procedures?  You have just given your recognition to that state _(Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable. - The recognition of a state may be express or tacit.)_.   What does that mean?  Well, for one thing,  IF you complain that there is a locked and guarded obstacle _(a "Wall, fencing or another barrier - for instance) _that controls traffic from moving across this barrier, THEN you have just recognized that one-side has different sovereignty over the other side.  Each time you pass through an Immigration, Customs, Border Protection and Security Control Point and process through or are restricted in some manner, you have just given recognition.  IF you get an entry or exit stamp put in your Passport THEN you have given recognition.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​
> So, how can this define two different entities? You make no sense.
Click to expand...


It's all circular logic.
What stops it, or makes it clear is the definition of Palestine in international law, and the legal obligations, which are still in effect unsuppressed by any other law or UN resolution, upon which the separation of that territory was based.

Palestine was not defined as an Arab state.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Shusha,  et al,

Yes, yes.   I've seen this before in a 1949 Armistice Agreement.   There are a couple of things wrong with you using that example.

•  The Armistice Line (a single form of a demarcation Line) was covered by an agreement, not unilateral.

•  The Armistice Line did not have two sovereignties, one on each side of the line.  

◈  In some cases it had a sovereignty on one side, and occupied territory on the other.  
(ex State of Israel on one side and Jordanian Occupied Territory on the other.)​
◈  In some cases it had occupied territory on both sides.

◈  Sometime the territory was actually a FEBA separating tow opponents on trusteeship territory on both sides.​
The term "construed" in this case is essentially saying that the Armistice Line cannot be interpreted in one fashion everywhere. 



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​
> So, how can this define two different entities? You make no sense.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

You might make note that the same language does not appear in the:

•  Israeli-Syrian General Armistice S/1353/Add.2 of 27 July 1949  • 

•  Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (3 April 1949)  •
   Instead, the following language is used.  "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.

•  The Armistice of Mudros ended the Hostilities with the Ottoman Empire in the Great War (WWI).



			
				Turkey in the First World War © Dr Altay Atlı said:
			
		

> The armistice conditions were indeed draconian for the Turks, however a sense of optimism was maintained by the government and the majority of the public. The most important thing was that the war was over, and this gave relief and hope. Upon his delegation’s return to the capital, Rauf Bey claimed that the armistice did not constitute a surrender, Istanbul was not to be occupied, and there were also no political conditions attached. Ahmet İzzet Pasha was satisfied with the “easy armistice” that was concluded, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mehmed Nabi Bey believed that the armistice “would not violate the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and the terms of the armistice are relatively benign.”
> SOURCE:  http://www.turkeyswar.com/aftermath/armistice/ •



•  In the case of the Lebanese and Syrians, the War for Independence in 1948 has never ended.  The separation between Israel and Lebanon is cover by a Letter of Understanding, with the border protected by the UN Force.  The border region of the Golan Heights concluded the territorial dispute with Israel annexing the territory.​
It is important to remember, that id diplomacy and politics, there is no true standard, and no situation covered by a single solution. 

In the last month or so, we have been talking about "sovereignty" and the companion "territorial integrity."  These are real things involving real people and real territory.  The Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot claim something does not exist just because they disagree with it.  And the Arab Palestinian stance cannot be a zero-sum outcome.  Freedom for the Jewish Nation cannot be sacrificed for political expediency --- and --- it is not a case that it can agree to a suicide pact_ (it cannot surrender its sovereignty)_.   No matter how the outside world may view the Arab Palestinians there is one thing that resonates across the entire theater MENA, the Jewish People are periodically ravished by the Governments and cannot take the chance on forfeiting the Jewish National Home.  While the two words → "Home" and "Survival" → do not mean the same thing, in the case of the Jewish National Home and the suvival against a Jihadist and hostile Islamic world backed Arab world is forever linked.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Shusha,  et al,
> 
> Yes, yes.   I've seen this before in a 1949 Armistice Agreement.   There are a couple of things wrong with you using that example.
> 
> •  The Armistice Line (a single form of a demarcation Line) was covered by an agreement, not unilateral.
> 
> •  The Armistice Line did not have two sovereignties, one on each side of the line.
> ◈  In some cases it had a sovereignty on one side, and occupied territory on the other.
> (ex State of Israel on one side and Jordanian Occupied Territory on the other.)​◈  In some cases it had occupied territory on both sides.
> 
> ◈  Sometime the territory was actually a FEBA separating tow opponents on trusteeship territory on both sides.​The term "construed" in this case is essentially saying that the Armistice Line cannot be interpreted in one fashion everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​
> So, how can this define two different entities? You make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You might make note that the same language does not appear in the:
> 
> •  Israeli-Syrian General Armistice S/1353/Add.2 of 27 July 1949  •
> 
> •  Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (3 April 1949)  •
> Instead, the following language is used.  "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.
> 
> •  The Armistice of Mudros ended the Hostilities with the Ottoman Empire in the Great War (WWI).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey in the First World War © Dr Altay Atlı said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice conditions were indeed draconian for the Turks, however a sense of optimism was maintained by the government and the majority of the public. The most important thing was that the war was over, and this gave relief and hope. Upon his delegation’s return to the capital, Rauf Bey claimed that the armistice did not constitute a surrender, Istanbul was not to be occupied, and there were also no political conditions attached. Ahmet İzzet Pasha was satisfied with the “easy armistice” that was concluded, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mehmed Nabi Bey believed that the armistice “would not violate the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and the terms of the armistice are relatively benign.”
> SOURCE:  http://www.turkeyswar.com/aftermath/armistice/ •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> •  In the case of the Lebanese and Syrians, the War for Independence in 1948 has never ended.  The separation between Israel and Lebanon is cover by a Letter of Understanding, with the border protected by the UN Force.  The border region of the Golan Heights concluded the territorial dispute with Israel annexing the territory.​
> It is important to remember, that id diplomacy and politics, there is no true standard, and no situation covered by a single solution.
> 
> In the last month or so, we have been talking about "sovereignty" and the companion "territorial integrity."  These are real things involving real people and real territory.  The Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot claim something does not exist just because they disagree with it.  And the Arab Palestinian stance cannot be a zero-sum outcome.  Freedom for the Jewish Nation cannot be sacrificed for political expediency --- and --- it is not a case that it can agree to a suicide pact_ (it cannot surrender its sovereignty)_.   No matter how the outside world may view the Arab Palestinians there is one thing that resonates across the entire theater MENA, the Jewish People are periodically ravished by the Governments and cannot take the chance on forfeiting the Jewish National Home.  While the two words → "Home" and "Survival" → do not mean the same thing, in the case of the Jewish National Home and the suvival against a Jihadist and hostile Islamic world backed Arab world is forever linked.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.

UN resolutions mention the rights of *Palestinians in Palestine* including the right to territorial integrity.  I have not seen anything like that for Israel.

I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.

I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.

I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Shusha,  et al,
> 
> Yes, yes.   I've seen this before in a 1949 Armistice Agreement.   There are a couple of things wrong with you using that example.
> 
> •  The Armistice Line (a single form of a demarcation Line) was covered by an agreement, not unilateral.
> 
> •  The Armistice Line did not have two sovereignties, one on each side of the line.
> ◈  In some cases it had a sovereignty on one side, and occupied territory on the other.
> (ex State of Israel on one side and Jordanian Occupied Territory on the other.)​◈  In some cases it had occupied territory on both sides.
> 
> ◈  Sometime the territory was actually a FEBA separating tow opponents on trusteeship territory on both sides.​The term "construed" in this case is essentially saying that the Armistice Line cannot be interpreted in one fashion everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​
> So, how can this define two different entities? You make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You might make note that the same language does not appear in the:
> 
> •  Israeli-Syrian General Armistice S/1353/Add.2 of 27 July 1949  •
> 
> •  Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (3 April 1949)  •
> Instead, the following language is used.  "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.
> 
> •  The Armistice of Mudros ended the Hostilities with the Ottoman Empire in the Great War (WWI).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey in the First World War © Dr Altay Atlı said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice conditions were indeed draconian for the Turks, however a sense of optimism was maintained by the government and the majority of the public. The most important thing was that the war was over, and this gave relief and hope. Upon his delegation’s return to the capital, Rauf Bey claimed that the armistice did not constitute a surrender, Istanbul was not to be occupied, and there were also no political conditions attached. Ahmet İzzet Pasha was satisfied with the “easy armistice” that was concluded, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mehmed Nabi Bey believed that the armistice “would not violate the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and the terms of the armistice are relatively benign.”
> SOURCE:  http://www.turkeyswar.com/aftermath/armistice/ •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> •  In the case of the Lebanese and Syrians, the War for Independence in 1948 has never ended.  The separation between Israel and Lebanon is cover by a Letter of Understanding, with the border protected by the UN Force.  The border region of the Golan Heights concluded the territorial dispute with Israel annexing the territory.​
> It is important to remember, that id diplomacy and politics, there is no true standard, and no situation covered by a single solution.
> 
> In the last month or so, we have been talking about "sovereignty" and the companion "territorial integrity."  These are real things involving real people and real territory.  The Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot claim something does not exist just because they disagree with it.  And the Arab Palestinian stance cannot be a zero-sum outcome.  Freedom for the Jewish Nation cannot be sacrificed for political expediency --- and --- it is not a case that it can agree to a suicide pact_ (it cannot surrender its sovereignty)_.   No matter how the outside world may view the Arab Palestinians there is one thing that resonates across the entire theater MENA, the Jewish People are periodically ravished by the Governments and cannot take the chance on forfeiting the Jewish National Home.  While the two words → "Home" and "Survival" → do not mean the same thing, in the case of the Jewish National Home and the suvival against a Jihadist and hostile Islamic world backed Arab world is forever linked.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.
> 
> UN resolutions mention the rights of *Palestinians in Palestine* including the right to territorial integrity.  I have not seen anything like that for Israel.
> 
> I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.
> 
> I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.
> 
> I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.
Click to expand...


Were you not paying attention the last dozen times the above was addressed for you?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, Shusha,  et al,
> 
> Yes, yes.   I've seen this before in a 1949 Armistice Agreement.   There are a couple of things wrong with you using that example.
> 
> •  The Armistice Line (a single form of a demarcation Line) was covered by an agreement, not unilateral.
> 
> •  The Armistice Line did not have two sovereignties, one on each side of the line.
> ◈  In some cases it had a sovereignty on one side, and occupied territory on the other.
> (ex State of Israel on one side and Jordanian Occupied Territory on the other.)​◈  In some cases it had occupied territory on both sides.
> 
> ◈  Sometime the territory was actually a FEBA separating tow opponents on trusteeship territory on both sides.​The term "construed" in this case is essentially saying that the Armistice Line cannot be interpreted in one fashion everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you draw a demarcation line through a territory in which the sovereignty of one side is different from the other side, that becomes a border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,
> 
> The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949​
> So, how can this define two different entities? You make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> You might make note that the same language does not appear in the:
> 
> •  Israeli-Syrian General Armistice S/1353/Add.2 of 27 July 1949  •
> 
> •  Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement (3 April 1949)  •
> Instead, the following language is used.  "The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.
> 
> •  The Armistice of Mudros ended the Hostilities with the Ottoman Empire in the Great War (WWI).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey in the First World War © Dr Altay Atlı said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The armistice conditions were indeed draconian for the Turks, however a sense of optimism was maintained by the government and the majority of the public. The most important thing was that the war was over, and this gave relief and hope. Upon his delegation’s return to the capital, Rauf Bey claimed that the armistice did not constitute a surrender, Istanbul was not to be occupied, and there were also no political conditions attached. Ahmet İzzet Pasha was satisfied with the “easy armistice” that was concluded, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mehmed Nabi Bey believed that the armistice “would not violate the sovereign rights of the Ottoman Empire and the terms of the armistice are relatively benign.”
> SOURCE:  http://www.turkeyswar.com/aftermath/armistice/ •
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> •  In the case of the Lebanese and Syrians, the War for Independence in 1948 has never ended.  The separation between Israel and Lebanon is cover by a Letter of Understanding, with the border protected by the UN Force.  The border region of the Golan Heights concluded the territorial dispute with Israel annexing the territory.​
> It is important to remember, that id diplomacy and politics, there is no true standard, and no situation covered by a single solution.
> 
> In the last month or so, we have been talking about "sovereignty" and the companion "territorial integrity."  These are real things involving real people and real territory.  The Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot claim something does not exist just because they disagree with it.  And the Arab Palestinian stance cannot be a zero-sum outcome.  Freedom for the Jewish Nation cannot be sacrificed for political expediency --- and --- it is not a case that it can agree to a suicide pact_ (it cannot surrender its sovereignty)_.   No matter how the outside world may view the Arab Palestinians there is one thing that resonates across the entire theater MENA, the Jewish People are periodically ravished by the Governments and cannot take the chance on forfeiting the Jewish National Home.  While the two words → "Home" and "Survival" → do not mean the same thing, in the case of the Jewish National Home and the suvival against a Jihadist and hostile Islamic world backed Arab world is forever linked.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.
> 
> UN resolutions mention the rights of *Palestinians in Palestine* including the right to territorial integrity.  I have not seen anything like that for Israel.
> 
> I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.
> 
> I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.
> 
> I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.
Click to expand...


The Jewish nation was specifically mentioned, Israel is the representative of the Jewish nation.
Sovereignty was not vested with any other nation, not legally at least.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.
> 
> UN resolutions mention the rights of *Palestinians in Palestine* including the right to territorial integrity.  I have not seen anything like that for Israel.
> 
> I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.
> 
> I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.
> 
> I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.



You have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?

The Armistice Agreement is titled _*The Israel Jordan Armistice Agreement* _and is signed:

_For and on behalf of the *Government of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom *Signed: Colonel Ahmed Sudki El-Jundi Lieutenant-Colonel Mohamed Maayte 

For and on behalf of the *Government of Israel *Signed: Reuven Shiloah Lieutenant-Colonel Moshe Dayan_

The Parties to the agreement are Jordan and Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.
> 
> UN resolutions mention the rights of *Palestinians in Palestine* including the right to territorial integrity.  I have not seen anything like that for Israel.
> 
> I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.
> 
> I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.
> 
> I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?
> 
> The Armistice Agreement is titled _*The Israel Jordan Armistice Agreement* _and is signed:
> 
> _For and on behalf of the *Government of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom *Signed: Colonel Ahmed Sudki El-Jundi Lieutenant-Colonel Mohamed Maayte
> 
> For and on behalf of the *Government of Israel *Signed: Reuven Shiloah Lieutenant-Colonel Moshe Dayan_
> 
> The Parties to the agreement are Jordan and Israel.
Click to expand...

You danced around all of the issues, as usual.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.
> 
> UN resolutions mention the rights of *Palestinians in Palestine* including the right to territorial integrity.  I have not seen anything like that for Israel.
> 
> I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.
> 
> I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.
> 
> I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea how ridiculous you sound, do you?
> 
> The Armistice Agreement is titled _*The Israel Jordan Armistice Agreement* _and is signed:
> 
> _For and on behalf of the *Government of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom *Signed: Colonel Ahmed Sudki El-Jundi Lieutenant-Colonel Mohamed Maayte
> 
> For and on behalf of the *Government of Israel *Signed: Reuven Shiloah Lieutenant-Colonel Moshe Dayan_
> 
> The Parties to the agreement are Jordan and Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You danced around all of the issues, as usual.
Click to expand...


On the contrary. I'm arguing once again that the only players in Palestine right up until about 1988 were the existing States.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

The Armistice Lines were not about international borders or territorial integrity.  It is not even a game of Who's → Who.  

◈  Armistice Demarcation Line (ADL) — _A geographically defined line from which
 disputing or belligerent forces disengage and withdraw to their respective sides
 following a truce or cease-fire agreement._​


P F Tinmore said:


> In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.
> 
> UN resolutions mention the rights of *Palestinians in Palestine* including the right to territorial integrity.  I have not seen anything like that for Israel.
> 
> I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.
> 
> I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.
> 
> I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.


*(COMMENT)*

The Armistice Lines were about ending the hostilities by cease-fire.  There were only four Armistice Agreements because there were only five parties involved _(Israel on one side and the four Arab Countries on the other)_.  IF there was another unforeseen party to the conflict _(like the Romulans, Klingons, or Terran Rebellions as an example)_ THEN the cease-fire would not have been achieved.  There would have been still → been someone fighting.  But there was not.

There was no surrender by any of the others _(like the Romulans, Klingons, Terran Rebellions or Palestinians) _to the conflict because there were no other independent warring parties; of a Palestinian character.  

◈  On the matter of "legally Acquired Territory," what is that.  What form does the Palestinian Title take?  *(Rhetorical)*

◈  The Chinese took Tibet and large sections of the South China Sea.  Did anyone bother to ask for those deeds? *(Rhetorical)*

◈  Russia took the Crimea.  I wonder where there deed is?  *(Rhetorical)*​
Or, for that matter, where did the Palestinians ever get the idea that any portion of the Article 16 Territory?  They are not mentioned once even in the Treaty of Lausanne.


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The Armistice Lines were not about international borders or territorial integrity.  It is not even a game of Who's → Who.
> 
> ◈  Armistice Demarcation Line (ADL) — _A geographically defined line from which
> disputing or belligerent forces disengage and withdraw to their respective sides
> following a truce or cease-fire agreement._​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1949 UN Armistice Agreements: Palestine was mentioned many times. A place called Israel was not mentioned. Palestine's international borders were mentioned. There were no borders mentioned for Israel. The territory inside Palestine's borders was called Palestine. There was no territory mentioned for Israel.
> 
> UN resolutions mention the rights of *Palestinians in Palestine* including the right to territorial integrity.  I have not seen anything like that for Israel.
> 
> I have seen nothing where the Palestinians have surrendered, ceded territory, or altered their borders.
> 
> I have seen nothing where Israel has legally acquired any territory.
> 
> I know you like to post a lot of stuff but you dance around these issues.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Armistice Lines were about ending the hostilities by cease-fire.  There were only four Armistice Agreements because there were only five parties involved _(Israel on one side and the four Arab Countries on the other)_.  IF there was another unforeseen party to the conflict _(like the Romulans, Klingons, or Terran Rebellions as an example)_ THEN the cease-fire would not have been achieved.  There would have been still → been someone fighting.  But there was not.
> 
> There was no surrender by any of the others _(like the Romulans, Klingons, Terran Rebellions or Palestinians) _to the conflict because there were no other independent warring parties; of a Palestinian character.
> 
> ◈  On the matter of "legally Acquired Territory," what is that.  What form does the Palestinian Title take?  *(Rhetorical)*
> 
> ◈  The Chinese took Tibet and large sections of the South China Sea.  Did anyone bother to ask for those deeds? *(Rhetorical)*
> 
> ◈  Russia took the Crimea.  I wonder where there deed is?  *(Rhetorical)*​
> Or, for that matter, where did the Palestinians ever get the idea that any portion of the Article 16 Territory?  They are not mentioned once even in the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Planning the terror that created Israel*

International Socialist Review


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Planning the terror that created Israel*
> 
> International Socialist Review



That’s no more reliable than your goofy PressTV YouTube videos.


----------



## Sixties Fan

I am reading an academic paper named "Making Jerusalem the centre of the Muslim World: Pan-Islam and the World Islamic congress of 1931." by N. E. Roberts.

It shows, as we have mentioned before, that Jerusalem was never an important part of Islamic thinking until the 1920s with the rise of the infamous antisemite (and later Nazi collaborator) Hajj Amin Husayni as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

------------------
As the paper details, the Mufti immediately started fundraising to repair the Dome- in order to protect it and Jerusalem from being taken over by the Jews. (The paer says "Zionists" but the Mufti was not shy about his antisemitism.)

The entire reason the Dome of the Rock is so ubiquitous in Palestinian political life today is because the British thought they would get goodwill from the Arabs of Palestine if they helped repair the long-ignored site. Instead, it was used to fuel antisemitism and create Palestinian nationalism - which were, and remain, joined at the hip.

This is an early example of something we have seen over and over: Westerners think that when they do something magnanimous for the Arabs, the Arabs would reciprocate with goodwill and cooperation - and the results are  the exact opposite.

One cannot downplay how many people have been killed in the century since this decision by the Jewish Herbert Samuel and the British Empire.

(full article online)

The British inadvertently helped Jerusalem become central to Islamic thinking in the 1920s ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Yeah, you certainly like this term "bantustan." It implies an example of "apartheid" administration.


Understanding bantustans and apartheid.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you certainly like this term "bantustan." It implies an example of "apartheid" administration.
> 
> 
> 
> Understanding bantustans and apartheid.
Click to expand...


Cross posting the same discredited YouTube videos through multiple threads is really desperate.


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Jews at American University of Beirut 1925-1948 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Muslims of 1845 explain why the existence of Israel is such a source of shame today ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

From Zion to San Remo and Beyond


----------



## Sixties Fan

Document showing America’s official recognition of Israel in May 1948 up for sale


----------



## Sixties Fan

June 1939: 8 German Jews attempt suicide after no country accepts them for asylum ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

The mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, meets with Adolf Hitler in 1941. Photo: German Federal Archives via Wikimedia Commons.


The Arab Chapter of the Holocaust


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Walid Khalidi: The reconquista of Mandatory Palestine under British aegis*

**


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> *Walid Khalidi: The reconquista of Mandatory Palestine under British aegis*
> 
> **



Another bag of falsehoods.

Wonder why these pseudo historians never mention the 77% of Mandatory Palestine that were partitioned to an Arab state, never mention the Arab pogroms predating Zionism, and always start the story at the late stage of the conflict?

It's not even selective vision, but a clear purposeful deceit to excuse the demand for complete Arab Muslim domination over the entire middle east.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Rare photo collection from Israel's War of Independence up for auction


----------



## Sixties Fan

To whom does the land of Israel belong? Ask Robert F. Kennedy


----------



## Smith Naoki

We should not fight for enemy's death, ethnic relationship, border of nations, and current nations.
We must forgive, if you are forgiven and live. 
We are to be forgiven by the authority of the God.
So, Your forgiveness is God's order.

Human was created as animal, then got knowledge of good and evil. 
The knowledge of good and evil is against animal intention.
Human body is animal's one. This is sin.
So, animal's body shall be eliminated by the Law. 
By this sin, human must die.

So, Christ, the king of Israel, the lord of Abraham and David, eliminates all the animal body.
All the world shall be changed, including relationship of blood, border of nations, and current nations.

Christ died for his enemy, to give forgiveness and new life as only heir of the God's authority.
The desire of the God is Christ's love for and from us.
We must forgive our enemy even if it costs our current life.

Without the forgiveness and the elimination of animal body and everything with it, human cannot be allowed to exist in the world, 
because human cannot overcome the animal body without death.
This human being's existence proves the Christ's existence as the purpose of the human existence.


----------



## Sixties Fan

In Arabi21, an Arab writer Zahrat Khadaraj writes about how Israel has supposedly destroyed hundreds of mosques.

The article centers on the Hassan Bek (or Bey) Mosque in Jaffa. But she doesn't expand on its use as a place of prayer. She concentrates on how it was a military site!

We already knew that the minaret of the mosque was used to shoot Jews in 1947, forcing the Yemenite Jews to become the first refugees of the war - before the Partition plan.

The minaret was used in 1948 as a sniper position as well, documented in the Palestine Post and confirmed by Khadaraj:

(full article online)

Arab writer brags that minaret of Hassan Bey mosque in Jaffa was used to shoot Jews ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

In light of the revisionist history going around from Rashida Tlaib and others, including Professor Rashid Khalidi who said that Arabs were largely against the Nazis, I looked up some contemporaneous articles about Nazis in Palestine.

(full article online)

Some examples of Palestinian Arab collaboration with Nazis beyond the Mufti ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

1948 battlefield love story unfolds in forgotten letters recovered by their son


----------



## member

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> 
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> I was only using these as examples. Palestine was a functioning society. They had districts centered around population centers and local governments. The only thing they needed were some national institutions, *like a post office,* for example. Britain had its occu...er...ahh...Mandate for thirty years and created nothing. The Palestinians would have been better off without the administrative assistance and advice of the British.
Click to expand...








*"Palestine was a functioning society..."*





...and then islamic terrorists came along and made it *UN*functional - [_what_, they didn't?].


----------



## Sixties Fan

Love of the Land: The British White Paper: 80 Years Later - by Larry Domnitch


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  Sixties Fan, et al,

It has been my opinion that there various "White Papers" and "Official Letters" only serve to further garble the intent and purpose of the "Jewish National Home."



Sixties Fan said:


> Love of the Land: The British White Paper: 80 Years Later - by Larry Domnitch


*(COMMENT)*

I think that the British Leadership of that era was playing a shell game of sorts _(Now you see it, Now you don't!)_.  I think it said whatever the reader thought it to mean.  It is a moot point in history, fore while it was important then, no matter what it was intended to convey, the consequence is a reality today.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Sixties Fan, et al,
> 
> It has been my opinion that there various "White Papers" and "Official Letters" only serve to further garble the intent and purpose of the "Jewish National Home."
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love of the Land: The British White Paper: 80 Years Later - by Larry Domnitch
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think that the British Leadership of that era was playing a shell game of sorts _(Now you see it, Now you don't!)_.  I think it said whatever the reader thought it to mean.  It is a moot point in history, fore while it was important then, no matter what it was intended to convey, the consequence is a reality today.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

It seems that Britain had a slightly different interpretation than the people in Palestine.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Sixties Fan, et al,
> 
> It has been my opinion that there various "White Papers" and "Official Letters" only serve to further garble the intent and purpose of the "Jewish National Home."
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love of the Land: The British White Paper: 80 Years Later - by Larry Domnitch
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think that the British Leadership of that era was playing a shell game of sorts _(Now you see it, Now you don't!)_.  I think it said whatever the reader thought it to mean.  It is a moot point in history, fore while it was important then, no matter what it was intended to convey, the consequence is a reality today.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems that Britain had a slightly different interpretation than the people in Palestine.
Click to expand...


Different people in Palestine had different interpretations to the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate.
The society was very divided and unstable, fractions and tribes at constant territorial conflicts.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Sixties Fan, et al,
> 
> It has been my opinion that there various "White Papers" and "Official Letters" only serve to further garble the intent and purpose of the "Jewish National Home."
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love of the Land: The British White Paper: 80 Years Later - by Larry Domnitch
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think that the British Leadership of that era was playing a shell game of sorts _(Now you see it, Now you don't!)_.  I think it said whatever the reader thought it to mean.  It is a moot point in history, fore while it was important then, no matter what it was intended to convey, the consequence is a reality today.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems that Britain had a slightly different interpretation than the people in Palestine.
Click to expand...


By “people in Palestine” I assume you mean the Arab-Moslem people. I have to believe that portion of the population wanted a position of privilege and rights not extended to the non Arab-Moslem population. That is common in Islamic majority areas and we have to remember that the immediate prior history of the area was one where dhimmitude was imposed on the minority non-Islamic population.


----------



## Sixties Fan

I found a video 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini meeting with Hitler in 1941 and doing the Nazi salute.

(full article online)

Video footage shows Jerusalem Grand Mufti doing Nazi salute with Hitler


----------



## Sixties Fan

The 1948 entry is wrong. Palestinian Arabs started attacking Jews way before May 1948 - they started within hours of the partition plan vote in 1947. They killed scores of civilians before Zionist forces started defending themselves.

But the astonishing thing about this history is what is missing. Even though it is a history of the UN involvement in the issue, it doesn't mention the UN accepting Israel as a state in 1949. The 1956 war is ignored completely, as are the fedayeen attacks on Israel from its inception through 1967. The threats of Arab nations against Israel - ignored. The actual 1967 and 1973 wars are essentially ignored. The formation of Fatah and PLO and other terror groups - ignored. Black September - ignored. Palestinian airline hijackings in the 1960s and 1970s - ignored.

(full article online)

The UN's false Palestinian history (part 3) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

Arab/Muslim Immigration to the Holy Land (American Zionism) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Empire Files: How Palestine Became Colonized*

**


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Empire Files: How Palestine Became Colonized*
> 
> **



A good thing that the video addressed the islamic colonization of the area, the imposition of islamic fascism and imposition of dhimmitude imposed on the non-islamist population.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Mazin Qumsiyeh speaks about Popular Resistance in Palestine*

**


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Mazin Qumsiyeh speaks about Popular Resistance in Palestine*



It was interesting to note that Mr. Gee-had addressed the "popular resistance graduated pay scale" offered by Hamas providing payments for injuries received at the border riots. 

Mr. Gee-had appeared critical of the popular riots as nothing more than Hamas exploiting the vacant minded Arabs-Moslems. 

Was that your impression, also?


----------



## Sixties Fan

A lesson from 1923: How Western supporters of Palestinian Arabs hurt peace ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> A lesson from 1923: How Western supporters of Palestinian Arabs hurt peace ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


Another Israeli propaganda site. 

You have no clue why they turned it down.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

*Rachel Busbridge on Israel-Palestine and the Settler Colonial ‘Turn’*

**
Recent years have witnessed the consolidation of settler colonial studies as its own field of scholarly inquiry. Centrally grounded on Patrick Wolfe’s (1999) highly influential account of settler colonialism, which leverages from the premise that in settler societies ‘invasion is a structure, not an event’, settler colonial studies conceives of settler colonialism as a ‘global and transnational phenomenon’ that is ‘as much a thing of the past as a thing of the present’ (Cavanagh and Veracini, 2013: 1). *According to the framework, the key distinction between colonialism and settler colonialism is that the former is organized around a logic of exploitation while the latter is characterized by a logic of elimination. *In contrast to the colonizer who seeks the labour of the colonized, the settler colonizer instead seeks their land, with the elimination of the native part and parcel of the settler’s attempt to replace them.

This turn, the article suggests, cannot be read outside of the growing internationalization of the Palestinian cause, by which I mean the slow but steady overturning of the default sympathy traditionally granted to Israel in favour of an increasing identification with the Palestinians. The burgeoning popularity of the settler colonial paradigm is both reflective of and instrumental in this shift, which has seen the Palestinian struggle gain an unprecedented legitimacy in progressive circles, especially in the West.

*SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals*

**


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> According to the framework, the key distinction between colonialism and settler colonialism is that the former is organized around a logic of exploitation while the latter is characterized by a logic of elimination. In contrast to the colonizer who seeks the labour of the colonized, the settler colonizer instead seeks their land, with the elimination of the native part and parcel of the settler’s attempt to replace them.



Wow, Tinmore, you posted something I agree with!  Sadly, you are approaching it from the wrong side.  

When the world begins to accept such ridiculousness as "JC was a Palestinian", you can see just how completely the Arabs have replaced the native, indigenous Jews through settler colonialism following invasion and conquest.  The Arab Palestinians erase Jewish culture and history, claim Jewish monuments and shrines, stories, patriarchs, and build a false narrative of a history that goes back thousands of years and coloring it as all "Palestinian".  

Arab Palestinians have successfully settler colonized the ancient Jewish homeland.  They need to recognize this as the elimination and replacement of the Jewish people.  And correct their actions immediately by welcoming the Jewish people home.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, _et al_,

I have to remember the key motivation directly behind the Dr Pappe's presentation:  Money _(Personal Income)_  It's all about book sales, the speaking circuit, and pleasing the audience.


P F Tinmore said:


> Dr Ilan Pappe Speech


*(COMMENT)*

Every now and then, Dr Ilan Pappe throws in the term "reality."  And then he goes on to create an artificial reality in which some pro-Palestinians would like to see as valid; and one in which appeals to the audience.  _(BTW:  Dr Pappe is not the only one to do this.  Dr Naom Chomsky also does this.)_

Dr Pappe (as well as Dr Chomsky) tend to talk as if the situation in the Middle East just emerged and that the empires of the world can just blow a whistle, the action stops and the players return to their starting position _(retrograde motion)_.   And he also talks as if the Intelligence Community and the Ruling Elite are "blind" to the label of "Setter Colonialism."  This is also a false, wishful thinking type, of an artificial construct.
Well, in three more decades, there will be no one alive that will have been a player in the events of 1948; a time in which the Intelligence Community and the Ruling Elite thought along lines _(the artificial construct)_ in an entirely different way.  And all those that truly are the original Arab Palestinian having been actually affected by the events of 1948, will be gone.  Just as we, in America, have witnessed the passing of the last survivor of the Wounded Knee Massacre; we have also seen the passing of the last living witness of Japanese surrender in WWII.   We are near to seeing the last of those that could legitimately claim the "right-of-return" acquired in the 1948-1949 War of Independence. 

The professionals, of which Dr Pappe speaks and which have so much influence over American Policy in this matter, are acutely aware of this reality.  And unspoken here is the fact that to be a citizen of Israel, is to be a constituent of the happiest, more education and technically developed population for more than a thousand miles in any direction.  Israel is the most successful country of any member of the Arab League by a significant margin.  

The reality question_ (before jumping on the bandwagon and pulling the trigger alter it) _would be: 

◈  Do the citizens of the world want to see another sickly Arab State state in the region?  ​OR_*!*_​◈  Do the citizens of the world want to positively contribute to the only no Arab - and - yet the most dynamic and vibrant country in the region, highly successful and thriving especially in terms of its economic well-being.​
Just one man's opinion...

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

My Right Word: Southern Syria, aka "Palestine"


----------



## Sixties Fan

https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/P...de-fought-Nazis-got-Jews-toward-Israel-596363


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> I have to remember the key motivation directly behind the Dr Pappe's presentation:  Money _(Personal Income)_  It's all about book sales, the speaking circuit, and pleasing the audience.
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Ilan Pappe Speech
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Every now and then, Dr Ilan Pappe throws in the term "reality."  And then he goes on to create an artificial reality in which some pro-Palestinians would like to see as valid; and one in which appeals to the audience.  _(BTW:  Dr Pappe is not the only one to do this.  Dr Naom Chomsky also does this.)_
> 
> Dr Pappe (as well as Dr Chomsky) tend to talk as if the situation in the Middle East just emerged and that the empires of the world can just blow a whistle, the action stops and the players return to their starting position _(retrograde motion)_.   And he also talks as if the Intelligence Community and the Ruling Elite are "blind" to the label of "Setter Colonialism."  This is also a false, wishful thinking type, of an artificial construct.
> Well, in three more decades, there will be no one alive that will have been a player in the events of 1948; a time in which the Intelligence Community and the Ruling Elite thought along lines _(the artificial construct)_ in an entirely different way.  And all those that truly are the original Arab Palestinian having been actually affected by the events of 1948, will be gone.  Just as we, in America, have witnessed the passing of the last survivor of the Wounded Knee Massacre; we have also seen the passing of the last living witness of Japanese surrender in WWII.   We are near to seeing the last of those that could legitimately claim the "right-of-return" acquired in the 1948-1949 War of Independence.
> 
> The professionals, of which Dr Pappe speaks and which have so much influence over American Policy in this matter, are acutely aware of this reality.  And unspoken here is the fact that to be a citizen of Israel, is to be a constituent of the happiest, more education and technically developed population for more than a thousand miles in any direction.  Israel is the most successful country of any member of the Arab League by a significant margin.
> 
> The reality question_ (before jumping on the bandwagon and pulling the trigger alter it) _would be:
> 
> ◈  Do the citizens of the world want to see another sickly Arab State state in the region?  ​OR_*!*_​◈  Do the citizens of the world want to positively contribute to the only no Arab - and - yet the most dynamic and vibrant country in the region, highly successful and thriving especially in terms of its economic well-being.​
> Just one man's opinion...
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I was just wondering what Haiti would be like with billions every year.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,

Now that is an interesting question.

While the question is a bit exaggerated _(by a factor of ten or more • there will not be any humans related to our genus in a billion years)_ but I grasp the intent of the question.  So I will answer as if there are no threats from Major Extinction Events (MEEs).


*Mass extinction by meteor may be how the world ends. - qz.com*
The statistical likelihood that asteroids will destroy us all in 10 million years*extinction*-by-meteor-may-be-how-the-world-ends
Jun 23, 2017 · Scientists have spent decades debating whether asteroids and comets hit the Earth at regular intervals. At the same time, a few studies have found evidence that the large extinction events on Earth – such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs *66 million years* ago – repeat themselves every *26 million* to *30 million years*.
*Author:* Sanna Alwmark​


P F Tinmore said:


> I was just wondering what Haiti would be like with billions every year.


*(COMMENT)*

Haiti (10 Million People) Given the health conditions in Haiti and limited population:

Life expectancy at birth:  This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future. Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.  
Total Population: 64.6 years

Male: 61.9 years
Female: 67.2 years (2018 est.)
Country Comparison to the world: 186
There is about 1 Doctor for every 4000 people [0.23 physicians/1,000 population 2018.  Between the Hurricanes and Earthquakes, the Haitians have it bad enough; but then the Health and Sanitation conditions are even a bigger threat.


*Health | Haiti | U.S. Agency for International Development*
https://*www.usaid.gov*/*haiti*/global-*health
*
Aug 16, 2018 · *Haiti* reports some of the world’s worst *health* indicators, which continue to inhibit the country’s development. While *Haiti* has struggled with poor *health* outcomes for generations, the *health* system was further debilitated by the 2010 earthquake, which demolished 50 *health* centers, part of *Haiti*’s primary teaching hospital, and the Ministry of *Health*.​
There is no telling what Haiti will look like in a 100 years.  All it coulkdtake for a near population annihilation is one fast cholera event.  Currently the condition is small scale epidemics.  [Cholera Death Toll Tops 500 in Haiti  (July 21,2019)]  It may be contained today, but that does not mean it is not a reoccuring threat.

It is not a place that you want to visit of invest in.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> Now that is an interesting question.
> 
> While the question is a bit exaggerated _(by a factor of ten or more • there will not be any humans related to our genus in a billion years)_ but I grasp the intent of the question.  So I will answer as if there are no threats from Major Extinction Events (MEEs).
> 
> 
> *Mass extinction by meteor may be how the world ends. - qz.com*
> The statistical likelihood that asteroids will destroy us all in 10 million years*extinction*-by-meteor-may-be-how-the-world-ends
> Jun 23, 2017 · Scientists have spent decades debating whether asteroids and comets hit the Earth at regular intervals. At the same time, a few studies have found evidence that the large extinction events on Earth – such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs *66 million years* ago – repeat themselves every *26 million* to *30 million years*.
> *Author:* Sanna Alwmark​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just wondering what Haiti would be like with billions every year.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Haiti (10 Million People) Given the health conditions in Haiti and limited population:
> Life expectancy at birth:  This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future. Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.
> Total Population: 64.6 years
> 
> Male: 61.9 years
> Female: 67.2 years (2018 est.)
> Country Comparison to the world: 186
> There is about 1 Doctor for every 4000 people [0.23 physicians/1,000 population 2018.  Between the Hurricanes and Earthquakes, the Haitians have it bad enough; but then the Health and Sanitation conditions are even a bigger threat.
> 
> *Health | Haiti | U.S. Agency for International Development*
> https://*www.usaid.gov*/*haiti*/global-*health
> *
> Aug 16, 2018 · *Haiti* reports some of the world’s worst *health* indicators, which continue to inhibit the country’s development. While *Haiti* has struggled with poor *health* outcomes for generations, the *health* system was further debilitated by the 2010 earthquake, which demolished 50 *health* centers, part of *Haiti*’s primary teaching hospital, and the Ministry of *Health*.​
> There is no telling what Haiti will look like in a 100 years.  All it coulkdtake for a near population annihilation is one fast cholera event.  Currently the condition is small scale epidemics.  [Cholera Death Toll Tops 500 in Haiti  (July 21,2019)]  It may be contained today, but that does not mean it is not a reoccuring threat.
> 
> It is not a place that you want to visit of invest in.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

That is under the condition of poverty.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> Now that is an interesting question.
> 
> While the question is a bit exaggerated _(by a factor of ten or more • there will not be any humans related to our genus in a billion years)_ but I grasp the intent of the question.  So I will answer as if there are no threats from Major Extinction Events (MEEs).
> 
> 
> *Mass extinction by meteor may be how the world ends. - qz.com*
> The statistical likelihood that asteroids will destroy us all in 10 million years*extinction*-by-meteor-may-be-how-the-world-ends
> Jun 23, 2017 · Scientists have spent decades debating whether asteroids and comets hit the Earth at regular intervals. At the same time, a few studies have found evidence that the large extinction events on Earth – such as the one that wiped out the dinosaurs *66 million years* ago – repeat themselves every *26 million* to *30 million years*.
> *Author:* Sanna Alwmark​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just wondering what Haiti would be like with billions every year.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Haiti (10 Million People) Given the health conditions in Haiti and limited population:
> Life expectancy at birth:  This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future. Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.
> Total Population: 64.6 years
> 
> Male: 61.9 years
> Female: 67.2 years (2018 est.)
> Country Comparison to the world: 186
> There is about 1 Doctor for every 4000 people [0.23 physicians/1,000 population 2018.  Between the Hurricanes and Earthquakes, the Haitians have it bad enough; but then the Health and Sanitation conditions are even a bigger threat.
> 
> *Health | Haiti | U.S. Agency for International Development*
> https://*www.usaid.gov*/*haiti*/global-*health
> *
> Aug 16, 2018 · *Haiti* reports some of the world’s worst *health* indicators, which continue to inhibit the country’s development. While *Haiti* has struggled with poor *health* outcomes for generations, the *health* system was further debilitated by the 2010 earthquake, which demolished 50 *health* centers, part of *Haiti*’s primary teaching hospital, and the Ministry of *Health*.​
> There is no telling what Haiti will look like in a 100 years.  All it coulkdtake for a near population annihilation is one fast cholera event.  Currently the condition is small scale epidemics.  [Cholera Death Toll Tops 500 in Haiti  (July 21,2019)]  It may be contained today, but that does not mean it is not a reoccuring threat.
> 
> It is not a place that you want to visit of invest in.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is under the condition of poverty.
Click to expand...


What poverty? Hamas is the second richest Islamic terrorist franchise.


----------



## Sixties Fan

In the The Jewish Times, March 26, 1909 Young Turk Dr. Riza Tewfik called himself a Zionist and said, "Palestine belongs to the Jews more than to us Musselmen (Muslims), we came to rule over this land many centuries after you had possessed it."








A Muslim Zionist in 1909 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

Palestinians can't erase the Hebrew on their "historic coins" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

How the Publisher of the “Guardian” Helped Bring About the Balfour Declaration


----------



## Sixties Fan

Remembering the 1929 Hebron Massacre


----------



## Sixties Fan

'We realized that we couldn't trust the British anymore'


----------



## Sixties Fan

Irtah was a small village south of Tulkarem. Jews never lived there. The British never kicked Arabs out of their houses to make way for Jews. If Ahmad and Amni Fakhoury lived there before World War II, they could have stayed after WWII and after 1948 when Jordan annexed it.

They would have become Jordanian citizens. There was no reason for "Palestinian schools" to have been shut down from Israeli or British actions/

It is possible that her family's land was turned into a no-man's zone in 1948, as Irtah is very close to the 1949 armistice lines. It is more likely that with the influx of refugees, resources became harder to come by and her family decided to move elsewhere in the Arab world voluntarily, as Arabs have for centuries.

Or Banks' family has been lying to her about why they left Palestine/Jordan.

Tulkarem grew and now contains Irtah as a neighborhood.

Palestinians were not "killed or imprisoned" for resisting losing their homes on either side of the Green Line.

This story is nothing less than an attempt to inject anti-Israel hate in an otherwise harmless article about meditation.

(full article online)

Palestinians add anti-Israel messages even in Buddhist publications ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

https://www.israelhayom.com/2019/08/07/jews-and-arabs-together-against-the-nazis/


----------



## Sixties Fan

*Today is Sunday, Av 17, 5779 · August 18, 2019*
*Today in Jewish History*
*• Hebron Massacre (1929)
*
Sixty-seven Jewish men, women and children were slaughtered, and scores wounded, raped and maimed, by their Arab neighbors in the city of Hebron, who rioted for three days amid cries of "Slaughter the Jews." The killings began on Friday afternoon, 17 Av, and most of the victims lost their lives on Shabbat, 18 Av. The survivors were forced to evacuate to Jerusalem, and the ancient Jewish community of Hebron, which had lived in relative peace in the city for hundreds of years, was not revived until after Israel's capture of Hebron in the 1967 Six Day war.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> *Today is Sunday, Av 17, 5779 · August 18, 2019*
> *Today in Jewish History*
> *• Hebron Massacre (1929)
> *
> Sixty-seven Jewish men, women and children were slaughtered, and scores wounded, raped and maimed, by their Arab neighbors in the city of Hebron, who rioted for three days amid cries of "Slaughter the Jews." The killings began on Friday afternoon, 17 Av, and most of the victims lost their lives on Shabbat, 18 Av. The survivors were forced to evacuate to Jerusalem, and the ancient Jewish community of Hebron, which had lived in relative peace in the city for hundreds of years, was not revived until after Israel's capture of Hebron in the 1967 Six Day war.


Out of context (misleading) report.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Today is Sunday, Av 17, 5779 · August 18, 2019*
> *Today in Jewish History*
> *• Hebron Massacre (1929)
> *
> Sixty-seven Jewish men, women and children were slaughtered, and scores wounded, raped and maimed, by their Arab neighbors in the city of Hebron, who rioted for three days amid cries of "Slaughter the Jews." The killings began on Friday afternoon, 17 Av, and most of the victims lost their lives on Shabbat, 18 Av. The survivors were forced to evacuate to Jerusalem, and the ancient Jewish community of Hebron, which had lived in relative peace in the city for hundreds of years, was not revived until after Israel's capture of Hebron in the 1967 Six Day war.
> 
> 
> 
> Out of context (misleading) report.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Baltimore News report of 1929 Hebron massacre.


(full article online)

Vile Woman Rejoices in the Massacre of 67 Hebron Jews


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Palestine Bulletin described the events concerning the disturbances around the Kotel in Jerusalem that led to the 1929 pogroms in Hebron and elsewhere.

Here is a summary published on August 20, 1929, of the events so far up until the 19th:

(full article online)

Before the Hebron massacre: The Palestine Bulletin on August 19, 1929 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


>




Listening to some of this, I find it hard to believe she is an actual lawyer.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening to some of this, I find it hard to believe she is an actual lawyer.
Click to expand...

Palestinians have lawyers, judges.  Nazis have lawyers, judges. Communists have judges and lawyers.  Fascists have judges and lawyers.

Many of them become lawyers and judges to influence, to seem to look like they are fighting for a right cause.

Let us not forget how she is an Erakat, how she demonizes Zionism, delegitimizes Israel, cries about the poor Palestinians, without really caring that her leaders, and the clan she seems to come from, are the ones keeping the Arab Palestinians where they are since 1920 with their riots, wars and refugee status for all Palestinians.

She was born in California.  Is she also a refugee, still ?  Or only in her mind?  Or for the purpose of demonizing Israel?

Here is some of what she said in another lecture:

[ Erakat repeated her thesis that Arabs could “help indigenize” Israeli Jews into the Middle East and “rehabilitate that relationship” within a unitary Arab-Muslim-majority Palestinian state. Gravely distorting the nature of the Jewish state and its population, she asserted that “Israel was very much established in order to earn acceptance within Europe” and “so that Jews could become white.” She claimed that David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister, stated, “Israel is part of the Middle Eastern geography only,” which, given the region’s incessant hatred against Israel, was not entirely unreasonable.

“If you are indigenous to this land, shouldn’t you be a part of the Middle East in all ways?,” Erakat asked of Israeli Jews, suggesting the question: Should Israel therefore become a dictatorship or a theocracy? She favored this “one-state solution” over Israel being a “satellite state for Jews all over the world,” even though Zionism’s core is the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish diaspora. She fantasized about the equivalent of a “South African moment, when Nelson Mandela was no longer the president of black South Africans but became the president of South Africa.”

To bolster her anti-Zionism, Erakat appropriated the struggle of Mizrahi Jews — those who hail from the Middle East and North Africa — against what is, in fact, rapidly diminishing discrimination in Israel. She wanted “to cut across the native-settler binary. Instead of it being Palestinians versus Jewish Israelis, why don’t we do it as a racial struggle against .. the racial hierarchy within Israel?” Erakat rejected the terms “Middle Eastern Jews” or “Mizrahim,” claiming they serve “to separate them from the Arab world, so they cannot be both Jewish and Arab.” ]

Noura Erakat Recounts Her ‘Anxiety’ Over Israel’s Existence | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.


Oh, yes......the Jews who lived in Arab conquered lands are "Arabs".

That is one of the latest attempts to separate Mizrahi Jews from the other Jews and turn them against Israel.  "You are Arabs". 

No, Mizrahi Jews were never Arabs, and to this day they continue to not be Arabs.
They never will become Arabs.......from Arabia........as if Arabia was their indigenous land, where they came from. Or like the latest attempt has been to say that the indigenous people of the land of Israel/Canaan were Arabs.

And Israel is NOT an Apartheid country, no matter how many times one may repeat it and how many fools will come to believe it.

Just another revisionist Muslim on the loose.

Any relation to this Erakat?

Saeb Erekat - Wikipedia




Am Israel Chai


----------



## Shusha

Oh she is a hot mess. No question.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Tomorrow marks the 90th anniversary of the murder of 67 Jews by an Arab mob in the city of Hebron. Many of its victims were students of the city’s famed yeshiva, which had been relocated there from Lithuania in 1924. Among them was Aharon Dovid Shainberg, a native of Memphis, Tennessee—one of several American Jews who came there to study. Akiva Males discovered Shainberg’s letters to his family, and has published some excerpts. Signed “Dave,” and addressed to “Dearest Dad,” “Dearest Mother,” or “Dear Folks,” they end on August 20, 1929—just four days before the massacre.

On his visit to the Western Wall, and the British police presence there, Shainberg wrote:
_So think of it! That the holiest & most sacred spot of the Jewish people is controlled by the heartless and brazen Esau! For the few feet remaining of our holy Temple we must regard the English soldiers as the “Baale Battim” [owners or bosses]—Oh! I tell you it is heart rending!_

(full article online)

Remembering the 1929 Hebron Massacre, and a Tennessean Jew Who Was among the Dead


----------



## Sixties Fan

A War of Words--setting the record straight

Nine part must-read series that details the influence of the propaganda arena in the war between the Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews..

The Mufti’s meeting with Hitler in Berlin

Enlisting Arabs for the Nazi Cause

Arab and Jewish contributions to WWII efforts in perspective

The “Great Arab Revolt” failed to materialize

The Jewish contribution to the Allied Cause: World War I and WW II

Fighting the war of words against the Jewish people today.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Arab anti-Zionism runs deeper than disputes over borders, water, and settlements.

In 1929, Arab clerics and politicians provoked riots across Palestine by accusing Jews of plotting to take control of Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque. This month marks the 90th anniversary of those riots — but they are not a bygone. Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaders incite violence today using similar falsehoods and ideology.

The 1929 riots destroyed the Jewish community in Hebron. They persuaded Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion that socialist fraternity among Jewish and Arab workers and peasants would not ensure peace. They impelled Palestine’s Jews to bolster the Haganah, their underground self-defense group. And they vindicated Zionist warnings against relying on foreigners for security.

To investigate the riots, the British government, which controlled Palestine at the time, appointed an inquiry board known as the Shaw Commission.

The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible. In its report, it nonetheless devoted thousands of words to minute details of specific Arab grievances. It plumbed complaints that Jews, on one occasion, brought a chair to Jerusalem’s Western Wall and, on another, set up a screen there to divide male and female worshipers.

(full article online)

Hebron Riots of 1929: Anti-Jewish Terrorism Predates the 1967 War | National Review


----------



## Sixties Fan

Sean Durns noticed this gem in Benny Morris' book 1948:





Someone should ask Bassem Tamimi and Rashid Khalidi about their illustrious family histories of helping Zionists build the land. Their reactions should be videoed.

The next paragraph provides a very nice counterbalance to this one:

(full article online)

The Tamimi, Husseini and Khalidi families helped Zionists before 1948 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

Israel's National Library blog has a very interesting story about the passenger of the Marine Carp USNS:

(full article online)

In 1948, Lebanon kidnapped 69 Jews (including 41 Americans) from a ship en route to Haifa ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore

*UN Forum on the Question of Palestine 18th May 2018*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>



What's the question that befuddles you?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  et al,

This is just an Arab Palestinian Lovefest.  The only thing that is even remotely interesting is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) speaks for "all" the Palestinian people.  The PLO has a  "Political Platform → end the Occupation;"  includes:

◈  State of Palestine
◈  East Jerusalem as its Capitol
◈  Based on 1967 Borders​ 
The PLO Representative said it twice. 



Hollie said:


> What's the question that befuddles you?


*(COMMENT)*

The rest of the discussion is not very important.  The point the PLO Representative about "spread" is advocating a hostility.

.........

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  et al,
> 
> This is just an Arab Palestinian Lovefest.  The only thing that is even remotely interesting is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) speaks for "all" the Palestinian people.  The PLO has a  "Political Platform → end the Occupation;"  includes:
> 
> ◈  State of Palestine
> ◈  East Jerusalem as its Capitol
> ◈  Based on 1967 Borders​
> The PLO Representative said it twice.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the question that befuddles you?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The rest of the discussion is not very important.  The point the PLO Representative about "spread" is advocating a hostility.
> 
> .........View attachment 277452
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I didn't have any expectation that the poster P F Tinmore would respond to a question about the YouTube videos he cuts and pastes, thus, the rhetorical question.

The issue I see with these endless, canned YouTube videos is that the source producing the video is often agenda driven. A YouTube video produced by Press TV, for example, carries with it a lot of predefined conclusions and are utterly predictable. Additionally, and depending on the source of the video, editing and parsing of content undertaken by the producer will alter what the viewer sees such that there is no way to determine what may have been offered as divergent or contrary facts and/or commentary.


----------



## Sixties Fan

90 Years Ago: The Hebron Massacre of 1929


----------



## P F Tinmore

*UN Forum on the Question of Palestine 17 May 2018 AM*

**


----------



## Dan Stubbs

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question was:
> 
> Why would Britain need military forces to render administrative assistance and advice as prescribed in the LoN covenant?​
> How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No military force is necessary at ALL.  Arab Palestinians need to stop using weapons against Israel and Jews and build a state.  Not rocket science.  But they seem to be utterly incapable of doing so.
Click to expand...

*What the Muzzys need is pass a gun control bill and gather up all the Russian gun in the Nation,  Then there will be Peace.  The American Progressives would help I am sure.     LOL *


----------



## P F Tinmore

*UN Forum on the Question of Palestine 17th May 2018*

**


----------



## Sixties Fan

"The Greek Palaistine and the Latin [Rome] Palaestina… appear to refer not to the Land of the Philistines [Pleshet in Hebrew], but to the Land of Israel…. The Philistines [Plishtim in Hebrew] arrived on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean from Greece or Cyprus in approximately the 13th century BCE…. The Israelites’ traditional foes, the Philistines lived in a small area along the Mediterranean coast south of what is today Tel Aviv, an area that embraced the five towns of Gaza [hometown of Delilah], Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath [hometown of Goliath] and Ekron….

“As early as the _Histories of Herodotus_ [the Greek founding father of Western historians] written in the second half of the 5th century BCE, the term Palaistine is used to describe not just the [Philistines’] geographical area, but the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt – in other words, the Land of Israel [including the Judean Hills, referred to by some as the ‘West Bank’]…. Like Herodotus, Aristotle [along with his teacher, Plato, the founding fathers of Western philosophers] gives the strong impression that when he uses the term Palestine, he is referring to the Land of Israel…. In the 2nd century BCE, a Greek writer and historian Polemo of Ilium made a similar link between the people of Israel and Palestine….   

“The early 1st century Roman poet, Ovid, writes of ‘the seventh day feast [the Sabbath] that the Syrians of Palestine [the Hebrews] observe….’ Another Latin poet, Statius, and the writer Dio Chrysostom use ‘Palestine’ and ‘Palestinian’ in the same sense….

“Likewise the early 1st century CE Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, occasionally, uses the name Palestine when referring to the Land of Israel….

“’Palestine’ is the *Greek *equivalent of ‘Israel.’” 

The Greek word ‘Palaistine’ is remarkably similar to the Greek ‘Palaistes’, meaning ‘wrestler’…. The name ‘Israel’ arose from the incident in which Jacob [the Patriarch] wrestled with an angel (Genesis 32-25-27).  Jacob received the name Israel because he wrestled successfully (sarita’ in Hebrew) with the Lord (El in Hebrew)…. 

"The striking similarity between the Greek word for wrestler (palaistes) and the name Palaistine – which share seven letters in a row, including a diphthong – is strong evidence of a connection between them…. The central event of a wrestling contest by the ancestor of this Semitic people against a divine adversary is likely to have made a deep impression on the Greeks [who admired wrestling, which took place in structures called ‘palaestra’]….

“The *Roman* Emperor, Hadrian, officially renamed Judea Syria-Palaestina after his Roman armies suppressed the [Jewish] Bar-Kokhba Revolt in 135 CE. This is commonly viewed as a move intended to sever the connection of the Jews to their historic homeland.  However, that Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus used the name Palestine for the Land of Israel in their Greek works, suggests that this interpretation of history is incorrect.

(full article online)

Clarifying the Palestine Saga


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Arab Liberation Army was set up by the Arab League in late 1947 specifically to fight the Jews in Palestine, before the British Mandate expired. It was staffed with volunteers.

Its first attack inside the boundaries of the Mandate was in January, 1948.

Given that its name was the Arab Liberation Army, one might think that the primary goal of the army was to set up an Arab state in liberated Palestine.

But its logo showed that the purpose was not to build a political entity - but to destroy one.





How much more obvious does it need to be?

Here is an armored vehicle used by the ALA that was captured by the Haganah, which has the logo:






Remember, this is before the State of Israel and its flag. While Zionist did use the Star of David, this representation of the dagger through the Star cannot be interpreted as anything but pure antisemitism.

(full article online)

Pro-Palestine or anti-Israel? The logo of the Arab Liberation Army makes it obvious ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

From Wikipedia Commons:






This was a photo-op protest of women and girls, probably taken out of school for the protest, in Jerusalem.

The sign says "No dialogue and no negotiation - We demand the abolition of the Mandate."

Those "no's" sound exactly like Palestinian Arabs today who also demand to be given everything they demand without negotiations.

"No dialogue and no negotiation" - Palestinian Arab intransigence is the same as it was in 1930 ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

The report also notes that there was an influx of African Muslims to Jerusalem under the British Mandate, and they now consider themselves "Palestinians:"
 Most contemporary members of the African community came to Jerusalem as pilgrims and workers under the British Mandate of Palestine (1917-1948). They came mostly from Senegal, Chad, Nigeria and Sudan. They regard themselves as Palestinian and played an active role in the Intifada. Some of the Africans arrived as part of the Egyptian led 'Salvation Army' which aimed to liberate the Palestinian areas held by Jews in 1948. After the defeat of that army and its retreat to Egypt many Africans returned to their original countries, while others preferred to stay in Palestine.I found a little corroboration that Bedouin in the Negev had slaves as late as the 1925 from this JTA article:

(full article online)

Slavery by Palestinian Arabs continued into the 1950s ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## xyz

Sixties Fan said:


> The report also notes that there was an influx of African Muslims to Jerusalem under the British Mandate, and they now consider themselves "Palestinians:"
> Most contemporary members of the African community came to Jerusalem as pilgrims and workers under the British Mandate of Palestine (1917-1948). They came mostly from Senegal, Chad, Nigeria and Sudan. They regard themselves as Palestinian and played an active role in the Intifada. Some of the Africans arrived as part of the Egyptian led 'Salvation Army' which aimed to liberate the Palestinian areas held by Jews in 1948. After the defeat of that army and its retreat to Egypt many Africans returned to their original countries, while others preferred to stay in Palestine.I found a little corroboration that Bedouin in the Negev had slaves as late as the 1925 from this JTA article:
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Slavery by Palestinian Arabs continued into the 1950s ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


Is that relevant? Religious texts do not say that Jews came from Israel, just that they were chosen to live there. And they were also slaves in Egypt.


----------



## Sixties Fan

All the governmental agencies and offices went from named "Palestine" to being named Israel. The Anglo-Palestine Bank became Bank Leumi. The Palestine Post became the Jerusalem Post. The Palestine Orchestra became the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra. The Palestine Football Association became the Israel Football Association.

Every tourism poster for Palestine before 1948 was made by Zionists.

Before 1948, Arabs in Palestine generally did not want to be known as Palestinians. They were against creating a Palestinian currency or postage stamps.

Everything legally named "Palestine" became Israel. They were dominated by Zionists before 1948 and that continued after 1948.

What people call "Palestine" today has absolutely nothing to do with British Mandate Palestine. It is an entirely new construct. There is no link whatsoever between today's Palestinian Authority or its institutions and those of Palestine before 1948.

Every single time someone claims a Palestinian history by pointing to any official logo, document or newspaper from before 1948 they are lying. All that stuff was either British or Zionist, and the vast majority of those examples became Israeli.

(full article online)

Sure Palestine existed. It became Israel. Today's "Palestine" has NOTHING to do with pre-1948 Palestine. ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Joseph Massad: The core of Zionism is settler-colonialism, not democracy*

**


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *Joseph Massad: The core of Zionism is settler-colonialism, not democracy*
> 
> **



The core of Zionism is self-determination for people in their homeland (the place that is home to them).

You are either for or against the concept of self-determination for peoples in the places they call home. Which is it?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



This is a typical pan-Arab revision of history, that starts from a certain date, before which they never dare to even remotely discuss. This is done for 2 purposes:


Sell the peaceful coexistence lie, and hide the responsibility of the Arab Pogroms in motivating the native Jewish population to organize politically and militarily with the help of the diaspora as a response.
Hide the ruling Arab elite's responsibility in causing chaos by both trying to eat the cake and leave it whole, through an attempt to gain wealth by sale of lands for astronomical prices, while at the same time inciting the population of Arab tenants to revolt and take it back by force. And as a byproduct keep the royal Arab families in power as feudal elites, at times of power restructuring in that specific small region and the Ottoman Caliphate as whole - effectively deflecting all rage and blame at the Jewish population.
Then follows a projection of later British statements that were a result of later Arab pressure, on what was their initial position, regarding their commitment in helping the native Jewish community and that in the diaspora to organize politically for self-determination and eventual independence - change of cause and effect.

Essentially what we have is abuse by typically placing all the blame on the victim, to which the Arab dominating power structure never imagined to ever lose, because of their habit in seeing the native Jewish population as a neglectable 3rd class, convenient passive scapegoats, on whom all pressure of the Arabs could be released, as a result of their inability to actually govern (seen till today), powerlessness in face of constant Bedouin plundering, and total corruption of the Arab feudal elites that were installed by the Ottoman Caliphate.

As I've said before, that region was the most messy, mistreated and neglected of the entire Caliphate.
Blaming that on Jews is merely a symptom of a much deeper problem, which prevented them from effectively organizing politically and ordering their lives, from the times of the Muslim expansion into the region - till this day around much of the Arab world (with rare exceptions).







*Q. What else did they ever do beside blaming the victim?*


----------



## Sixties Fan

..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible. In its report, it nonetheless devoted thousands of words to minute details of specific Arab grievances. It plumbed complaints that Jews, on one occasion, brought a chair to Jerusalem’s Western Wall and, on another, set up a screen there to divide male and female worshipers.

(full article online)

Love of the Land: The Hebron Riots of 1929: Consequences and Lessons - CAMERA Op-Ed


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> ..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible. In its report, it nonetheless devoted thousands of words to minute details of specific Arab grievances. It plumbed complaints that Jews, on one occasion, brought a chair to Jerusalem’s Western Wall and, on another, set up a screen there to divide male and female worshipers.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Love of the Land: The Hebron Riots of 1929: Consequences and Lessons - CAMERA Op-Ed





Sixties Fan said:


> ..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible.


Indeed, the Palestinians were opposed to the Zionist colonization of Palestine.

Same as anyone else in the world.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible. In its report, it nonetheless devoted thousands of words to minute details of specific Arab grievances. It plumbed complaints that Jews, on one occasion, brought a chair to Jerusalem’s Western Wall and, on another, set up a screen there to divide male and female worshipers.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Love of the Land: The Hebron Riots of 1929: Consequences and Lessons - CAMERA Op-Ed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians were opposed to the Zionist colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Same as anyone else in the world.
Click to expand...

Indeed, as colonizers the Arabs-Moslems would be opposed to Jews following the intent of the Mandate.


----------



## Sixties Fan

This editorial from January 1939 shows how the Muslim terrorists used the Temple Mount as a base of operations:








The idea that the Muslim world would be upset at the real desecration of the Al Aqsa Mosque by the Palestinian Arabs of the 1930s was, of course, a fantasy.

(full article online)

When Arabs used the Temple Mount as a base for terror operations ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

Israel’s rights in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria did not originate with Israel’s attaining control of the area following the 1967 Six-Day War. 

Long before, the Balfour Declaration issued by the British government in 1917 acknowledged the indigenous presence and historic aspirations of the Jewish people to reestablish their historic national home in Palestine. While legally the Balfour Declaration, in and of itself, was a unilateral governmental declaration, it received international legal acknowledgement and validity in a series of instruments, commencing with the 1920 San Remo Conference and Declaration by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. San Remo encapsulated the content of the Balfour Declaration into the post-World War I arrangements dividing the former Ottoman Empire. In this way, the Principal Allied Powers finalized the territorial dispositions regarding the Jewish people in respect to Palestine and the Arabs in respect to Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, and Lebanon. 

The San Remo Declaration stated inter alia that:

“The mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] of November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people …”

This was incorporated into Article 95 of the (unratified) Treaty of Sèvres of Aug. 10, 1920, and subsequently in the Preamble and Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922:

 “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.” 

The continued validity of these foundational legal rights encapsulated in the various international instruments predating the establishment of the United Nations was also assured under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter:

“… nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”


(full article online)

Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Israel’s rights in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria did not originate with Israel’s attaining control of the area following the 1967 Six-Day War.
> 
> Long before, the Balfour Declaration issued by the British government in 1917 acknowledged the indigenous presence and historic aspirations of the Jewish people to reestablish their historic national home in Palestine. While legally the Balfour Declaration, in and of itself, was a unilateral governmental declaration, it received international legal acknowledgement and validity in a series of instruments, commencing with the 1920 San Remo Conference and Declaration by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. San Remo encapsulated the content of the Balfour Declaration into the post-World War I arrangements dividing the former Ottoman Empire. In this way, the Principal Allied Powers finalized the territorial dispositions regarding the Jewish people in respect to Palestine and the Arabs in respect to Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, and Lebanon.
> 
> The San Remo Declaration stated inter alia that:
> 
> “The mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] of November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people …”
> 
> This was incorporated into Article 95 of the (unratified) Treaty of Sèvres of Aug. 10, 1920, and subsequently in the Preamble and Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922:
> 
> “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.”
> 
> The continued validity of these foundational legal rights encapsulated in the various international instruments predating the establishment of the United Nations was also assured under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter:
> 
> “… nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”
> 
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law


WOW, so much external interference.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel’s rights in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria did not originate with Israel’s attaining control of the area following the 1967 Six-Day War.
> 
> Long before, the Balfour Declaration issued by the British government in 1917 acknowledged the indigenous presence and historic aspirations of the Jewish people to reestablish their historic national home in Palestine. While legally the Balfour Declaration, in and of itself, was a unilateral governmental declaration, it received international legal acknowledgement and validity in a series of instruments, commencing with the 1920 San Remo Conference and Declaration by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. San Remo encapsulated the content of the Balfour Declaration into the post-World War I arrangements dividing the former Ottoman Empire. In this way, the Principal Allied Powers finalized the territorial dispositions regarding the Jewish people in respect to Palestine and the Arabs in respect to Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, and Lebanon.
> 
> The San Remo Declaration stated inter alia that:
> 
> “The mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] of November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people …”
> 
> This was incorporated into Article 95 of the (unratified) Treaty of Sèvres of Aug. 10, 1920, and subsequently in the Preamble and Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922:
> 
> “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.”
> 
> The continued validity of these foundational legal rights encapsulated in the various international instruments predating the establishment of the United Nations was also assured under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter:
> 
> “… nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”
> 
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, so much external interference.
Click to expand...


That was the entire point of the Mandate system.  

_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 principle of non-interference refers to the interaction between sovereign states.  As far as I know, it has never been applied to non-state organizations or entities or generally to peoples seeking self-determination.  Though there are some fascinating discussions being had concerning whether or not this principle applies under conditions of civil war.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel’s rights in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria did not originate with Israel’s attaining control of the area following the 1967 Six-Day War.
> 
> Long before, the Balfour Declaration issued by the British government in 1917 acknowledged the indigenous presence and historic aspirations of the Jewish people to reestablish their historic national home in Palestine. While legally the Balfour Declaration, in and of itself, was a unilateral governmental declaration, it received international legal acknowledgement and validity in a series of instruments, commencing with the 1920 San Remo Conference and Declaration by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. San Remo encapsulated the content of the Balfour Declaration into the post-World War I arrangements dividing the former Ottoman Empire. In this way, the Principal Allied Powers finalized the territorial dispositions regarding the Jewish people in respect to Palestine and the Arabs in respect to Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, and Lebanon.
> 
> The San Remo Declaration stated inter alia that:
> 
> “The mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] of November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people …”
> 
> This was incorporated into Article 95 of the (unratified) Treaty of Sèvres of Aug. 10, 1920, and subsequently in the Preamble and Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922:
> 
> “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.”
> 
> The continued validity of these foundational legal rights encapsulated in the various international instruments predating the establishment of the United Nations was also assured under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter:
> 
> “… nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”
> 
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, so much external interference.
Click to expand...


External interference would be one description for Arab-Moslem colonization.


----------



## ForeverYoung436

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible. In its report, it nonetheless devoted thousands of words to minute details of specific Arab grievances. It plumbed complaints that Jews, on one occasion, brought a chair to Jerusalem’s Western Wall and, on another, set up a screen there to divide male and female worshipers.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Love of the Land: The Hebron Riots of 1929: Consequences and Lessons - CAMERA Op-Ed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinians were opposed to the Zionist colonization of Palestine.
> 
> Same as anyone else in the world.
Click to expand...


Doesn't complaining that the Jews brought chairs to the Western Wall, or set up a screen there to separate men an women, seem petty to you?  These mainly religious complaints makes it seem like something else is really going on here.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Reviewing three Hebrew-language works about Israel’s War of Independence, *Yoav Gelber* begins with Eliezer Tauber’s study of the battle of Deir Yassin, long assumed to have culminated in a massacre of Arabs by the Jewish Irgun and Leḥi militias. Tauber demonstrates that (like the “massacre” in Lydda) it was nothing of the sort. Both sides, however, greatly exaggerated the number of Arab casualties for propaganda purposes, with consequences that also bear examining:

(full article online)

New Israeli Scholarship Shows That an Alleged 1948 Massacre Never Happened


----------



## ph3iron

Sixties Fan said:


> Reviewing three Hebrew-language works about Israel’s War of Independence, *Yoav Gelber* begins with Eliezer Tauber’s study of the battle of Deir Yassin, long assumed to have culminated in a massacre of Arabs by the Jewish Irgun and Leḥi militias. Tauber demonstrates that (like the “massacre” in Lydda) it was nothing of the sort. Both sides, however, greatly exaggerated the number of Arab casualties for propaganda purposes, with consequences that also bear examining:
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> New Israeli Scholarship Shows That an Alleged 1948 Massacre Never Happened


I'm sure there are enough massacres to go around.
They say Brits are at the bottom of everything.
In this case Rothschild and other bankers created Israel in the first place.
Threw out our only Mideast WWII supporters who had been there for 2000 years.
And we whine about Christopher Steele!!!!


----------



## Sixties Fan

01/21 Links Pt2: Polish Jews’ pre-Holocaust plea to Chamberlain: Let us into Palestine; Netanyahu to world leaders: Important they remember where we came from ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

I had seen similar reports but this specific one is new to me.

It shows that Arabs flocked to Palestine because of Jewish economic success, and that there was essentially no negative effects of Jewish immigration.

Arab villages near Jewish population centers were shown to have improved in every way compared to the villages further away, which looked as they were a hundred years beforehand.

Similarly, Arab houses near Jewish communities went up in value, those further away lost value.

Some of it is a little hard to read, and most of it was not digitized.

From JTA, January 31, 1934:

(full article online)

1934 survey of Palestine showed how Jews helped Arabs; Arabs flocked to live near Jewish areas ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

After I posted about the 1934 economic survey of Palestine that showed that Jewish investment had brought great benefit to the Arabs of the region, including controlling malaria, I was shown a remarkable pair of maps.

One showed where the major malaria-infested lands of Palestine were as of 1920, according to a British report.

(full article online)

Eradicating malaria from Palestine was another Zionist colonialist plot! ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

Not only was Jerusalem never the capital of Muslim Palestine - it wasn't even a PART of what Muslims called Palestine ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan

I am looking at the beginning of Rashid Khalidi's "The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017."

Khalidi exaggerates the influence of the tiny number of Arab nationalists, specifically Palestinian Arab nationalists, before 1917.  He doesn't mention that the Arab nationalism that did exist was a result of Christian missionary influence and British attempts to subvert the Ottoman Empire - it was never a native Arab desire, and most Arabs were loyal Ottoman subjects.

When one sees a paragraph like this, it brings up some questions:




So rule by the British was "alien rule" but by the Ottoman Turks wasn't. Why not? If Palestinians wanted independence so much, shouldn't they have been equally upset at the Ottomans as they were the British? Wasn't the Ottoman Empire every bit as colonialist as the British?

(full article online)

If Palestinians were a nation, why did they accept Ottoman control? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Why Israel Has No ‘Right to Exist’*

*Apologists for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians claim the state has a “right to exist” in an effort to legitimize the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.*

Zionists taking it upon themselves to try to defend Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people frequently level the charge that its critics are attempting to “delegitimize” the self-described “Jewish state”. Israel, they counter, has a “right to exist”. But they are mistaken.

This is not to single out Israel. There is no such thing as a state’s “right to exist”, period. No such right is recognized under international law. Nor could there logically be any such right. The very concept is absurd. Individuals, not abstract political entities, have rights.

The right to self-determination, unlike the absurd concept of a state’s “right to exist”, _is _recognized under international law. It is a right that is explicitly guaranteed, for example, under the Charter of the United Nations, to which the state of Israel is party.

The proper framework for discussion therefore is the right to self-determination, and it is precisely to obfuscate this truth that the propaganda claim that Israel has a “right to exist” is frequently made. It is necessary for Israel’s apologists to so shift the framework for discussion because, in the framework of the right to self-determination, it is obviously Israel that rejects the rights of the Palestinians and not vice versa.

And it is not only in the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory that Israel’s rejectionism is manifest. This rejection of Palestinians’ rights was also manifest in the very means by which Israel was established.

Why Israel Has No 'Right to Exist'


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> *Why Israel Has No ‘Right to Exist’*
> 
> *Apologists for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians claim the state has a “right to exist” in an effort to legitimize the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.*
> 
> Zionists taking it upon themselves to try to defend Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people frequently level the charge that its critics are attempting to “delegitimize” the self-described “Jewish state”. Israel, they counter, has a “right to exist”. But they are mistaken.
> 
> This is not to single out Israel. There is no such thing as a state’s “right to exist”, period. No such right is recognized under international law. Nor could there logically be any such right. The very concept is absurd. Individuals, not abstract political entities, have rights.
> 
> The right to self-determination, unlike the absurd concept of a state’s “right to exist”, _is _recognized under international law. It is a right that is explicitly guaranteed, for example, under the Charter of the United Nations, to which the state of Israel is party.
> 
> The proper framework for discussion therefore is the right to self-determination, and it is precisely to obfuscate this truth that the propaganda claim that Israel has a “right to exist” is frequently made. It is necessary for Israel’s apologists to so shift the framework for discussion because, in the framework of the right to self-determination, it is obviously Israel that rejects the rights of the Palestinians and not vice versa.
> 
> And it is not only in the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory that Israel’s rejectionism is manifest. This rejection of Palestinians’ rights was also manifest in the very means by which Israel was established.
> 
> Why Israel Has No 'Right to Exist'




Wow.  Where do you find these articles, Tinmore?  This one begins with what is actually a solid premise and then proceeds to destroy its own premise in a pretty methodical way.


----------



## Spartacactcus

This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate





__





						The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
					





					avalon.law.yale.edu


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu



Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.  

The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.

The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions. 

The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.


----------



## Spartacactcus

Shusha said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
Click to expand...


The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.

If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Spartacactcus said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
Click to expand...

You seem to decide what people care about and what they do not.  That is not what a discussion is about.

The thread IS about the establishment of the State of Israel until May 1948.

Would you like to discuss what happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939?  (What happened??????  To Whom?????  Whose rights were trampled on?????  )

There are other threads which deal with post May 1948.


----------



## rylah

Spartacactcus said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
Click to expand...


The mandatory power, as it was charged,
provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.

Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?


----------



## Spartacactcus

Sixties Fan said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to decide what people care about and what they do not.  That is not what a discussion is about.
> 
> The thread IS about the establishment of the State of Israel until May 1948.
> 
> Would you like to discuss what happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939?  (What happened??????  To Whom?????  Whose rights were trampled on?????  )
> 
> There are other threads which deal with post May 1948.
Click to expand...



People tell you, show you , what they care about or not in their posts and that's exactly how discussions work.

The post I added here is relevant to the discussion on the Mandate period seeing as it is, wrongly , being used to justify violations and crimes after it has expired.


----------



## Spartacactcus

rylah said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandatory power, as it was charged,
> provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
> in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?
Click to expand...



There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such. Nor does it say anyhting about it meaning the whole of Palestine either

And then that was only to be carried out if it didn't impact on the rights of the none Jewish population which it clearly did


----------



## rylah

Spartacactcus said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandatory power, as it was charged,
> provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
> in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such
Click to expand...


Of course there's, dance around all you want,
but it specifically mentions *Re-constitution* of the Jewish *Nation*.

Q. Does it refer to any Arab sovereignty?


----------



## Spartacactcus

rylah said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandatory power, as it was charged,
> provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
> in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's,
> specifically mentions* re-constitution* of the Jewish *nation*.
> 
> Q. Does it mention any sovereignty of an Arab nation?
Click to expand...


Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void. Since then the organisation entrusted with taking over from the Mandate , the UN , has stated a wish for the Palestinians to have their own state on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Spartacactcus said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandatory power, as it was charged,
> provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
> in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such
Click to expand...

Let us make this clear.  If the Mandate for Palestine was not a Mandate to create a Jewish homeland, on historical Jewish Land, then the other 3 Mandates are just as not valid as the one for Palestine.  That is what you are saying.

There were 4 Mandates.  All 4 were valid.  The only reason there were no attacks on Kurds, or other indigenous people In Syria, Lebanon or Iraq.......is because they were inhabited by mostly Arab Muslims.  Yes, the ones who came from Arabia after the 7th Century.  The Palestinian Arabs are part of the Arabs who moved into the region and took over until the Crusaders and then the Ottoman Empire took it from them.

The Arabs came, the Jews were there.
The Crusaders came, the Jews were there.
The Ottomans came, the Jews were there.
The British came, the Jews were there.

The Kurds continue to fight for their right to be sovereign on their historical land, being attacked by the Turkish and Arab Muslims from time to time.

At no time, have the Muslims fought the Ottomans, the Crusaders or the British to give the Jews the right to sovereignty over their own historical land.  The Jews had to fight for it by themselves post WWI.

And that is exactly what the Jews and Israel have had to do since then.  And will continue to fight for their right to have sovereignty over their own Historical Land, just like any other Indigenous people anywhere in the world.

The Palestine the Romans referred to was the Province of Judea.  In other words, the homeland of the Jews.  Not of the Arabs, who were not there at the time.

Israel gives more rights to non Jews in the State of Israel, than Jews, and other non Muslims, ever got living in any Muslim conquered land.

Just look at the rights given to non Muslims between 1948 and 1967 in Judea and Samaria, that is, if you can find any Jews left living in that area after the 1948 war.  How about in Hebron after 1929?


----------



## rylah

Spartacactcus said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandatory power, as it was charged,
> provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
> in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's,
> specifically mentions* re-constitution* of the Jewish *nation*.
> 
> Q. Does it mention any sovereignty of an Arab nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void. Since then the organisation entrusted with taking over from the Mandate , the UN , has stated a wish for the Palestinians to have their own state on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.
Click to expand...




The only organization vested with final legal authority was the sovereign Jewish Nation,
the sole goal for which the mandate was established in the first place.

The UN had no legal authority or sovereignty to effectively decide anything,
more so itself bound by international law that prohibits negation of any
rights of the Jewish Nation to and in that land.

Beyond that, they can wish the moon was made of cheese,
and that's about the extent of their authority.

Simple as that.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Spartacactcus said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandatory power, as it was charged,
> provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
> in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's,
> specifically mentions* re-constitution* of the Jewish *nation*.
> 
> Q. Does it mention any sovereignty of an Arab nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void. Since then the organisation entrusted with taking over from the Mandate , the UN , has stated a wish for the Palestinians to have their own state on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.
Click to expand...

The problem continues to be that the Palestinians do not want a State on the territories "occupied" by Israel since 1967, a discussion which belongs on other threads.

Since the Mandate for Palestine was declared, the Muslims have worked very hard to deny the Jews the creation of any Jewish State on their own historical land.

And they continue to work very hard to delegitimize and put an end to that sovereign State, including giving themselves the name Palestinians, since 1964.  Why were they not Palestinians before 1964?  Before Arafat and the KGB came up with that idea in Moscow in 1964?

Palestinians are the only group of people who decided on a national identity Only to delegitimize another people, and to destroy their sovereign State.

They have not demanded that the Hashemite Arab Muslims return that part of the Mandate for Palestine to them because they allegedly would have the right to any and all part of it.    That is 78% of the whole Mandate.
They are all Arabs.  They are all Muslims.

If the Jews in Israel converted to Islam, the war against Israel would be over in a second.


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void.



The Mandate never became null (legally invalid) nor void (legally invalid).

Its purpose was fulfilled, therefore it came to an end as it was always intended to.


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.



The civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish population are not being abused in the slightest by Israel.  (In fact, the rights of the Jewish population of Israel ARE being abused.)

You toss words around, as many do, but don't seem to have a grasp of the meaning of the words.  What ARE the objective civil and religious rights of non-dominant populations in any country?  List them.  For example, what are the civil and religious rights of Jews in Iran?  What are the civil and religious rights of Chinese in the USA?  What are the civil and religious rights of Indians in Canada?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate never became null (legally invalid) nor void (legally invalid).
> 
> Its purpose was fulfilled, therefore it came to an end as it was always intended to.
Click to expand...

Except that Israel sits on Palestinian land and the Palestinians have the right to sovereignty over their land,


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Except that Israel sits on Palestinian land and the Palestinians have the right to sovereignty over their land,



Israel sits on territory designated for Jewish self-determination and the RE-constitution of Israel, Judea and Samaria.

The Palestinians have the right to self-determination and sovereignty as well.  Some would argue they have that already in Jordan.  Some would argue that they don't have it yet.  

Peoples don't have rights to land.  They have rights to self-determination in their homeland.  Different things.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Spartacactcus said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandatory power, as it was charged,
> provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
> in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's,
> specifically mentions* re-constitution* of the Jewish *nation*.
> 
> Q. Does it mention any sovereignty of an Arab nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void. Since then the organisation entrusted with taking over from the Mandate , the UN , has stated a wish for the Palestinians to have their own state on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.
Click to expand...

You are an antisemite, so filter everything through your Jew hatred.

Those of us who are not afflicted with such realize that the Palestinian mandate extended all the way to the eastern border of what is now Jordan and that the Arabs already received the lion's share of the land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that Israel sits on Palestinian land and the Palestinians have the right to sovereignty over their land,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel sits on territory designated for Jewish self-determination and the RE-constitution of Israel, Judea and Samaria.
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to self-determination and sovereignty as well.  Some would argue they have that already in Jordan.  Some would argue that they don't have it yet.
> 
> Peoples don't have rights to land.  They have rights to self-determination in their homeland.  Different things.
Click to expand...

Designated by whom?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that Israel sits on Palestinian land and the Palestinians have the right to sovereignty over their land,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel sits on territory designated for Jewish self-determination and the RE-constitution of Israel, Judea and Samaria.
> 
> The Palestinians have the right to self-determination and sovereignty as well.  Some would argue they have that already in Jordan.  Some would argue that they don't have it yet.
> 
> Peoples don't have rights to land.  They have rights to self-determination in their homeland.  Different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Designated by whom?
Click to expand...


Well, its an interesting question.  The Jewish people essentially made an application for their right to self-determination be recognized.  That application was accepted.  

What is the problem with that?


----------



## Sixties Fan

[Little known history of Jews in Gaza before 1920]

Here are a few key points on the history of the Jews in Gaza: It was conquered by Jonathan Hasmonean in 145 BCE; it is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud in the fourth century CE; Nathan of Gaza, who smashed the Torah of the false Messiah Shabbtai Zvi, who converted to Islam. Nathan of Gaza is the one who, on the eve of Shavuot 1660, declared Zvi "the savior of Israel." He did so in the synagogue of Gaza. The famous Cairo Geniza also fills in some details about the Jewish community in Gaza through the generations. There is also the rabbi and poet Yisrael Najara, possibly the most famous of the Gazan Jews.

Najara was the chief rabbi of Gaza for five years until he died in 1625. He was the son of the Safed rabbi Moshe Najara, who was one of the students of Rabbi Yitzhak Ben Shlomo Luria. Yisrael Najara wrote 650 poems, both secular and religious, some of which have never been seen in print.

Q: The biblical Samson, one of the most famous Bible characters, lived in Gaza. Did the Jews who lived there or visited the place for generations mention him, or sites linked to his name?

"One of the most famous travelers to visit the Land of Israel, who recorded his visit here in 1481, is Rabbi Meshulam of Volterra. Rabbi Meshulam tells that the Jews of Gaza made wine, describes a small synagogue that was active in the city, and mentions the location of Delilah's house, where Samson lived. A French Crusader who visited the Land of Israel in 1395 mentions Samson and, just as interestingly, describes the dress of the Gaza residents in that period: the Muslims wore white turbans, the Christians wore light blue head coverings, and the Jews wore yellow ones!"

(full article online)



			https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/03/19/gaza-like-you-never-knew-it/


----------



## Spartacactcus

Dogmaphobe said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandatory power, as it was charged,
> provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
> in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's,
> specifically mentions* re-constitution* of the Jewish *nation*.
> 
> Q. Does it mention any sovereignty of an Arab nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void. Since then the organisation entrusted with taking over from the Mandate , the UN , has stated a wish for the Palestinians to have their own state on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an antisemite, so filter everything through your Jew hatred.
> 
> Those of us who are not afflicted with such realize that the Palestinian mandate extended all the way to the eastern border of what is now Jordan and that the Arabs already received the lion's share of the land.
Click to expand...


Projection and standard trolling from people who cannot argue their cases imo

Jordan is 75% desert so you should factor into the equation what land is actually consisting of as opposed to just percentages. Not that you do, as far as you are concerned the Arabs got a desert and thus should be happy with that . What were you saying about viewing things through the prism of racism ?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Spartacactcus said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandatory power, as it was charged,
> provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
> in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's,
> specifically mentions* re-constitution* of the Jewish *nation*.
> 
> Q. Does it mention any sovereignty of an Arab nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void. Since then the organisation entrusted with taking over from the Mandate , the UN , has stated a wish for the Palestinians to have their own state on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an antisemite, so filter everything through your Jew hatred.
> 
> Those of us who are not afflicted with such realize that the Palestinian mandate extended all the way to the eastern border of what is now Jordan and that the Arabs already received the lion's share of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projection and standard trolling from people who cannot argue their cases imo
> 
> Jordan is 75% desert so you should factor into the equation what land is actually consisting of as opposed to just percentages. Not that you do, as far as you are concerned the Arabs got a desert and thus should be happy with that . What were you saying about viewing things through the prism of racism ?
Click to expand...

We are saying, with all the letters, that you are ignorant of history and the facts about the Mandate for Palestine.  Call us trolls and any other name you like.  The Jews will continue to survive the lies and misinformation you and many others insist in spewing against them.

Jordan is 75% desert?  Then why did the Hashemite clan accept it and threw all the Jews out of it, where they had lived for over 3000 years?  Why not give it to the Jews?
What.....oh.....Oil............
Even if there was no oil, it is still a large piece of land to make up for the amount of land the Saudi clan kicked the Hashemites from during WWI.
And the Hashemites had NO rights to be given any part of the Mandate for Palestine by the British or anyone else.

Don't worry, the Hashemites know the history of how they got the land in 1922, threw the Jews out in 1925 of Transjordan and then threw the Jews out of Judea and Samaria in 1948, because 78% of the Jewish homeland is never enough to Muslims who were taught to hate Jews since Mohammad invented Islam.
And all of that without one PIP from any of the Muslims living in the Mandate for Palestine.

Now, why would the other Arab tribes, Muslims, accept that the Hashemites should have 78% of the land, and give none to them?




Am Israel chai
The People of Israel Live


----------



## rylah

Spartacactcus said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandatory power, as it was charged,
> provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
> in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's,
> specifically mentions* re-constitution* of the Jewish *nation*.
> 
> Q. Does it mention any sovereignty of an Arab nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void. Since then the organisation entrusted with taking over from the Mandate , the UN , has stated a wish for the Palestinians to have their own state on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an antisemite, so filter everything through your Jew hatred.
> 
> Those of us who are not afflicted with such realize that the Palestinian mandate extended all the way to the eastern border of what is now Jordan and that the Arabs already received the lion's share of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projection and standard trolling from people who cannot argue their cases imo
> 
> Jordan is 75% desert so you should factor into the equation what land is actually consisting of as opposed to just percentages. Not that you do, as far as you are concerned the Arabs got a desert and thus should be happy with that . What were you saying about viewing things through the prism of racism ?
Click to expand...


Let me help you out -


Jordan territory is 34.5 sq mi with 75% desert
Israel territory is 8.5 sq mi with 55% desert

That means that Jordan with population exceeding that of Israel *only by 1 million*,
has *more than TWICE* non-desert territory than that of Israel.

Let's face it, the Arab world is by far and large a failed society,
while Israel has turned that desert into Paradise on earth.
How do we know...well... Jordan.

*Q. Do you feel extra smart yet? *


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Spartacactcus said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to  visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.
> 
> Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.
> 
> In short all claims regarding the Mandate that  are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be silly.  Of course the claims are not illegitimate.
> 
> The Mandate existed for as long as the conditions which required the Mandate existed.  Once those conditions resolved, the Mandate was no longer necessary.  The Mandate had fulfilled its purpose.
> 
> The conditions were the development of self-governing institutions.
> 
> The purpose was the re-constitution of the Jewish Homeland (State) for the self-determination and self-government (sovereignty) of the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mandate was also charged with not abusing the rights , civil/religious , of the none Jewish population of Palestine, not that you would care , but relevant nonetheless.
> 
> If you read my post properly you would see that it referred to the Mandate being used as legitimation of events/policies AFTER its dissolvement as per the OPTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mandatory power, as it was charged,
> provided civil and religious rights to the non-Jewish population.
> 
> Q. Do you see any mention of 'national rights',
> in reference to sovereignty other than that of the Jewish Nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO mention of "national rights" for either side iirc except for the creation of a " Jewish homeland " which could be deemed an autonomous or semi-autonomous region but not necessarily a state as such
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's,
> specifically mentions* re-constitution* of the Jewish *nation*.
> 
> Q. Does it mention any sovereignty of an Arab nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, but that only extends to when the Mandate became null and void. Since then the organisation entrusted with taking over from the Mandate , the UN , has stated a wish for the Palestinians to have their own state on the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are an antisemite, so filter everything through your Jew hatred.
> 
> Those of us who are not afflicted with such realize that the Palestinian mandate extended all the way to the eastern border of what is now Jordan and that the Arabs already received the lion's share of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Projection and standard trolling from people who cannot argue their cases imo
> 
> Jordan is 75% desert so you should factor into the equation what land is actually consisting of as opposed to just percentages. Not that you do, as far as you are concerned the Arabs got a desert and thus should be happy with that . What were you saying about viewing things through the prism of racism ?
Click to expand...

The fact that you are an ignorant antisemite does not make me a troll.

It just makes you an ignorant antisemite.


----------



## Spartacactcus

Sixties Fan said:


> We are saying, with all the letters, that you are ignorant of history and the facts about the Mandate for Palestine.  Call us trolls and any other name you like.  The Jews will continue to survive the lies and misinformation you and many others insist in spewing against them.
> 
> Jordan is 75% desert?  Then why did the Hashemite clan accept it and threw all the Jews out of it, where they had lived for over 3000 years?  Why not give it to the Jews?
> What.....oh.....Oil............
> Even if there was no oil, it is still a large piece of land to make up for the amount of land the Saudi clan kicked the Hashemites from during WWI.
> And the Hashemites had NO rights to be given any part of the Mandate for Palestine by the British or anyone else.
> 
> Don't worry, the Hashemites know the history of how they got the land in 1922, threw the Jews out in 1925 of Transjordan and then threw the Jews out of Judea and Samaria in 1948, because 78% of the Jewish homeland is never enough to Muslims who were taught to hate Jews since Mohammad invented Islam.
> And all of that without one PIP from any of the Muslims living in the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Now, why would the other Arab tribes, Muslims, accept that the Hashemites should have 78% of the land, and give none to them?
> 
> Am Israel chai
> The People of Israel Live



What ignorance have I shown about the history and/or the Mandate ?

I responded to a troll referring to me as an antisemite , is that unreasonable ?

What " lies and misinformation " have I " spewed out " ?

Oil wasn't discovered in Jordan in the 1920's and it is hardly a oil rich nation even today.

What right did the British have to give land or not to anyone post the fall of the Ottomans ? That might is right ? No justice comes from that imo

So before you start commenting on me and my opinions you need to answer the above


----------



## Spartacactcus

Dogmaphobe said:


> The fact that you are an ignorant antisemite does not make me a troll.
> 
> It just makes you an ignorant antisemite.



I am neither ignorant nor an antisemite so that does make you a troll. Your GIF sig shows you are a troll. So, go and troll someone else , troll boy.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Spartacactcus said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are saying, with all the letters, that you are ignorant of history and the facts about the Mandate for Palestine.  Call us trolls and any other name you like.  The Jews will continue to survive the lies and misinformation you and many others insist in spewing against them.
> 
> Jordan is 75% desert?  Then why did the Hashemite clan accept it and threw all the Jews out of it, where they had lived for over 3000 years?  Why not give it to the Jews?
> What.....oh.....Oil............
> Even if there was no oil, it is still a large piece of land to make up for the amount of land the Saudi clan kicked the Hashemites from during WWI.
> And the Hashemites had NO rights to be given any part of the Mandate for Palestine by the British or anyone else.
> 
> Don't worry, the Hashemites know the history of how they got the land in 1922, threw the Jews out in 1925 of Transjordan and then threw the Jews out of Judea and Samaria in 1948, because 78% of the Jewish homeland is never enough to Muslims who were taught to hate Jews since Mohammad invented Islam.
> And all of that without one PIP from any of the Muslims living in the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Now, why would the other Arab tribes, Muslims, accept that the Hashemites should have 78% of the land, and give none to them?
> 
> Am Israel chai
> The People of Israel Live
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ignorance have I shown about the history and/or the Mandate ?
> 
> I responded to a troll referring to me as an antisemite , is that unreasonable ?
> 
> What " lies and misinformation " have I " spewed out " ?
> 
> Oil wasn't discovered in Jordan in the 1920's and it is hardly a oil rich nation even today.
> 
> What right did the British have to give land or not to anyone post the fall of the Ottomans ? That might is right ? No justice comes from that imo
> 
> So before you start commenting on me and my opinions you need to answer the above
Click to expand...

I am going by your first post:

Yesterday at 8:06 AM

Add bookmark
#402
This thread is, in part , about the British Mandate but the British Mandate was ended at midnight 14th May 1948 with the only provisions being that the League of Nations ( which was superceded by the UN ) that only articles 13 and 14 would outlast all others in the Mandate itself. They were involved with protections /rights of people to visit religious sites in the Mandate area and general law and order.

Subsequently any people from the alleged " pro Israel " side that state that the Mandate validates Israeli claims to the territories it occupies and illegally settles is being eithe ignorant of the terms of the termination of the Mandate or extremely frugal with the truth about it.

In short all claims regarding the Mandate that are later 14th May 1948, accept for in the articles stated , are evidently illegitimate

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

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

You were answered about what you posted.  Your words and tone have shown that you do not care about the facts. Not in regards to Israel and the Jewish People.  No problem.  Why?  Because your opinion does not change one Iota the facts of the Mandate, nor the facts on the ground.


<<<Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan>>>


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> What ignorance have I shown about the history and/or the Mandate ?


Well, we can start with what you posted below:



> What right did the British have to give land or not to anyone post the fall of the Ottomans ?


The British did not "give" land to anyone.  The British (and the French) were the trustees of territories whose sovereign had abandoned them in favour of the development of self-determination and self-government of various peoples.  One of those peoples was the Jewish people.


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> No justice comes from that imo



Interesting concept, justice.  What would justice look like for the Jewish people?


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Spartacactcus said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you are an ignorant antisemite does not make me a troll.
> 
> It just makes you an ignorant antisemite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am neither ignorant nor an antisemite so that does make you a troll. Your GIF sig shows you are a troll. So, go and troll someone else , troll boy.
Click to expand...

How old are you, son?   You can't be much out of your late teens.

I have never had any other children make such accusations aboit a clip from the Big Lebowski.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Dogmaphobe said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you are an ignorant antisemite does not make me a troll.
> 
> It just makes you an ignorant antisemite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am neither ignorant nor an antisemite so that does make you a troll. Your GIF sig shows you are a troll. So, go and troll someone else , troll boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How old are you, son?   You can't be much out of your late teens.
> 
> I have never had any other children make such accusations aboit a clip from the Big Lebowski.
Click to expand...

Could we please keep answers like this out of the thread?  Thanks.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ignorance have I shown about the history and/or the Mandate ?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we can start with what you posted below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What right did the British have to give land or not to anyone post the fall of the Ottomans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British did not "give" land to anyone.  The British (and the French) were the trustees of territories whose sovereign had abandoned them in favour of the development of self-determination and self-government of various peoples.  One of those peoples was the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ignorance have I shown about the history and/or the Mandate ?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we can start with what you posted below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What right did the British have to give land or not to anyone post the fall of the Ottomans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British did not "give" land to anyone.  The British (and the French) were the trustees of territories whose sovereign had abandoned them in favour of the development of self-determination and self-government of various peoples.  One of those peoples was the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Seriously?  What do you want a link to?  What are you specifically disputing in the above statement?

Are you disputing that the British were trustees?  

Are you disputing that the previous sovereign abandoned the territory?

Are you disputing the concept of self-determination and self-government?

Are you disputing the right of the Jewish people (like all peoples) to self-determination and self-government?

Be specific.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ignorance have I shown about the history and/or the Mandate ?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we can start with what you posted below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What right did the British have to give land or not to anyone post the fall of the Ottomans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British did not "give" land to anyone.  The British (and the French) were the trustees of territories whose sovereign had abandoned them in favour of the development of self-determination and self-government of various peoples.  One of those peoples was the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  What do you want a link to?  What are you specifically disputing in the above statement?
> 
> Are you disputing that the British were trustees?
> 
> Are you disputing that the previous sovereign abandoned the territory?
> 
> Are you disputing the concept of self-determination and self-government?
> 
> Are you disputing the right of the Jewish people (like all peoples) to self-determination and self-government?
> 
> Be specific.
Click to expand...

You claim that foreign settlers have the right to self determination in Palestine. I asked for a link to prove your point.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ignorance have I shown about the history and/or the Mandate ?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we can start with what you posted below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What right did the British have to give land or not to anyone post the fall of the Ottomans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British did not "give" land to anyone.  The British (and the French) were the trustees of territories whose sovereign had abandoned them in favour of the development of self-determination and self-government of various peoples.  One of those peoples was the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  What do you want a link to?  What are you specifically disputing in the above statement?
> 
> Are you disputing that the British were trustees?
> 
> Are you disputing that the previous sovereign abandoned the territory?
> 
> Are you disputing the concept of self-determination and self-government?
> 
> Are you disputing the right of the Jewish people (like all peoples) to self-determination and self-government?
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim that foreign settlers have the right to self determination in Palestine. I asked for a link to prove your point.
Click to expand...

It’s difficult to believe you have learned nothing after years of spamming threads with that same, nonsensical claim.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ignorance have I shown about the history and/or the Mandate ?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we can start with what you posted below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What right did the British have to give land or not to anyone post the fall of the Ottomans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British did not "give" land to anyone.  The British (and the French) were the trustees of territories whose sovereign had abandoned them in favour of the development of self-determination and self-government of various peoples.  One of those peoples was the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  What do you want a link to?  What are you specifically disputing in the above statement?
> 
> Are you disputing that the British were trustees?
> 
> Are you disputing that the previous sovereign abandoned the territory?
> 
> Are you disputing the concept of self-determination and self-government?
> 
> Are you disputing the right of the Jewish people (like all peoples) to self-determination and self-government?
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim that foreign settlers have the right to self determination in Palestine. I asked for a link to prove your point.
Click to expand...


Well that's funny,
aren't you the one banging about self-determination for an bunch of Arabian tribes,
that cannot even properly pronounce the name of the place?

How do you square that hypocrisy?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> What ignorance have I shown about the history and/or the Mandate ?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we can start with what you posted below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What right did the British have to give land or not to anyone post the fall of the Ottomans ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The British did not "give" land to anyone.  The British (and the French) were the trustees of territories whose sovereign had abandoned them in favour of the development of self-determination and self-government of various peoples.  One of those peoples was the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  What do you want a link to?  What are you specifically disputing in the above statement?
> 
> Are you disputing that the British were trustees?
> 
> Are you disputing that the previous sovereign abandoned the territory?
> 
> Are you disputing the concept of self-determination and self-government?
> 
> Are you disputing the right of the Jewish people (like all peoples) to self-determination and self-government?
> 
> Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim that foreign settlers have the right to self determination in Palestine. I asked for a link to prove your point.
Click to expand...


No.  I did not claim that foreign settlers have a right to self-determination in the territory in question.  

What I said is that the Jewish people, like all people, have the right to self-determination and self-government in the territory of their homeland.


----------



## Spartacactcus

Sixties Fan said:


> ---------------------------------------
> 
> You were answered about what you posted.  Your words and tone have shown that you do not care about the facts. Not in regards to Israel and the Jewish People.  No problem.  Why?  Because your opinion does not change one Iota the facts of the Mandate, nor the facts on the ground.
> 
> 
> <<<Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
> 
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan>>>



I asked you what I was " ignorant " of and what I had " misrepresented " in my post and you have swerved giving me answers so I suggest you have nothing to say in reality and just want to cry foul because I hold a different view from you .

You are the one giving yourself away imo


----------



## Spartacactcus

Dogmaphobe said:


> How old are you, son?   You can't be much out of your late teens.
> 
> I have never had any other children make such accusations aboit a clip from the Big Lebowski.



I told you to troll elsewhere so you resort to patronizing me now ? 

Look at your own behaviour ( calling names and acting big ) and ask yourself who is the " child " here.

If you have a point about anything I might say then feel free to jump in , jump in with ridiculous and ignorant accusations and expect to be treated appropriately


----------



## Spartacactcus

Shusha said:


> Interesting concept, justice.  What would justice look like for the Jewish people?



From my POV justice is them having their own state and enjoying self determination. I didn't agree with the location nor what was required to erm free up that location ut you have to deal with what is in the now and be pragmatic about it.

So yep , self determination for the Jewish people in their own state is fine , we just now have to look at the other side and see how we might give them some justice eh ?

You do accept their is another people involved that also deserve justice, right ?


----------



## Spartacactcus

Shusha said:


> What I said is that the Jewish people, like all people, have the right to self-determination and self-government in the territory of their homeland.



So you think the same is true for the Palestinians ?


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I said is that the Jewish people, like all people, have the right to self-determination and self-government in the territory of their homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the same is true for the Palestinians ?
Click to expand...

Of course.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Hello fellow posters,

We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.

I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:





__





						Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
					

A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				





As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.

Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?

What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?

How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?

Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?


----------



## Hollie

Spartacactcus said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I said is that the Jewish people, like all people, have the right to self-determination and self-government in the territory of their homeland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think the same is true for the Palestinians ?
Click to expand...

The same _might_ be true for the Arabs-Moslems but there's no reason to believe the competing mini-caliphates of Gaza'istan and Abbas'istan are in any way willing or even capable of forming or maintaining working governments. 

It's the ill-considered decisions of foreign governments to shower islamic terrorist enclaves with welfare money that  Gaza and the West Bank flush with wealthy islamic terrorist kingpins and Iranian weapons.


----------



## Spartacactcus

Hollie said:


> The same _might_ be true for the Arabs-Moslems but there's no reason to believe the competing mini-caliphates of Gaza'istan and Abbas'istan are in any way willing or even capable of forming or maintaining working governments.
> 
> It's the ill-considered decisions of foreign governments to shower islamic terrorist enclaves with welfare money that  Gaza and the West Bank flush with wealthy islamic terrorist kingpins and Iranian weapons.



" Gaza istan " and " Abbas'istan " ?? lol and you will expect to be taken seriously after that I suppose

Both the WB, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza would make up the Palestinian state should the law prevail so your treating them as seperate entities is a flawed view imo

Your pretty racist view of them not being able to work towards and maintain a governing unified assembly/parliament etc is nonsense imo. The situation now sees the old divide and conquer dynamic being played out again. Don't let that reality fool you that Arabs are any different than any other people.

Well you can bemoan the " foreign govts " for giving money to the Palestinians but you evidently haven't considered what they alternative should be. Israel has it sown up at both ends when it comes to the occupation and illegal settlement of the Palestinians.

They have the US bankroll their means to achive those ends and they have the " foreign govts" paying for the people they should be paying for as per their status as occupiers.

If everybody took the money out Israel wouldn't be able toi sustain it's criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land , period.


----------



## Spartacactcus

Shusha said:


> Of course.



So how come that doesn't make you an antisemite ?

When I express support for Palestinian self determination in the OPTs that's what I get accused of


----------



## Spartacactcus

Sixties Fan said:


> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?




Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.

I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.

Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?


----------



## Hollie

Spartacactcus said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same _might_ be true for the Arabs-Moslems but there's no reason to believe the competing mini-caliphates of Gaza'istan and Abbas'istan are in any way willing or even capable of forming or maintaining working governments.
> 
> It's the ill-considered decisions of foreign governments to shower islamic terrorist enclaves with welfare money that  Gaza and the West Bank flush with wealthy islamic terrorist kingpins and Iranian weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " Gaza istan " and " Abbas'istan " ?? lol and you will expect to be taken seriously after that I suppose
> 
> Both the WB, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza would make up the Palestinian state should the law prevail so your treating them as seperate entities is a flawed view imo
> 
> Your pretty racist view of them not being able to work towards and maintain a governing unified assembly/parliament etc is nonsense imo. The situation now sees the old divide and conquer dynamic being played out again. Don't let that reality fool you that Arabs are any different than any other people.
> 
> Well you can bemoan the " foreign govts " for giving money to the Palestinians but you evidently haven't considered what they alternative should be. Israel has it sown up at both ends when it comes to the occupation and illegal settlement of the Palestinians.
> 
> They have the US bankroll their means to achive those ends and they have the " foreign govts" paying for the people they should be paying for as per their status as occupiers.
> 
> If everybody took the money out Israel wouldn't be able toi sustain it's criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land , period.
Click to expand...

You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.

As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?

Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)

You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?

What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?


----------



## Spartacactcus

Hollie said:


> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?



When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.

Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.

The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .

If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.

Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how come that doesn't make you an antisemite ?
> 
> When I express support for Palestinian self determination in the OPTs that's what I get accused of
Click to expand...


Nope.  Actually, you do not get accused of being an antisemite because you express support for Palestinian self-determination.  You get accused of being an antisemite for rejection of Jewish self-determination because *reasons*.  It is entirely possible to support Palestinian self-determination AND Jewish self-determination.  If you don't want to be accused of antisemitism, may I suggest the following:

1. Demonstrate internally consistent arguments concerning the self-determination of ALL peoples.  Don't give *reasons* for why self-determination is valid for all peoples, except the Jewish people.  This includes all arguments about "foreign settlers", "not a real culture", "just a religion", "Khazars", "not meant to have a State", and all other *reasons* for excluding the Jewish people from the right to self-determination.

2.  Recognize frequently the deep attachment of the Jewish people to their homeland, history, culture and religious faith.  Don't diminish it, ignore it, neglect it, minimize it, cast it aside, argue against it, or reject it.  The Jewish connection to their homeland and history can not be reasonably disputed.  And it makes you look foolish as well as antisemitic.  

3.  Apply objective standards.  Use a single definition for terms such as "indigenous culture", "occupation", "self-governing institutions", "civilians", "legitimate self-defense" and others.  

4.  Insist that the Arab Palestinians model behaviour consistent with being ready to move into Statehood. This means the cessation of terrorist acts, including the payment for those acts, incitement of those acts and celebration of those acts.  It includes taking responsibility for their citizens.  It includes negotiating for a peaceful solution to the conflict.  

You can't on the one hand say:


Spartacactcus said:


> So yep , self determination for the Jewish people in their own state is fine ...



and then turn around a day later and say:


Spartacactcus said:


> recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture



without sounding like a hypocrite at best, and an antisemite at worst.


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism.
> 
> As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.



Wow.  Way to light the candle at both ends.

Which is it?  Are the governments of Gaza and the "West Bank" capable of self-government or are they not?  If they are, do they not bear the responsibility for the welfare of their own people?


----------



## Hollie

Spartacactcus said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.
> 
> Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.
> 
> The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .
> 
> If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.
> 
> Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
Click to expand...

When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves because certain peoples have shown no ability yo govern themselves, it means that that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves.

The silly _racism_™️ slogan is timewasting. If you’re going to litter every post with the silly _racism_™️ slogan, try first presenting a coherent argument.

Second, why retreat to silly conspiracy theories as a vehicle to excuse the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war? Your retreat to the silly _divide and conquer tactics_™️ is just another tired cliché.

Your next slogan is the _criminal exploitation_™️ canard. It’s another slogan that you can’t define, explain or provide support for. That’s, umm, you know. _racist_™️

Your next slogan is the “_if the foreign donors (who you can’t define) stopped their money supply, Israel would collapse_™️”, slogan. Well, actually no.









						Israel Economy Facts & Stats
					

Find out how Israel ranks internationally on Economy. Get the facts and compare to other countries!



					www.nationmaster.com
				




 What “occupation” are you referring to? What sovereign territory of either the Abbas or the Hamas mini-caliphate is occupied by Israel?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Spartacactcus said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
Click to expand...

I do not know where you read or heard that the Arab Palestinians are the native population of Canaan.  If so, that means that most of its history did not happen, and that Christianity did not come out of what happened there either.

You start with a false premise, pushed by the Arabs Muslims themselves since 1973, as they could not destroy Israel with any military attacks.

The Quran itself tells of the Jews being there as the native population when the Arabs' ancestors invaded the land.  It was not until losing the 1948 to the Jews and the creation of Israel that some Arab leaders began to misinform the public and their own population, telling them that the Palestinians, who only became a nationlized people, in 1964, after Arafat .....with the Soviet KGB, came up with that idea.

The Arab leader, the Grand Mufti, tells how the Jews did not invade and dispossess any Arabs, but bought lands that no one wanted.  Tel Aviv was built on one such land, which had been nothing but unwanted swamp.









						The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews
					

The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews      The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, will never be accused ...




					middleeastfacts2015.blogspot.com
				




-----------
Yes, the Arab Muslims have been a totally foreign body on the land, since the 7th century, with a totally different religion and a totally different culture and language.

But there was nothing that unarmed Jews and others living there at the time could do then, or later.
Not until the end of the 19th century.

Why?

Because of endless pogroms against the Jews.

Check the Pogrom which happened in Damascus in the 19th century.

When any people, in groups or just families, from anywhere in the world go and live somewhere else, it does not make the new place their indigenous, native place.

Where the Jews came from, the land of Canaan, Israel, Judea, Palestine, always was and continues to be their departing place and the place where they have every right to return to, as they made it their home for over 3000 years.

As to the Palestinians, their parting place is Arabia.
That is where they are indigenous from, no matter when they left.

I will ask again, what happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and in 1947?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Spartacactcus said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how come that doesn't make you an antisemite ?
> 
> When I express support for Palestinian self determination in the OPTs that's what I get accused of
Click to expand...

Do you know the meaning of the word Antisemite?

Do you know who coined it and why, and towards which people?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Spartacactcus said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
Click to expand...

FYI, a ton of info.





__





						HOME - 1948
					

Palestine - Israel History




					www.1948.org.uk


----------



## rylah




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
Click to expand...

FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948

“How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”

The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?

When did that happen?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
Click to expand...

Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*. 





__





						Partition and the Law - 1948
					






					www.1948.org.uk


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
Click to expand...

During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.

Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.

When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
Click to expand...

You know full well Tinmore is mentally ill.


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know full well Tinmore is mentally ill.
Click to expand...

After ten years of manipulating, re-writing and falsifying history, he’s still using the same manipulated, re-written and falsified arguments to press his Islamist agenda.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know full well Tinmore is mentally ill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After ten years of manipulating, re-writing and falsifying history, he’s still using the same manipulated, re-written and falsified arguments to press his Islamist agenda.
Click to expand...

Mental illness.


----------



## Spartacactcus

Shusha said:


> Nope.  Actually, you do not get accused of being an antisemite because you express support for Palestinian self-determination.



Yes you do and I have. In fact if we look at your dictates and disagree with any of them , by your own admission, you will play the " you hate Jews " card.

More importantly if I ask you to apply universal standards to others and you  don't, and I can show you don't ( happens all the time in this conflict and in this very post of yours ) do I get to call you an Islamophobe or anti Arab bigot ?


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Actually, you do not get accused of being an antisemite because you express support for Palestinian self-determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you do and I have. In fact if we look at your dictates and disagree with any of them , by your own admission, you will play the " you hate Jews " card.
> 
> More importantly if I ask you to apply universal standards to others and you  don't, and I can show you don't ( happens all the time in this conflict and in this very post of yours ) do I get to call you an Islamophobe or anti Arab bigot ?
Click to expand...


Well, if you reject self-determination for ONE peoples; or if you apply special standards to ONE peoples; or if you reject the history of ONE peoples; or place the entirety of responsibility on ONE peoples, you should be called out for it.  If you don't like to be called out for it -- don't do it.  

Since I embrace self-determination for ALL peoples and since I apply universal standards, and since I accept factual history of all peoples, and believe there is mutual responsibility, I tend not to get called out.

Try it some time.


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Actually, you do not get accused of being an antisemite because you express support for Palestinian self-determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you do and I have. In fact if we look at your dictates and disagree with any of them , by your own admission, you will play the " you hate Jews " card.
> 
> More importantly if I ask you to apply universal standards to others and you  don't, and I can show you don't ( happens all the time in this conflict and in this very post of yours ) do I get to call you an Islamophobe or anti Arab bigot ?
Click to expand...


Also, if you can show where I don't apply universal standards, please make an attempt to do so.


----------



## Spartacactcus

Shusha said:


> You can't on the one hand say:
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So yep , self determination for the Jewish people in their own state is fine ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and then turn around a day later and say:
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> without sounding like a hypocrite at best, and an antisemite at worst.
Click to expand...


Erm, yes you can. You can have your own opinions but you cannot have your own facts. You can be historically accurate and not be a hypocrite

So I can say that , due to the historic persecution of the Jews, I think they would be well served by a state in which to protect themselves and support that without agreeing that it should necessarily have been founded at the expence of another people by the mass immigration of recently arrived immigrant ( Jews ) from foreign lands with a completely different culture. Thus remaining supportive of the creation of a Jewish state , true to my beliefs that oppose settler colonialism/colonialism and remaining historically accurate.

Then having accepted the reality of where Israel was founded, without accepting the legitimacy of that decision , I can accept the situation as is it now and form opinions about how to resolve the situation we find ourselves in today in the most just and acceptable/pragmatic ways

None of which , despite your claims , makes me someone who hates Jewish people at all


----------



## Spartacactcus

Shusha said:


> 1. Demonstrate internally consistent arguments concerning the self-determination of ALL peoples.  Don't give *reasons* for why self-determination is valid for all peoples, except the Jewish people.  This includes all arguments about "foreign settlers", "not a real culture", "just a religion", "Khazars", "not meant to have a State", and all other *reasons* for excluding the Jewish people from the right to self-determination.



I have said I support the continuance ofthe Jewish state but I would ask you to look at the allegedly pro Israeli folk here and their often stated tropes that are the mirror image of what you are claiming is racist.

We see all of the time that the Palestinians are....

Not a real people

Are a group of seperate tribes

Are recently arrived immigrants

Have no national aspirations but just want to kick the Jews out

Don't have a national culture etc etc

I'm all for applying the same standards and have found it is your own side that balks at it


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> Erm, yes you can. You can have your own opinions but you cannot have your own facts.
> 
> ...by the mass immigration of recently arrived immigrant ( Jews ) from foreign lands with a completely different culture. Thus remaining supportive of the creation of a Jewish state , true to my beliefs that oppose settler colonialism/colonialism and remaining historically accurate.



You have a strange idea of what "facts" are.  

See, you've presented your "facts" without context.  You have deliberately removed, ignored and rejected the entire CONTEXT of the Jewish return to the Jewish historical homeland.  That was on my list. #3, was it?  Now, try that all again, but this time include ALL the "facts" and not just the ones which erase the Jewish people AS a people with a history in a homeland.


----------



## Spartacactcus

Shusha said:


> 2.  Recognize frequently the deep attachment of the Jewish people to their homeland, history, culture and religious faith.  Don't diminish it, ignore it, neglect it, minimize it, cast it aside, argue against it, or reject it.  The Jewish connection to their homeland and history can not be reasonably disputed.  And it makes you look foolish as well as antisemitic.



Your demands are proving to be ridiculous , not surprisingly because it's great to portray any critic of Israeli policies or actions as a antisemite lol


The vast majority of Zionist pioneers were atheistic Jews fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe at a  time when the nation states of Europe had solidified themselves from provinces etc where was the push for the Jewish state for 2000 plus years ?


----------



## Spartacactcus

Shusha said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, yes you can. You can have your own opinions but you cannot have your own facts.
> 
> ...by the mass immigration of recently arrived immigrant ( Jews ) from foreign lands with a completely different culture. Thus remaining supportive of the creation of a Jewish state , true to my beliefs that oppose settler colonialism/colonialism and remaining historically accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a strange idea of what "facts" are.
> 
> See, you've presented your "facts" without context.  You have deliberately removed, ignored and rejected the entire CONTEXT of the Jewish return to the Jewish historical homeland.  That was on my list. #3, was it?  Now, try that all again, but this time include ALL the "facts" and not just the ones which erase the Jewish people AS a people with a history in a homeland.
Click to expand...



Nope, the facts are always in context . There was no Jewish homeland for over 2000 years, that's a fact.


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Demonstrate internally consistent arguments concerning the self-determination of ALL peoples.  Don't give *reasons* for why self-determination is valid for all peoples, except the Jewish people.  This includes all arguments about "foreign settlers", "not a real culture", "just a religion", "Khazars", "not meant to have a State", and all other *reasons* for excluding the Jewish people from the right to self-determination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said I support the continuance ofthe Jewish state but I would ask you to look at the allegedly pro Israeli folk here and their often stated tropes that are the mirror image of what you are claiming is racist.
> 
> We see all of the time that the Palestinians are....
> 
> Not a real people
> 
> Are a group of seperate tribes
> 
> Are recently arrived immigrants
> 
> Have no national aspirations but just want to kick the Jews out
> 
> Don't have a national culture etc etc
> 
> I'm all for applying the same standards and have found it is your own side that balks at it
Click to expand...


Excellent.  Let's look at these.

In order to address this, we need to establish what constitutes a "people" and what the objective criteria for self-determination is.  We'd also need to objectively define "culture" and how it is relevant.  We'd have to discuss the difference between an "immigrant" and a "returnee". 

In particular, let's discuss this in the same context as "immigrants from foreign lands with a totally different culture who have come to colonize".  Because you are sounding awfully hypocritical to me.  How can you complain about the above list, in the context of your posts?


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Recognize frequently the deep attachment of the Jewish people to their homeland, history, culture and religious faith.  Don't diminish it, ignore it, neglect it, minimize it, cast it aside, argue against it, or reject it.  The Jewish connection to their homeland and history can not be reasonably disputed.  And it makes you look foolish as well as antisemitic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your demands are proving to be ridiculous , not surprisingly because it's great to portray any critic of Israeli policies or actions as a antisemite lol
Click to expand...


Seriously?  This one was the EASY one.  Take a deep breath.  Say this with me:

The Jewish people and their culture and their religious faith originated on the territory in question.  They have a nearly 4000 year history in that territory.  It is the homeland of the Jewish people.  The Jewish people have always had a deep attachment to that land and to the history that is evident there.  This deep attachment is reflected in their myths, their cultural practices, their religious writings and their celebrations and has been for thousands of years. 

Dude, seriously, if you can't even get a grip on this, how else am I to take you but antisemitic?


----------



## Spartacactcus

Shusha said:


> 3.  Apply objective standards.  Use a single definition for terms such as "indigenous culture", "occupation", "self-governing institutions", "civilians", "legitimate self-defense" and others.



I think you will find me more objective than yourself but accepting that will be difficult for you imo and I will show you why below


> 4.  Insist that the Arab Palestinians model behaviour consistent with being ready to move into Statehood. This means the cessation of terrorist acts, including the payment for those acts, incitement of those acts and celebration of those acts.  It includes taking responsibility for their citizens.  It includes negotiating for a peaceful solution to the conflict.



I agree the Palestinians should stop terrorist attacks but I insist that the IDF do likewise because I am more objective and see the terrorism on both sides, you apparently only see it from one side, the other side

I would also add that prior to the state of Israel many Jews engaged in terrorism themselves in order to pressure the British to allow them self determination. So why are you applying a different standard to the Arabs.


----------



## Spartacactcus

Shusha said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism.
> 
> As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Way to light the candle at both ends.
> 
> Which is it?  Are the governments of Gaza and the "West Bank" capable of self-government or are they not?  If they are, do they not bear the responsibility for the welfare of their own people?
Click to expand...



Of course the different factions amongst the Palestinians are capable of running their own affairs. That you think they are not stinks of racism imo

What needs to happen is for the occupation to end and the illegal settlers return to Israel so as to allow them the chance to develop the independent apparatus with which to govern themselves


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> Nope, the facts are always in context . There was no Jewish homeland for over 2000 years, that's a fact.



Do you have to make this so easy for me?

Homeland.  The place that is home.  As long as the Jewish people exist, it will be their homeland -- the place of their origin and the place of their history and ancestors.


----------



## Spartacactcus

Hollie said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.
> 
> Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.
> 
> The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .
> 
> If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.
> 
> Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves because certain peoples have shown no ability yo govern themselves, it means that that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves.
> 
> The silly _racism_™️ slogan is timewasting. If you’re going to litter every post with the silly _racism_™️ slogan, try first presenting a coherent argument.
> 
> Second, why retreat to silly conspiracy theories as a vehicle to excuse the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war? Your retreat to the silly _divide and conquer tactics_™️ is just another tired cliché.
> 
> Your next slogan is the _criminal exploitation_™️ canard. It’s another slogan that you can’t define, explain or provide support for. That’s, umm, you know. _racist_™️
> 
> Your next slogan is the “_if the foreign donors (who you can’t define) stopped their money supply, Israel would collapse_™️”, slogan. Well, actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> Find out how Israel ranks internationally on Economy. Get the facts and compare to other countries!
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationmaster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What “occupation” are you referring to? What sovereign territory of either the Abbas or the Hamas mini-caliphate is occupied by Israel?
Click to expand...



To not factor in the outside influences and the Israeli domination of the Palestinians , including their political life, into the equation of what we see in the OPTs is just plain ridiculous. 

To refer to the dynamics of the divide and conquer concept as " conspiracy theory " is wholly vacuous.

The occupied territories consist of East Jerusalem , Gaza and the WB............you know , the territories they have voted at the UNGA every November for the last 35 ? years


----------



## Shusha

I'm going to refrain from specifically answering some of these posts, as they are more suited to different threads. 

Spartacactcus, feel free to post concerning terrorism and occupation elsewhere, tag me and I will respond.


----------



## Spartacactcus

Shusha said:


> Also, if you can show where I don't apply universal standards, please make an attempt to do so.



Certainly.

You never mentioned that the Jewish state terrorism against the Palestinians should be halted before any negotiations for peace/conflict resolution should take place. You only demanded it of the Palestinians.

Correct ?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Spartacactcus said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  Apply objective standards.  Use a single definition for terms such as "indigenous culture", "occupation", "self-governing institutions", "civilians", "legitimate self-defense" and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will find me more objective than yourself but accepting that will be difficult for you imo and I will show you why below
> 
> 
> 
> 4.  Insist that the Arab Palestinians model behaviour consistent with being ready to move into Statehood. This means the cessation of terrorist acts, including the payment for those acts, incitement of those acts and celebration of those acts.  It includes taking responsibility for their citizens.  It includes negotiating for a peaceful solution to the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree the Palestinians should stop terrorist attacks but I insist that the IDF do likewise because I am more objective and see the terrorism on both sides, you apparently only see it from one side, the other side
> 
> I would also add that prior to the state of Israel many Jews engaged in terrorism themselves in order to pressure the British to allow them self determination. So why are you applying a different standard to the Arabs.
Click to expand...

The British had a duty with the Mandate for Palestine to help the Jews Re Create their nation ON their ancient homeland.  They betrayed that word with the Jews and only with the Jews.
Note how all other three Mandates went on and declared Independence long before Israel finally declared hers.

The British dishonored their names by not enforcing security for the Jews, and allowing Jews to be ethnically cleansed from their cities.  And much worse than that.

The British were engaged in helping the Arabs in defeating, terrorizing the Jewish population.  The methods may have been ugly, but the British and the Arabs did much worse.
The Arabs did it with the intention of killing ALL Jews in Palestine.  They still do.

1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1948, 1947, 1948.  Discuss these years.

1937 and 1947.  The Partition plans.  Discuss that.


----------



## Shusha

Spartacactcus said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if you can show where I don't apply universal standards, please make an attempt to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly.
> 
> You never mentioned that the Jewish state terrorism against the Palestinians should be halted before any negotiations for peace/conflict resolution should take place. You only demanded it of the Palestinians.
> 
> Correct ?
Click to expand...


I am fairly certain we don't share the same objective definition of terrorism here.  What is the universal standard when it comes to State actions during a civil war?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Spartacactcus said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.
> 
> Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.
> 
> The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .
> 
> If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.
> 
> Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves because certain peoples have shown no ability yo govern themselves, it means that that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves.
> 
> The silly _racism_™️ slogan is timewasting. If you’re going to litter every post with the silly _racism_™️ slogan, try first presenting a coherent argument.
> 
> Second, why retreat to silly conspiracy theories as a vehicle to excuse the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war? Your retreat to the silly _divide and conquer tactics_™️ is just another tired cliché.
> 
> Your next slogan is the _criminal exploitation_™️ canard. It’s another slogan that you can’t define, explain or provide support for. That’s, umm, you know. _racist_™️
> 
> Your next slogan is the “_if the foreign donors (who you can’t define) stopped their money supply, Israel would collapse_™️”, slogan. Well, actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> Find out how Israel ranks internationally on Economy. Get the facts and compare to other countries!
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationmaster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What “occupation” are you referring to? What sovereign territory of either the Abbas or the Hamas mini-caliphate is occupied by Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To not factor in the outside influences and the Israeli domination of the Palestinians , including their political life, into the equation of what we see in the OPTs is just plain ridiculous.
> 
> To refer to the dynamics of the divide and conquer concept as " conspiracy theory " is wholly vacuous.
> 
> The occupied territories consist of East Jerusalem , Gaza and the WB............you know , the territories they have voted at the UNGA every November for the last 35 ? years
Click to expand...

Gaza is not occupied by Israel.
No part of Jerusalem is occupied by Israel.

From 1948 to 1967, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria were occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan after they ethnically cleansed all the Jews from that area, as they had done with TransJordan in 1925.

Not one word from any Arab, much less their leaders about that.

Could you explain that?

How many mistakes about the facts can you make in each post?

Do we need a fact check list?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Sixties Fan said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.
> 
> Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.
> 
> The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .
> 
> If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.
> 
> Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves because certain peoples have shown no ability yo govern themselves, it means that that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves.
> 
> The silly _racism_™️ slogan is timewasting. If you’re going to litter every post with the silly _racism_™️ slogan, try first presenting a coherent argument.
> 
> Second, why retreat to silly conspiracy theories as a vehicle to excuse the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war? Your retreat to the silly _divide and conquer tactics_™️ is just another tired cliché.
> 
> Your next slogan is the _criminal exploitation_™️ canard. It’s another slogan that you can’t define, explain or provide support for. That’s, umm, you know. _racist_™️
> 
> Your next slogan is the “_if the foreign donors (who you can’t define) stopped their money supply, Israel would collapse_™️”, slogan. Well, actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> Find out how Israel ranks internationally on Economy. Get the facts and compare to other countries!
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationmaster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What “occupation” are you referring to? What sovereign territory of either the Abbas or the Hamas mini-caliphate is occupied by Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To not factor in the outside influences and the Israeli domination of the Palestinians , including their political life, into the equation of what we see in the OPTs is just plain ridiculous.
> 
> To refer to the dynamics of the divide and conquer concept as " conspiracy theory " is wholly vacuous.
> 
> The occupied territories consist of East Jerusalem , Gaza and the WB............you know , the territories they have voted at the UNGA every November for the last 35 ? years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gaza is not occupied by Israel.
> 
> How many mistakes about the facts can you make in each post?
> 
> Do we need a fact check list?
Click to expand...

Susha, Spartacus clearly wants to discuss post 1948.
Could we find another thread to invite him/her to come join us and discuss all of the above?


----------



## Sixties Fan

A different two-state solution
					

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be resolved by the creation of two states: Israel, incorporating the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and a separate Palestinian Gaza.  Palestinians within the West Bank would become full citizens of Israel. Minus Gaza, Jews would still be a majority in the...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				




This is the only one I have found.


----------



## rylah

Sixties Fan said:


> A different two-state solution
> 
> 
> The Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be resolved by the creation of two states: Israel, incorporating the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and a separate Palestinian Gaza.  Palestinians within the West Bank would become full citizens of Israel. Minus Gaza, Jews would still be a majority in the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the only one I have found.



We have passed that threshold.
Only one state - Israel.
No options.

You'll see.


----------



## Shusha

Sixties Fan,

Doesn't seem to be a point, since the fundamental problem with Spartacactcus' argument is not his (?) lack of "facts" (though that is a considerable issue) -- its his inability to view the Jewish people as a collective whole, with an origin story, a history and distinct and ancient culture.  He doesn't view the Jewish people as having the right to (re)establish their sovereignty and self-determination.


----------



## rylah

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know full well Tinmore is mentally ill.
Click to expand...


You're being too kind.
Mental illness is how rapists ease the sentence.
He knows exactly what he's doing - lying knowingly.
Proven each time and time again - total moral corruption.

Amlak......Amlaki kalb.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.
> 
> Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.
> 
> The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .
> 
> If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.
> 
> Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves because certain peoples have shown no ability yo govern themselves, it means that that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves.
> 
> The silly _racism_™️ slogan is timewasting. If you’re going to litter every post with the silly _racism_™️ slogan, try first presenting a coherent argument.
> 
> Second, why retreat to silly conspiracy theories as a vehicle to excuse the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war? Your retreat to the silly _divide and conquer tactics_™️ is just another tired cliché.
> 
> Your next slogan is the _criminal exploitation_™️ canard. It’s another slogan that you can’t define, explain or provide support for. That’s, umm, you know. _racist_™️
> 
> Your next slogan is the “_if the foreign donors (who you can’t define) stopped their money supply, Israel would collapse_™️”, slogan. Well, actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> Find out how Israel ranks internationally on Economy. Get the facts and compare to other countries!
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationmaster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What “occupation” are you referring to? What sovereign territory of either the Abbas or the Hamas mini-caliphate is occupied by Israel?
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war?


You post this a lot but you don't know anything about it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not know where you read or heard that the Arab Palestinians are the native population of Canaan.  If so, that means that most of its history did not happen, and that Christianity did not come out of what happened there either.
> 
> You start with a false premise, pushed by the Arabs Muslims themselves since 1973, as they could not destroy Israel with any military attacks.
> 
> The Quran itself tells of the Jews being there as the native population when the Arabs' ancestors invaded the land.  It was not until losing the 1948 to the Jews and the creation of Israel that some Arab leaders began to misinform the public and their own population, telling them that the Palestinians, who only became a nationlized people, in 1964, after Arafat .....with the Soviet KGB, came up with that idea.
> 
> The Arab leader, the Grand Mufti, tells how the Jews did not invade and dispossess any Arabs, but bought lands that no one wanted.  Tel Aviv was built on one such land, which had been nothing but unwanted swamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews      The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, will never be accused ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> middleeastfacts2015.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------
> Yes, the Arab Muslims have been a totally foreign body on the land, since the 7th century, with a totally different religion and a totally different culture and language.
> 
> But there was nothing that unarmed Jews and others living there at the time could do then, or later.
> Not until the end of the 19th century.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because of endless pogroms against the Jews.
> 
> Check the Pogrom which happened in Damascus in the 19th century.
> 
> When any people, in groups or just families, from anywhere in the world go and live somewhere else, it does not make the new place their indigenous, native place.
> 
> Where the Jews came from, the land of Canaan, Israel, Judea, Palestine, always was and continues to be their departing place and the place where they have every right to return to, as they made it their home for over 3000 years.
> 
> As to the Palestinians, their parting place is Arabia.
> That is where they are indigenous from, no matter when they left.
> 
> I will ask again, what happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and in 1947?
Click to expand...




Sixties Fan said:


> Yes, the Arab Muslims have been a totally foreign body on the land, since the 7th century, with a totally different religion and a totally different culture and language.


Are you implying that in the 7th century every native of Palestine moved out and an entirely new population of Arab Muslims moved in?


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not know where you read or heard that the Arab Palestinians are the native population of Canaan.  If so, that means that most of its history did not happen, and that Christianity did not come out of what happened there either.
> 
> You start with a false premise, pushed by the Arabs Muslims themselves since 1973, as they could not destroy Israel with any military attacks.
> 
> The Quran itself tells of the Jews being there as the native population when the Arabs' ancestors invaded the land.  It was not until losing the 1948 to the Jews and the creation of Israel that some Arab leaders began to misinform the public and their own population, telling them that the Palestinians, who only became a nationlized people, in 1964, after Arafat .....with the Soviet KGB, came up with that idea.
> 
> The Arab leader, the Grand Mufti, tells how the Jews did not invade and dispossess any Arabs, but bought lands that no one wanted.  Tel Aviv was built on one such land, which had been nothing but unwanted swamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews      The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, will never be accused ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> middleeastfacts2015.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------
> Yes, the Arab Muslims have been a totally foreign body on the land, since the 7th century, with a totally different religion and a totally different culture and language.
> 
> But there was nothing that unarmed Jews and others living there at the time could do then, or later.
> Not until the end of the 19th century.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because of endless pogroms against the Jews.
> 
> Check the Pogrom which happened in Damascus in the 19th century.
> 
> When any people, in groups or just families, from anywhere in the world go and live somewhere else, it does not make the new place their indigenous, native place.
> 
> Where the Jews came from, the land of Canaan, Israel, Judea, Palestine, always was and continues to be their departing place and the place where they have every right to return to, as they made it their home for over 3000 years.
> 
> As to the Palestinians, their parting place is Arabia.
> That is where they are indigenous from, no matter when they left.
> 
> I will ask again, what happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and in 1947?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Muslims have been a totally foreign body on the land, since the 7th century, with a totally different religion and a totally different culture and language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that in the 7th century every native of Palestine moved out and an entirely new population of Arab Muslims moved in?
Click to expand...

Can't tell when Muslims are constantly murdering each other and everyone else.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.


Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Indeependent said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not know where you read or heard that the Arab Palestinians are the native population of Canaan.  If so, that means that most of its history did not happen, and that Christianity did not come out of what happened there either.
> 
> You start with a false premise, pushed by the Arabs Muslims themselves since 1973, as they could not destroy Israel with any military attacks.
> 
> The Quran itself tells of the Jews being there as the native population when the Arabs' ancestors invaded the land.  It was not until losing the 1948 to the Jews and the creation of Israel that some Arab leaders began to misinform the public and their own population, telling them that the Palestinians, who only became a nationlized people, in 1964, after Arafat .....with the Soviet KGB, came up with that idea.
> 
> The Arab leader, the Grand Mufti, tells how the Jews did not invade and dispossess any Arabs, but bought lands that no one wanted.  Tel Aviv was built on one such land, which had been nothing but unwanted swamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews      The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, will never be accused ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> middleeastfacts2015.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------
> Yes, the Arab Muslims have been a totally foreign body on the land, since the 7th century, with a totally different religion and a totally different culture and language.
> 
> But there was nothing that unarmed Jews and others living there at the time could do then, or later.
> Not until the end of the 19th century.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because of endless pogroms against the Jews.
> 
> Check the Pogrom which happened in Damascus in the 19th century.
> 
> When any people, in groups or just families, from anywhere in the world go and live somewhere else, it does not make the new place their indigenous, native place.
> 
> Where the Jews came from, the land of Canaan, Israel, Judea, Palestine, always was and continues to be their departing place and the place where they have every right to return to, as they made it their home for over 3000 years.
> 
> As to the Palestinians, their parting place is Arabia.
> That is where they are indigenous from, no matter when they left.
> 
> I will ask again, what happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and in 1947?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Muslims have been a totally foreign body on the land, since the 7th century, with a totally different religion and a totally different culture and language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that in the 7th century every native of Palestine moved out and an entirely new population of Arab Muslims moved in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't tell when Muslims are constantly murdering each other and everyone else.
Click to expand...

Thank you Mr. Irrelevant.


----------



## Indeependent

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not know where you read or heard that the Arab Palestinians are the native population of Canaan.  If so, that means that most of its history did not happen, and that Christianity did not come out of what happened there either.
> 
> You start with a false premise, pushed by the Arabs Muslims themselves since 1973, as they could not destroy Israel with any military attacks.
> 
> The Quran itself tells of the Jews being there as the native population when the Arabs' ancestors invaded the land.  It was not until losing the 1948 to the Jews and the creation of Israel that some Arab leaders began to misinform the public and their own population, telling them that the Palestinians, who only became a nationlized people, in 1964, after Arafat .....with the Soviet KGB, came up with that idea.
> 
> The Arab leader, the Grand Mufti, tells how the Jews did not invade and dispossess any Arabs, but bought lands that no one wanted.  Tel Aviv was built on one such land, which had been nothing but unwanted swamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews      The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, will never be accused ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> middleeastfacts2015.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------
> Yes, the Arab Muslims have been a totally foreign body on the land, since the 7th century, with a totally different religion and a totally different culture and language.
> 
> But there was nothing that unarmed Jews and others living there at the time could do then, or later.
> Not until the end of the 19th century.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because of endless pogroms against the Jews.
> 
> Check the Pogrom which happened in Damascus in the 19th century.
> 
> When any people, in groups or just families, from anywhere in the world go and live somewhere else, it does not make the new place their indigenous, native place.
> 
> Where the Jews came from, the land of Canaan, Israel, Judea, Palestine, always was and continues to be their departing place and the place where they have every right to return to, as they made it their home for over 3000 years.
> 
> As to the Palestinians, their parting place is Arabia.
> That is where they are indigenous from, no matter when they left.
> 
> I will ask again, what happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and in 1947?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Muslims have been a totally foreign body on the land, since the 7th century, with a totally different religion and a totally different culture and language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that in the 7th century every native of Palestine moved out and an entirely new population of Arab Muslims moved in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't tell when Muslims are constantly murdering each other and everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you Mr. Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Why are you posting to yourself?
Speaking of irrelevant, when are you going to show some balls and actually visit the region?


----------



## Hollie

Spartacactcus said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.
> 
> Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.
> 
> The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .
> 
> If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.
> 
> Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves because certain peoples have shown no ability yo govern themselves, it means that that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves.
> 
> The silly _racism_™️ slogan is timewasting. If you’re going to litter every post with the silly _racism_™️ slogan, try first presenting a coherent argument.
> 
> Second, why retreat to silly conspiracy theories as a vehicle to excuse the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war? Your retreat to the silly _divide and conquer tactics_™️ is just another tired cliché.
> 
> Your next slogan is the _criminal exploitation_™️ canard. It’s another slogan that you can’t define, explain or provide support for. That’s, umm, you know. _racist_™️
> 
> Your next slogan is the “_if the foreign donors (who you can’t define) stopped their money supply, Israel would collapse_™️”, slogan. Well, actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> Find out how Israel ranks internationally on Economy. Get the facts and compare to other countries!
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationmaster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What “occupation” are you referring to? What sovereign territory of either the Abbas or the Hamas mini-caliphate is occupied by Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To not factor in the outside influences and the Israeli domination of the Palestinians , including their political life, into the equation of what we see in the OPTs is just plain ridiculous.
> 
> To refer to the dynamics of the divide and conquer concept as " conspiracy theory " is wholly vacuous.
> 
> The occupied territories consist of East Jerusalem , Gaza and the WB............you know , the territories they have voted at the UNGA every November for the last 35 ? years
Click to expand...

Your comments are ripe with fallacies. You use the term “IsraelI domination” but you don’t define what that means. I’ll try and do that for you. If you are referring to IsraelI control of their borders and means and methods used to suppress gee-had attacks, you will need to explain the consequences to IsraelI citizens if those controls were not in place. The Israelis are bordered by insensately angry, Arab-Moslem barbarians with a 1,400 year old, religiously sanctioned, stated goal to wipe Israel from the map. There’s not a lot of room for negotiation with such an ideology. 

All societies have “outside influences”. Some societies, Hong Kong, South Vietnam, South Korea we’re able to thrive and prosper despite “outside influences”. There are differences, of course. None of the societies noted above are shackled by religious totalitarianism and including other factors that allow some to rise above difficult circumstances while others wallow in their own failures and ineptitudes. 

I note that the “divide and conquer” conspiracy theory was a part of your post. I responded to that with the label “conspiracy theory” because it was a canard dumped into the thread with no relevant detail, much like the _racist_™️ slogan. 

UNGA opinions are toothless commentary and don’t address how territory never under sovereign control of the Arabs-Moslems somehow becomes ‘occupied” by Israel as opposed to  territory that is claimed as _waqf _by a long-dead desert Arab warlord. We could get into a lovely discussion of the laughable political circus that the UN has evolved into so consider sending a strongly worded email with your objections to the UN Human Rights Commission when Iran, the KSA, Yemen and other Islamic theocratic totalitarian dystopias will be a willing audience.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.
> 
> Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.
> 
> The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .
> 
> If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.
> 
> Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves because certain peoples have shown no ability yo govern themselves, it means that that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves.
> 
> The silly _racism_™️ slogan is timewasting. If you’re going to litter every post with the silly _racism_™️ slogan, try first presenting a coherent argument.
> 
> Second, why retreat to silly conspiracy theories as a vehicle to excuse the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war? Your retreat to the silly _divide and conquer tactics_™️ is just another tired cliché.
> 
> Your next slogan is the _criminal exploitation_™️ canard. It’s another slogan that you can’t define, explain or provide support for. That’s, umm, you know. _racist_™️
> 
> Your next slogan is the “_if the foreign donors (who you can’t define) stopped their money supply, Israel would collapse_™️”, slogan. Well, actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> Find out how Israel ranks internationally on Economy. Get the facts and compare to other countries!
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationmaster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What “occupation” are you referring to? What sovereign territory of either the Abbas or the Hamas mini-caliphate is occupied by Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You post this a lot but you don't know anything about it.
Click to expand...

I post that because it’s a relevant fact. I notice you don’t proceed beyond your usual, silly, one-liners suggesting you don’t know anything about it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.
> 
> Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.
> 
> The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .
> 
> If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.
> 
> Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves because certain peoples have shown no ability yo govern themselves, it means that that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves.
> 
> The silly _racism_™️ slogan is timewasting. If you’re going to litter every post with the silly _racism_™️ slogan, try first presenting a coherent argument.
> 
> Second, why retreat to silly conspiracy theories as a vehicle to excuse the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war? Your retreat to the silly _divide and conquer tactics_™️ is just another tired cliché.
> 
> Your next slogan is the _criminal exploitation_™️ canard. It’s another slogan that you can’t define, explain or provide support for. That’s, umm, you know. _racist_™️
> 
> Your next slogan is the “_if the foreign donors (who you can’t define) stopped their money supply, Israel would collapse_™️”, slogan. Well, actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> Find out how Israel ranks internationally on Economy. Get the facts and compare to other countries!
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationmaster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What “occupation” are you referring to? What sovereign territory of either the Abbas or the Hamas mini-caliphate is occupied by Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You post this a lot but you don't know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post that because it’s a relevant fact. I notice you don’t proceed beyond your usual, silly, one-liners suggesting you don’t know anything about it.
Click to expand...

Do you know it started with Oslo?

Of course not.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Commissioners hoped the ‘clean cut’ would solve two crises: that of Palestine and of Europe’s Jews. If the Arabs could help bring a ‘final solution’ to Europe’s ‘Jewish problem’ (the drafters could not have known the cruel irony of their wording) they would earn not just the Jews’ gratitude but humanity’s. ‘Numberless men and women all over the world would feel a sense of deep relief if somehow an end could be put to strife and bloodshed in a thrice hallowed land.’[lxiv]

The next day His Majesty’s Government endorsed the report’s main principles.

The Arabs would obtain their national independence, and thus be enabled to co-operate on an equal footing with the Arabs of neighbouring countries in the cause of Arab unity and progress … It would convert the Jewish National Home into a Jewish State with full control over immigration … The Jews would at last cease to live a ‘minority life,’ and the primary objective of Zionism would thus be attained … both peoples would obtain, in the words of the Commission, ‘the inestimable boon of peace.’[lxv]

The world’s preeminent power now backed a two-state solution to the Jewish-Arab dispute over the Holy Land.

(full article online)






						Mandate100 | ‘A Clean Cut’ for Palestine: The Peel Commission Reexamined
					

In this fascinating dive into the archives Oren Kessler reveals the dramatic exchanges that shaped Lord Peel’s 1936 proposal to partition Mandate Palestine. Kessler examines testimony given to the R...



					fathomjournal.org


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.
> 
> Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.
> 
> The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .
> 
> If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.
> 
> Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves because certain peoples have shown no ability yo govern themselves, it means that that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves.
> 
> The silly _racism_™️ slogan is timewasting. If you’re going to litter every post with the silly _racism_™️ slogan, try first presenting a coherent argument.
> 
> Second, why retreat to silly conspiracy theories as a vehicle to excuse the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war? Your retreat to the silly _divide and conquer tactics_™️ is just another tired cliché.
> 
> Your next slogan is the _criminal exploitation_™️ canard. It’s another slogan that you can’t define, explain or provide support for. That’s, umm, you know. _racist_™️
> 
> Your next slogan is the “_if the foreign donors (who you can’t define) stopped their money supply, Israel would collapse_™️”, slogan. Well, actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> Find out how Israel ranks internationally on Economy. Get the facts and compare to other countries!
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationmaster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What “occupation” are you referring to? What sovereign territory of either the Abbas or the Hamas mini-caliphate is occupied by Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You post this a lot but you don't know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post that because it’s a relevant fact. I notice you don’t proceed beyond your usual, silly, one-liners suggesting you don’t know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know it started with Oslo?
> 
> Of course not.
Click to expand...


Do you know you’re wrong?

Of course not. Your usual slogan dump and then bail.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
Click to expand...

You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems. 

You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.
> 
> Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.
> 
> The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .
> 
> If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.
> 
> Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves because certain peoples have shown no ability yo govern themselves, it means that that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves.
> 
> The silly _racism_™️ slogan is timewasting. If you’re going to litter every post with the silly _racism_™️ slogan, try first presenting a coherent argument.
> 
> Second, why retreat to silly conspiracy theories as a vehicle to excuse the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war? Your retreat to the silly _divide and conquer tactics_™️ is just another tired cliché.
> 
> Your next slogan is the _criminal exploitation_™️ canard. It’s another slogan that you can’t define, explain or provide support for. That’s, umm, you know. _racist_™️
> 
> Your next slogan is the “_if the foreign donors (who you can’t define) stopped their money supply, Israel would collapse_™️”, slogan. Well, actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> Find out how Israel ranks internationally on Economy. Get the facts and compare to other countries!
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationmaster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What “occupation” are you referring to? What sovereign territory of either the Abbas or the Hamas mini-caliphate is occupied by Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You post this a lot but you don't know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post that because it’s a relevant fact. I notice you don’t proceed beyond your usual, silly, one-liners suggesting you don’t know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know it started with Oslo?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know you’re wrong?
> 
> Of course not. Your usual slogan dump and then bail.
Click to expand...

Obviously you never read Oslo.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.


More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
Click to expand...

Your usual slogans. 

There was never a “state of pally’land“. It’s really pretty simple. 

Now, In anticipating another your usual, slogans: “link?”. 

No, there is no link to that which never existed. However, I can certainly show you the error of your juvenile “prove it isn’t” nonsense. 

I have proved there was never some imaginary “state of Pal’istan”. Prove I haven’t. 

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.
> 
> Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.
> 
> The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .
> 
> If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.
> 
> Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves because certain peoples have shown no ability yo govern themselves, it means that that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves.
> 
> The silly _racism_™️ slogan is timewasting. If you’re going to litter every post with the silly _racism_™️ slogan, try first presenting a coherent argument.
> 
> Second, why retreat to silly conspiracy theories as a vehicle to excuse the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war? Your retreat to the silly _divide and conquer tactics_™️ is just another tired cliché.
> 
> Your next slogan is the _criminal exploitation_™️ canard. It’s another slogan that you can’t define, explain or provide support for. That’s, umm, you know. _racist_™️
> 
> Your next slogan is the “_if the foreign donors (who you can’t define) stopped their money supply, Israel would collapse_™️”, slogan. Well, actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> Find out how Israel ranks internationally on Economy. Get the facts and compare to other countries!
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationmaster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What “occupation” are you referring to? What sovereign territory of either the Abbas or the Hamas mini-caliphate is occupied by Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You post this a lot but you don't know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post that because it’s a relevant fact. I notice you don’t proceed beyond your usual, silly, one-liners suggesting you don’t know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know it started with Oslo?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know you’re wrong?
> 
> Of course not. Your usual slogan dump and then bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you never read Oslo.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you never understood Oslo.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not know where you read or heard that the Arab Palestinians are the native population of Canaan.  If so, that means that most of its history did not happen, and that Christianity did not come out of what happened there either.
> 
> You start with a false premise, pushed by the Arabs Muslims themselves since 1973, as they could not destroy Israel with any military attacks.
> 
> The Quran itself tells of the Jews being there as the native population when the Arabs' ancestors invaded the land.  It was not until losing the 1948 to the Jews and the creation of Israel that some Arab leaders began to misinform the public and their own population, telling them that the Palestinians, who only became a nationlized people, in 1964, after Arafat .....with the Soviet KGB, came up with that idea.
> 
> The Arab leader, the Grand Mufti, tells how the Jews did not invade and dispossess any Arabs, but bought lands that no one wanted.  Tel Aviv was built on one such land, which had been nothing but unwanted swamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews
> 
> 
> The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews      The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, will never be accused ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> middleeastfacts2015.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------
> Yes, the Arab Muslims have been a totally foreign body on the land, since the 7th century, with a totally different religion and a totally different culture and language.
> 
> But there was nothing that unarmed Jews and others living there at the time could do then, or later.
> Not until the end of the 19th century.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because of endless pogroms against the Jews.
> 
> Check the Pogrom which happened in Damascus in the 19th century.
> 
> When any people, in groups or just families, from anywhere in the world go and live somewhere else, it does not make the new place their indigenous, native place.
> 
> Where the Jews came from, the land of Canaan, Israel, Judea, Palestine, always was and continues to be their departing place and the place where they have every right to return to, as they made it their home for over 3000 years.
> 
> As to the Palestinians, their parting place is Arabia.
> That is where they are indigenous from, no matter when they left.
> 
> I will ask again, what happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and in 1947?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Arab Muslims have been a totally foreign body on the land, since the 7th century, with a totally different religion and a totally different culture and language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you implying that in the 7th century every native of Palestine moved out and an entirely new population of Arab Muslims moved in?
Click to expand...


Natives...

In the 7th century most were already not natives, mixed multitude of people - just like US.
The Arab population changed, tribes moved in and out with each invading Caliphate.
Jewish communities remained, built Ramla - the only new town under Arab rule.

By definition, Arab tribes and their culture are foreign to the land.
Judea by definition will always remain Jewish land.

Simple as that.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You employed the _racist_™️canard on queue.
> 
> As to the Arabs-Moslems working to form a civil government, why don’t you consider some overseas outreach and become a mediator to resolve the divides that separate the competing mini-caliphates? I treat the competing mini-caliphates as separate and antagonist entities because that’s how they view each other. You do know they fought a rather nasty civil war that left bodies littering the streets, right?
> 
> Odd you should suggest that the Pals might be able to form a unified assembly/parliament. With the PNA / PLO / PLC being something of a model for fraud, waste and mismanagement and the quasi sharia / Islamic terrorist hierarchy in Gaza’istan, your comment suggesting that the Islamic terrorists at the top of the welfare fraud food chain will form a workable government is rather silly. Why haven’t they done so already, (note-please don't feel a need to litter the thread with the expected conspiracy theories involving the _Great Satan_™️, the _Zionist Entity_™️ and the Brits.)
> 
> You’re hoping to exploit a conspiracy theory about Jews, money foreign invaders and something about “criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land”.  Those are all the stereotypical conspiracy theories and canards that get tossed around so I have to ask if you’re willing or able to actually form a coherent argument?
> 
> What do you think would happen if, as you suggest, everyone took the welfare money out of the hands of the Arabs-Moslems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves it reeks of racism. It was the mainstay of the white mans burden throughout their subjugation of the peoples of the world in their ages of empire. So if you got called out on posing the same racist claptrap here, you got what you deserved imo.
> 
> Not only do I know that the Fatah and Hamas factions fought the Battle of Gaza ,I know what was behind it and that falls into the divide an conquer tactics used by the usual suspects.What you foolishly refer to as conspiracy theory is actually the tried and tested means virtually all conflicts/empires are structured. That you wish to see it as a fantasy only shows how out of touch you are.
> 
> The criminal exploitation of the Palestinians and their land is real and easily understood for those that view different peoples as being equal wrt rights .
> 
> If the foreigh donors stopped their money supply then the whole greater Israel project ( an possibly Israel itself ) would start to unravel and the dire situation of the Palestinians would be impossible for the world to ignore the way it does. I'm not advocating it because of the suffering it would cause but that's what I think would happen.
> 
> Israel, as the occupying power, is getting away from the financial burden of that occupation. As an occupier it would and should be resoponsible for the welfare of the people it occupies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When people say that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves because certain peoples have shown no ability yo govern themselves, it means that that certain peoples are not able to govern themselves.
> 
> The silly _racism_™️ slogan is timewasting. If you’re going to litter every post with the silly _racism_™️ slogan, try first presenting a coherent argument.
> 
> Second, why retreat to silly conspiracy theories as a vehicle to excuse the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war? Your retreat to the silly _divide and conquer tactics_™️ is just another tired cliché.
> 
> Your next slogan is the _criminal exploitation_™️ canard. It’s another slogan that you can’t define, explain or provide support for. That’s, umm, you know. _racist_™️
> 
> Your next slogan is the “_if the foreign donors (who you can’t define) stopped their money supply, Israel would collapse_™️”, slogan. Well, actually no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel Economy Facts & Stats
> 
> 
> Find out how Israel ranks internationally on Economy. Get the facts and compare to other countries!
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationmaster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What “occupation” are you referring to? What sovereign territory of either the Abbas or the Hamas mini-caliphate is occupied by Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the tribal warfare that was an underlying cause of the Hamas vs. Fatah civil war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You post this a lot but you don't know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I post that because it’s a relevant fact. I notice you don’t proceed beyond your usual, silly, one-liners suggesting you don’t know anything about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know it started with Oslo?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know you’re wrong?
> 
> Of course not. Your usual slogan dump and then bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously you never read Oslo.
Click to expand...


Arab tribal rivalry didn't start with Oslo,
this just shows how little you know about the region.





__





						Qays–Yaman rivalry - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The *Qays–Yaman rivalry* refers to the historical rivalry and blood feud between the factions of the Qays (who were Adnanites or northern Arabians) and Yaman (who were Qahtanites or southern Arabians) in the Arab world. The conflict first emerged among the Arab tribes that constituted the Umayyad army and administration in the 7th and 8th centuries. Membership in either faction was rooted in the genealogical origins, real or perceived, of the Arab tribes, which divided them into south Arabian descendants of Qahtan (Yaman) or north Arabian descendants of Adnan (Qays). Yamani tribes, including the Kalb, Ghassan, Tanukh, Judham and Lakhm, were well-established in central and southern Syria in pre-Islamic times, while Qaysi tribes, such as the Sulaym, Kilab and Uqayl, largely migrated to northern Syria and Upper Mesopotamia with the Muslim armies in the mid-7th century.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual slogans.
> 
> There was never a “state of pally’land“. It’s really pretty simple.
> 
> Now, In anticipating another your usual, slogans: “link?”.
> 
> No, there is no link to that which never existed. However, I can certainly show you the error of your juvenile “prove it isn’t” nonsense.
> 
> I have proved there was never some imaginary “state of Pal’istan”. Prove I haven’t.
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

You always say that when you haven't.


----------



## rylah




----------



## Spartacactcus

rylah said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A different two-state solution
> 
> 
> The Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be resolved by the creation of two states: Israel, incorporating the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and a separate Palestinian Gaza.  Palestinians within the West Bank would become full citizens of Israel. Minus Gaza, Jews would still be a majority in the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the only one I have found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have passed that threshold.
> Only one state - Israel.
> No options.
> 
> You'll see.
Click to expand...



And the obvious civil rights movement that could end the Zionist dream altogether or at least scupper its democratic status


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual slogans.
> 
> There was never a “state of pally’land“. It’s really pretty simple.
> 
> Now, In anticipating another your usual, slogans: “link?”.
> 
> No, there is no link to that which never existed. However, I can certainly show you the error of your juvenile “prove it isn’t” nonsense.
> 
> I have proved there was never some imaginary “state of Pal’istan”. Prove I haven’t.
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> There was never a “state of pally’land“. It’s really pretty simple.


Prove it or it is just another Israeli lie.


----------



## rylah

Spartacactcus said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A different two-state solution
> 
> 
> The Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be resolved by the creation of two states: Israel, incorporating the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and a separate Palestinian Gaza.  Palestinians within the West Bank would become full citizens of Israel. Minus Gaza, Jews would still be a majority in the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the only one I have found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have passed that threshold.
> Only one state - Israel.
> No options.
> 
> You'll see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the obvious civil rights movement that could end the Zionist dream altogether or at least scupper its democratic status
Click to expand...


If I had a penny for each time someone said that.
Back in the day they said the same thing about declaring independence.

And here we are!


----------



## Faun

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
Click to expand...

It's a reality, not a talking point.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A different two-state solution
> 
> 
> The Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be resolved by the creation of two states: Israel, incorporating the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and a separate Palestinian Gaza.  Palestinians within the West Bank would become full citizens of Israel. Minus Gaza, Jews would still be a majority in the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the only one I have found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have passed that threshold.
> Only one state - Israel.
> No options.
> 
> You'll see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the obvious civil rights movement that could end the Zionist dream altogether or at least scupper its democratic status
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I had a penny for each time someone said that.
> Back in the day they said the same thing about declaring independence.
> 
> And here we are!
Click to expand...




rylah said:


> Back in the day they said the same thing about declaring independence.


Independent from what?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Faun said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a reality, not a talking point.
Click to expand...

Any proof of that?

Of course not.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Independent from what?



*From the stink of the Caliphate of course!*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual slogans.
> 
> There was never a “state of pally’land“. It’s really pretty simple.
> 
> Now, In anticipating another your usual, slogans: “link?”.
> 
> No, there is no link to that which never existed. However, I can certainly show you the error of your juvenile “prove it isn’t” nonsense.
> 
> I have proved there was never some imaginary “state of Pal’istan”. Prove I haven’t.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You always say that when you haven't.
Click to expand...

I always say that when I have.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your usual slogans.
> 
> There was never a “state of pally’land“. It’s really pretty simple.
> 
> Now, In anticipating another your usual, slogans: “link?”.
> 
> No, there is no link to that which never existed. However, I can certainly show you the error of your juvenile “prove it isn’t” nonsense.
> 
> I have proved there was never some imaginary “state of Pal’istan”. Prove I haven’t.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was never a “state of pally’land“. It’s really pretty simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it or it is just another Israeli lie.
Click to expand...


I did prove it. Disprove it.

Link?


----------



## Hollie

Spartacactcus said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A different two-state solution
> 
> 
> The Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be resolved by the creation of two states: Israel, incorporating the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and a separate Palestinian Gaza.  Palestinians within the West Bank would become full citizens of Israel. Minus Gaza, Jews would still be a majority in the...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the only one I have found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have passed that threshold.
> Only one state - Israel.
> No options.
> 
> You'll see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the obvious civil rights movement that could end the Zionist dream altogether or at least scupper its democratic status
Click to expand...

What civil rights are to be expected from Islamist sharia? 

Hamas has a civil rights handbook entitled “Hamas Charter”.  What civil rights are to be extended to Jews and non-islamists in Gaza?

Are the Islamist gee-had riots at the Israeli border an example of the Islamist civil rights movement?


----------



## Faun

P F Tinmore said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a reality, not a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of that?
> 
> Of course not.
Click to expand...

There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Spartacactcus said:


> And the obvious civil rights movement that could end the Zionist dream altogether or at least scupper its democratic status





Yes, you wish to destroy Israel in order to usher in those who have been indoctrinated from cradle to grave with the singular desire to murder Jews.  

That you think this is somehow a right speaks much of the degree of your antisemitismn.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Hollie said:


> Hamas has a civil rights handbook entitled “Hamas Charter”.



.....which promises to kill Jews "until they hide behind rocks and trees", thus getting right to the heart of these antisemite's ambitions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Faun said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a reality, not a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of that?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.
Click to expand...

Why are you blabbering on about something you can't prove?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a reality, not a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of that?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you blabbering on about something you can't prove?
Click to expand...


Usual whining by a (im)poster who can't refute a thing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a reality, not a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of that?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you blabbering on about something you can't prove?
Click to expand...


You're free to disprove his claim...….


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a reality, not a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of that?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you blabbering on about something you can't prove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to disprove his claim...….
Click to expand...

Disproved many times but Zionists are slow learners.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a reality, not a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of that?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you blabbering on about something you can't prove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to disprove his claim...….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disproved many times but Zionists are slow learners.
Click to expand...


You disproved "There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's"

Cool!

When was there a Palestinian state? When did it have borders or a Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag before the 1930's?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a reality, not a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of that?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you blabbering on about something you can't prove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to disprove his claim...….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disproved many times but Zionists are slow learners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disproved "There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's"
> 
> Cool!
> 
> When was there a Palestinian state? When did it have borders or a Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag before the 1930's?
Click to expand...

A government is the product if self determination not a prerequisite


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a reality, not a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of that?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you blabbering on about something you can't prove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to disprove his claim...….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disproved many times but Zionists are slow learners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disproved "There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's"
> 
> Cool!
> 
> When was there a Palestinian state? When did it have borders or a Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag before the 1930's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government is the product if self determination not a prerequisite
Click to expand...


There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.


----------



## Sixties Fan

The flag of Jordan, officially adopted on 18 April 1928, is based on the 1917 flag of the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The flag consists of horizontal black, white, and green bands that are connected by a red chevron. Wikipedia

Use: State flag, Civil ensign, Civil flag, State ensign
Adopted on: April 18, 1928


The Palestinian flag is a tricolor of three equal horizontal stripes overlaid by a red triangle issuing from the hoist. This flag is derived from the Pan-Arab colors and is used to represent the State of Palestine and the Palestinian people.Wikipedia

Adopted: 28 May 1964 (PLO)


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a reality, not a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of that?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you blabbering on about something you can't prove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to disprove his claim...….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disproved many times but Zionists are slow learners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disproved "There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's"
> 
> Cool!
> 
> When was there a Palestinian state? When did it have borders or a Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag before the 1930's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government is the product if self determination not a prerequisite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.
Click to expand...

More blabber, no proof.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a reality, not a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of that?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you blabbering on about something you can't prove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to disprove his claim...….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disproved many times but Zionists are slow learners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disproved "There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's"
> 
> Cool!
> 
> When was there a Palestinian state? When did it have borders or a Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag before the 1930's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government is the product if self determination not a prerequisite
Click to expand...


In English please?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spartacactcus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello fellow posters,
> 
> We seem to be straying away from the point of this thread.
> It is turning into the thread which used to be available at the top about the two state solution.
> 
> I found this thread still available where post 1948 can be discussed.  Let us all meet there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Majority of Palestinians now oppose two-state solution, new poll finds
> 
> 
> A clear majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip oppose a two-state solution to end their struggle with Israel, according to a poll released on Wednesday.  Sixty percent of those polled, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for self determination for the Arabs pre 1948, we can all discuss the 1937 and 1947 proposals for partition of what was left of the Mandate for Palestine after 78% was given to the Hashemites, and whether the Arab leaders were looking for what was the best for the Arab population or if they were looking for something else.
> 
> Were the Arab leaders looking for Justice for the Arabs who lived there at the time, or were they looking for something else altogether?
> 
> What happened in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and before  Israel declared Independence?
> 
> How could the Arab leaders have helped the Arab population achieve self determination from 1920 on ?
> 
> Did the Arab leaders actions, since 1920, help or hinder the aspirations of two states, one Jewish and one Arab?  Was there such an aspiration before May 1948?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well , what we can be sure of is that , given the lack of crystal balls on the planet , the Arab rejection of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was both understandable and reasonable.
> 
> I can't recall a situation when the native population eagerly supported their own dispossession and displacement at the hands on recently arrived immigrants from foreign lands with a completely different culture.
> 
> Anyone think of where that has ever happened just to give an exception to the rule ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HOME - 1948
> 
> 
> Palestine - Israel History
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI, a ton of misinformation. The propagandists seem to share your befuddlement about a geographic area. From the “about” section: OUR STATEMENT - 1948
> 
> “How was it that one nation, Palestine, which was under the protection of the League of Nations after WW1...”
> 
> The Magical Kingdom of Pal’istan was one nation?
> 
> When did that happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "*no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power"*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partition and the Law - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During the term of the Mandate for Palestine, that was the case. You failed to notice that the Mandate ended at midnight on 14 May, 1948. The Mandate did not / does not extend in perpetuity.
> 
> Cutting and pasting a snippet from a blog without understanding the greater context (or intending to mislead about that context), is a failed argument.
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Mandate ended, there were no lingering requirements that survived the ending of the Mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statehood, citizenship, and basic rights are preserved by international law without the requirement of a mandate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still don’t understand there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship. The Arabs-Moslems refused any action that would have allowed them participation in self-determination. No one denied any rights to the Arabs-Moslems.
> 
> You spend your every waking moment blaming others for your failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> there was no “state of Pally’land” thus no citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a reality, not a talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of that?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you blabbering on about something you can't prove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're free to disprove his claim...….
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Disproved many times but Zionists are slow learners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You disproved "There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's"
> 
> Cool!
> 
> When was there a Palestinian state? When did it have borders or a Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag before the 1930's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A government is the product if self determination not a prerequisite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was never a Palestinian state. They didn't have borders or Palestinian government or a Palestinian flag until the 1930's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More blabber, no proof.
Click to expand...


Don't be so hard on yourself.


----------



## rylah




----------



## Sixties Fan

Al-Awda, The "Palestine Right to Return Coalition," has a calendar so people can see what dates are important in Palestinian history as well as the dates for Palestinian holidays.

Month by month, the calendar goes over what happened on specific dates in history.

The earliest date mentioned, and the only one before the 20th century, is this:



> 1840 Lord Palmerstone, British Foreign Minister-later Prime Minister, sent letter on 11 August, to his Ambassador in Istanbul, to encourage the Sultan to allow and bless the settlement of the European Jews with their wealth in Palestine, to prosper the economy, and to create a barrier against Muhammad Ali’s advancement.


This is Jewish history, not "Palestinian history."

The earliest event that can be remotely considered "Palestinian" is from 1918:



> 1918 Formation of the Moslem-Christian Committees in Jaffa and Jerusalem, spreading through the different Palestinian cities, in April.


This is after the Balfour Declaration so it is obviously a response to Zionism, not an independent movement.

This 1919 event shows that no one considered themselves Palestinian at that date:


> 1919 January 27 First Palestinian National Congress. Conference produces first National Charter. Sends two memoranda to Peace Conference, Versailles France, rejecting British mandate, Balfour Declaration, and Zionist immigration to Palestine. Demands full Palestinian independence.Calls for unity of Palestine and Syria and refers to Palestine as Southern Syria. Sends delegation to Damascus in support of Arab Government.


This is not entirely true, no one says that Palestinians demanded independence in the 1919 congress. The final resolution said, “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time...we are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds…in view of the above we desire that our district Southern Syria or Palestine should be not separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and be free from all foreign influence and protection…” 

Interestingly, one of the earliest events that they believe deserves commemoration is this early cross-border terror attack against Jews:


> 1920 First Palestinian attacks on Zionist colonies on the Syrian Boarders. (1 March).


So according to the Palestinians themselves, they have no history before the 20th century - in other words, there is no such thing as "historic Palestine" - and they entire movement is a reaction to Zionism and not an organic, independent call for independence.

(full article online)









						Even according to Palestinians, they have no history before Zionism
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Al-Awda, The "Palestine Right to Return Coalition," has a calendar so people can see what dates are important in Palestinian history as well as the dates for Palestinian holidays.
> 
> Month by month, the calendar goes over what happened on specific dates in history.
> 
> The earliest date mentioned, and the only one before the 20th century, is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1840 Lord Palmerstone, British Foreign Minister-later Prime Minister, sent letter on 11 August, to his Ambassador in Istanbul, to encourage the Sultan to allow and bless the settlement of the European Jews with their wealth in Palestine, to prosper the economy, and to create a barrier against Muhammad Ali’s advancement.
> 
> 
> 
> This is Jewish history, not "Palestinian history."
> 
> The earliest event that can be remotely considered "Palestinian" is from 1918:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1918 Formation of the Moslem-Christian Committees in Jaffa and Jerusalem, spreading through the different Palestinian cities, in April.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is after the Balfour Declaration so it is obviously a response to Zionism, not an independent movement.
> 
> This 1919 event shows that no one considered themselves Palestinian at that date:
> 
> 
> 
> 1919 January 27 First Palestinian National Congress. Conference produces first National Charter. Sends two memoranda to Peace Conference, Versailles France, rejecting British mandate, Balfour Declaration, and Zionist immigration to Palestine. Demands full Palestinian independence.Calls for unity of Palestine and Syria and refers to Palestine as Southern Syria. Sends delegation to Damascus in support of Arab Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not entirely true, no one says that Palestinians demanded independence in the 1919 congress. The final resolution said, “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time...we are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds…in view of the above we desire that our district Southern Syria or Palestine should be not separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and be free from all foreign influence and protection…”
> 
> Interestingly, one of the earliest events that they believe deserves commemoration is this early cross-border terror attack against Jews:
> 
> 
> 
> 1920 First Palestinian attacks on Zionist colonies on the Syrian Boarders. (1 March).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So according to the Palestinians themselves, they have no history before the 20th century - in other words, there is no such thing as "historic Palestine" - and they entire movement is a reaction to Zionism and not an organic, independent call for independence.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even according to Palestinians, they have no history before Zionism
> 
> 
> Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elderofziyon.blogspot.com
Click to expand...

Interesting that you wiuld attach a people's history to a name.

What were Native Americans called before it was America?

When the name was changed, did that erase their past history?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Al-Awda, The "Palestine Right to Return Coalition," has a calendar so people can see what dates are important in Palestinian history as well as the dates for Palestinian holidays.
> 
> Month by month, the calendar goes over what happened on specific dates in history.
> 
> The earliest date mentioned, and the only one before the 20th century, is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1840 Lord Palmerstone, British Foreign Minister-later Prime Minister, sent letter on 11 August, to his Ambassador in Istanbul, to encourage the Sultan to allow and bless the settlement of the European Jews with their wealth in Palestine, to prosper the economy, and to create a barrier against Muhammad Ali’s advancement.
> 
> 
> 
> This is Jewish history, not "Palestinian history."
> 
> The earliest event that can be remotely considered "Palestinian" is from 1918:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1918 Formation of the Moslem-Christian Committees in Jaffa and Jerusalem, spreading through the different Palestinian cities, in April.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is after the Balfour Declaration so it is obviously a response to Zionism, not an independent movement.
> 
> This 1919 event shows that no one considered themselves Palestinian at that date:
> 
> 
> 
> 1919 January 27 First Palestinian National Congress. Conference produces first National Charter. Sends two memoranda to Peace Conference, Versailles France, rejecting British mandate, Balfour Declaration, and Zionist immigration to Palestine. Demands full Palestinian independence.Calls for unity of Palestine and Syria and refers to Palestine as Southern Syria. Sends delegation to Damascus in support of Arab Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not entirely true, no one says that Palestinians demanded independence in the 1919 congress. The final resolution said, “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time...we are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds…in view of the above we desire that our district Southern Syria or Palestine should be not separated from the Independent Arab Syrian Government and be free from all foreign influence and protection…”
> 
> Interestingly, one of the earliest events that they believe deserves commemoration is this early cross-border terror attack against Jews:
> 
> 
> 
> 1920 First Palestinian attacks on Zionist colonies on the Syrian Boarders. (1 March).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So according to the Palestinians themselves, they have no history before the 20th century - in other words, there is no such thing as "historic Palestine" - and they entire movement is a reaction to Zionism and not an organic, independent call for independence.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even according to Palestinians, they have no history before Zionism
> 
> 
> Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elderofziyon.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting that you wiuld attach a people's history to a name.
> 
> What were Native Americans called before it was America?
> 
> When the name was changed, did that erase their past history?
Click to expand...


You're right, go back to calling them Arabs.


----------



## Sixties Fan

*It was 1948, and as the military half-track drove through the Beit Netofa Valley,* at the village of Madna in Galilee, shots rang out. One Israeli soldier was killed and another was hit in the head. A sniper had zeroed in on the men and was picking them off one by one.

Then, one of the half-track’s occupants, a tall, sturdy man with blue eyes and brown hair, broke cover from behind the vehicle and went to outflank the gunman. According to one witness, the soldier picked up a heavy stick and crept up behind the sniper, who was still shooting, and promptly bashed his head in.

It wasn’t the first time that Paddy Cooper saw action fighting for Israel. That same year under the hot noon-day sun in the small town of Bayt Jibrin, to the west of the Hebron Hills, a detachment of the Israeli Defence Forces were pinned down by armoured vehicles of the Jordanian Legion.

Paddy inched his way forward with a Piat anti-tank

(full article online)









						The Irish Rebels Who Fought for Israel
					

It was 1948, and as the military half-track drove through the Beit Netofa Valley, at the village of Madna in Galilee, shots rang out. One Israeli soldier was k…




					thewildgeese.irish


----------



## P F Tinmore

*4 Jews Talk About the Palestinian Nakba on Israeli Independence Day

*


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *4 Jews Talk About the Palestinian Nakba on Israeli Independence Day*



A positive development would be Arabs-Moslems accepting responsibility for the circumstances they create.


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Land Of Israel - Align Your Destiny with The Land of Israel
					

Broadcasting the Truth & Beauty of Israel to the World




					thelandofisrael.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The language of the 1917 Balfour Declaration was put directly into the San Remo accords: “[T]he 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 favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

This decision was soon unanimously ratified by 56 member states of the League of Nations, and later became part of the United Nations Charter, thus paving the way for the third Jewish commonwealth, reborn on its ancestral soil after 2000 years.

Yet this momentous occasion, on which the international community recognized and then ratified the inalienable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel for the first time in modern history, is often forgotten. Instead, attention is diverted to the radio broadcast of the U.N. vote for Partition on Nov. 29, 1947, where the U.N. General Assembly voted in favor of a resolution adopting the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) partition plan of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states and for which 33 states voted in favor, 13 against and 10 abstained.

Legally speaking, the two events cannot be put on the same scale. The San Remo Accords were binding law, ratified by member states, which took quick effect. Even the United States, which was not a member of the League of Nations, took measures to recognize the accords.

Conversely, the UNSCOP Partition Plan was merely a non-binding resolution, voted on in the toothless General Assembly (not the Security Council), and was immediately rejected by the Arabs—in other words, the whole exercise of the partition plan vote was null and void.

(full article online)









						San Remo: The Original ‘Deal of the Century’
					

As we mark Israeli independence this year, let us cast off the contrived U.N. narrative in which Israel was born into the inevitability of two states.




					www.jewishpress.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Bazman Hazeh, the Miracles of Modern Israel: My 2019 Yom HaAtzmaut lecture (audio with notes)
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

In 1937, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee to the British Peel Commission, Awni Abd al-Hadi stated: “There is no such country as Palestine. ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented.” I came across this quote at a Club Z session. We were learning how to confront the deceptive map called “The Shrinking Map of Palestine,” a crafty piece of propaganda used in anti-Israel campaigns.

It has now become commonplace to encounter maps of the Middle East where the modern country of Israel is labeled as “Palestine” in numerous textbooks at schools. It is disturbing that even after seventy-two years since the Jews declared statehood and thousands of years of persecution, Jews today must fight for basic recognition of Israel.

-----------
And thus, in the beginning of the 20th century, Palestine became closely associated with Zionism— a cause of great fury for Jew-hating Arab leaders. In a desperate attempt to make certain Jews would not be granted a country of their own in response to the 1937 Peel Commission, Anwi Abd al-Hadi tried to deny all Jewish ties to the land of Israel by (accurately) denying the existence of a nation called Palestine.

But as the State of Israel blossomed into reality in 1948, there was no more use for the secular word Palestine to refer to the Jewish homeland. But as Jews forgone the use of “Palestine”, Arab Muslim leaders seized the word to describe an Arab entity that never existed. They rebranded it. Inverted it. Flipped it inside out. The word that spoke of the dreams of the Jewish liberation became repurposed as the narrative of an Arab nation unjustly oppressed by the Jews.

(full article online)









						Palestine: The History of the Word Will Surprise and Liberate You
					

In 1937, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee to the British Peel Commission, Awni Abd al-Hadi stated: “There is no such country as Palestine.




					jewishjournal.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Drs. Rabab Abdulhadi and Linda Quiquivix speak on the Nakba at UCLA

*


----------



## rylah

*Ask Halawa: Did an Arab Palestine Exist?*

The second episode of Ask Halawa answers the questions, what about the Arab & Islamic history of Palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
Click to expand...

Any _historian_ who starts with: "the conflict has no roots in ancient religious hatred",
and blames Zionists for "erasing all history from the 7th century until 1948",
while himself starting at 1917, to evade any facts about Arab pogroms
that initiated Zionism - is a hypocrite propagandist.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Exactly one hundred years ago, in April, 1920, marked the opening shot of the Arab Israeli conflict. It was a pogrom against Jews in Jerusalem and its surrounding areas. The pogrom, also called by some the Nebi Musa riots, took place between Sunday, April 4, and Wednesday, April 7, 1920. It cost the lives of five Jews, and 200 others were injured. The violence was instigated by the British occupation administration and led by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, who later became Hitler’s ally. The Jaffa riots a year later (May 1-7, 1921) killed 47Jews and wounded 146. Much like these days, the Arab-Palestinian terrorists used knifes to kill vulnerable Jews, such as women, children, and the elderly. A British investigative commission called the pogrom “cowardly, and treacherous.” 

The pogrom was not a mere criminal affair, it was motivated by religious and nationalist sentiments that denied Jewish rights to sovereignty anywhere in the region. The Arab (the term Palestinians didn’t exist at the time, and Jews were actually called Palestinians) attackers carried such slogans as “Death to the Jews”(Atbach al-Yahud), “Palestine is our land, and the Jews are our dogs.” The Jaffa riot was proceeded by the August, 1929 riot, which wiped out the ancient Jewish community in Hebron, and killed 133 Jews. Known as the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, it was led once again by Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem. This time the death toll was much greater, estimated by historian Benny Morris to be about 300 Jewish dead.

The pogrom of April 1920 occurred at a confluence of several historical and political events. In Syria, the Hashemite Emir Feisal, son of Hussein the Sharif of Mecca, was ensconced in Damascus, awaiting with his Arab tribesmen army for the fulfillment of British promises. Under the Mc Mahon-Hussein Correspondence, an Arab state in the Levant, including the native Arabia, was promised by the British to Hussein. At the same time, Britain and France, in 1916, concluded the Sykes-Picot Agreement which divided the former Ottoman Empire between them. The British government had also come out with the Balfour (at the time British Foreign secretary) Declaration in 1917, that promised a National Home for the Jewish people in their ancestral home - Palestine. The Balfour Declaration promises were confirmed at the San Remo conference in April, 1920. 

Immediately upon entering Syria, the French army encountered local Arab revolts. In March, 1920, Feisal was proclaimed King of Syria. A month later, the League of Nations allocated Syria (and Lebanon) to be a French Mandate. The French then kicked out Feisal and his Arab army. On March 1, 1920, before the Jerusalem pogrom, Shiite Arabs from southern Lebanon attacked Tel-Hai in the northern Galilee, in which the Jewish hero Joseph Trumpeldor was killed along with five fellow defenders of the Jewish community. The pogrom in Jerusalem was also part of an Arab nationalist campaign which considered Palestine to be part of Southern Syria. In addition, it was anti-Jewish, and an anti-Jewish Immigration act in which Islamic and Arab nationalist sentiments were stressed.

It was the Mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini who incited the blood libel that the Al-Aqsa mosque was in danger from the Jews who wanted to destroy it. This gave impetus to the rise of the Arab-Palestinian nationalist movement, which planted the Palestinian Arab conception that Jews can only be tolerated as “Dhimmis” (protected and subjugated people), but a Jewish people cannot be recognized as eligible for a sovereign state. Thus, the Palestinian Authority today, under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, still does not recognize Israel as the national state of the Jewish people.

The 1920 April pogrom in Jerusalem was an “eye opener” for many naive Jews who believed at the time that the quarrel with the Arabs was just about the newcomers, immigrants from Europe, and that nothing would happen to the old Jewish residents who were actually a majority in Jerusalem. It was dispelled by the wholesale murders and attempted murder of Jews, whether ‘old settled ones’ or newcomers, Sephardic or Ashkenazi, secular or religious, rich or poor, all that mattered was that the victim was a Jew.

(full article online)









						The Pogrom That Started the Palestinian Arab-Israeli Conflict - Frontpagemag
					

The opening shot - exactly one hundred years ago in 1920.



					www.frontpagemag.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Here are some quotes from Arab leaders in 1948 around the War of Independence. (They were compiled by the late Ami Isseroff, whose MidEast Web site is an encyclopedic and accurate source of information.)





> Encouragement by Arab Leaders and Rumors - A study by Childers, which examined British monitoring of Arab broadcasts during that period, did not find any evidence that Arab leaders called on Palestinians to leave their homes. However, considerable evidence and testimony exists that at different times, Arab leaders encouraged refugees to flee.  This issue has been inflated beyond its actual importance. It has no real significance in international law, except to counter or support the Palestinian claims of expulsion by force.
> During a fact-finding mission to Gaza in June 1949, Sir John Troutbeck, head of the British Middle East office in Cairo and no friend to Israel or the Jews, found  that while the refugees _"express no bitterness against the Jews (or for that matter against the Americans or ourselves) they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states. "We know who our enemies are," they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their home. . . ."_
> The _Economist_, reported on October 2, 1948: "_Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades_."
> Times Magazine (May 3, 1948) reported: "_The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa._"
> Edward Atiyah, the secretary of the Arab League Office in London, wrote in his book, The Arabs: "_This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country_."



It is hard to square the actual atmosphere among Arabs in 1948 and the current narrative of Jews ethnically cleansing them. The “nakba” was and remains a problem created by and for Arabs, but pride and politics does not allow Palestinians to blame anyone but the Jews. 

The narrative they say today is a lie. To know the truth, look at what they said in 1948.

(full article online)





__





						1948 Arab quotes shows the only “nakba” is that they didn’t slaughter the Jews
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

This account of how a frightened Arab prisoner was treated while the newly reborn State of Israel was fighting for its life tells you all you need to know about the differences between how Jews treat their enemies and how Arabs treat theirs, no matter what the circumstances.

From the Palestine Post, May 17, 1948:











						How Arabs were treated in Israeli prison, May 1948
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

This article by Malka Shulewitz published by JTA in September 1977 is not available in the JTA archives as far as I can tell; I saw it in The Sentinel (Chicago). It is one of the best, succinct articles I’ve ever seen about how Jews have been treated in Muslim lands as well as explaining why. I transcribed it from the original facsimile.

_________________________________  

ALGERIA — Mostaganem, May. 1897: Sacking of synagogue marks beginning of widespread anti-Jewish  violence throughout Algeria.​
MOROCCO— 1833-1912: Moslem riots in Casablanca. Tana and Fez. Many Jews killed and injured; women, girls and boys abducted, raped then ransomed. 

YEMEN — 1922: A special law orders forcible conversion to Islam of all Jewish orphans under 13 even when the mother is still alive —a common Muslim law reimposed. 

SYRIA — Damascus. 1936-39: Work at anti-Jewish propaganda headquarters intensified after visit by Nazi officers from Germany. Jews frequently stabbed on the streets. 

LIBYA — Benghazi, 1942: During German occupation Jewish quarters sacked and looted, among 2000 'Jews deported acmes the desert, as many as a fifth died. 

IRAQ — Baghdad. Festival of Shavuot. 1941: During riots following the collapse of Iraq's pro-Nazi government of Rash Ali, 175 Jews were killed and 1000 injured. Many Jews were tortured and there was much looting of Jewish property. 


Taken at random from a booklet of illustrated maps on Jews of Arab lands by Prof. Martin Gilbert of Oxford University, the above facts were  chosen not because they represent events more serious than. say, the massacre of more than 6000 Jews in Fez in 1033, or of more than 5000 murdered during the Arab riots of 1066 in Grenada. They even pale beside some of the persecutions and humiliation suffered by Jews throughout the Arab world around 1948.

(full article online)





__





						Jews have never lived as equals in Muslim Arab lands (JTA, 1977)
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Which was preceded by as many as a hundred thousand more illegal Arab immigrants in the late 1920s (with one arguing that the 1922 census 






What do all of these people have in common?

They are all considered “Palestinians” today, and to have lived in Palestine for centuries beforehand.

In fact, a significant number of Arabs who lived in Palestine in 1948 were there for far less time than the 72 years since.

(full article online)









						British census in 1922 says that lots of Arabs came to Beersheva from Transjordan and Arabia
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Issa Amro, the popular Palestinian protester who gets rapturously profiled in Western media, tweets:






Yes, he is using a British document from British Mandate Palestine to somehow pretend that it proves there was an independent Palestinian state.

We've demolished these arguments before, but...there's no shortage of material we haven't used yet.

Here's some Palestinian history for you:

(full article online)









						One more time: British Mandate Palestine has NOTHING to do with today's Palestinians
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Indeed, an extensive review of _New York Times_coverage from that period turns up no indication of forced expulsion of Haifa’s Arabs, no Jewish effort to drive them out. Indeed, according to _The Times_reports, it was the Arab leadership which opted for the evacuation of the Arab residents of the northern city when the Haganah gained control of the city. The _Times’_ April 23, 1948 article stated:

Thus, while the article carried the heading “Jews Seize Haifa in Furious Battle; Arabs Agree To Go,” the article itself made clear that the Haganah offered safety to all citizens, while the Arab leadership nevertheless decided to evacuate. The Zionists demanded the deportation only of _foreign_Arab _fighters_ along with Germans and Nazis who had joined the Arab forces.

(full article online)









						Contradicting Its Own Archives, New York Times Cites Expulsion of Haifa's Arabs
					

The Times' assertion that Haifa's Arab citizens 'were forced to leave or escaped' in 1948 is belied by the paper's own coverage from that




					www.camera.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Which was preceded by as many as a hundred thousand more illegal Arab immigrants in the late 1920s (with one arguing that the 1922 census
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do all of these people have in common?
> 
> They are all considered “Palestinians” today, and to have lived in Palestine for centuries beforehand.
> 
> In fact, a significant number of Arabs who lived in Palestine in 1948 were there for far less time than the 72 years since.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British census in 1922 says that lots of Arabs came to Beersheva from Transjordan and Arabia
> 
> 
> Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elderofziyon.blogspot.com


Not mentioned was the fact that the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925 gave Palestinians who were out of country for business, education, employment, etc., 3 years to return to Palestine to claim their citizenship.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which was preceded by as many as a hundred thousand more illegal Arab immigrants in the late 1920s (with one arguing that the 1922 census
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do all of these people have in common?
> 
> They are all considered “Palestinians” today, and to have lived in Palestine for centuries beforehand.
> 
> In fact, a significant number of Arabs who lived in Palestine in 1948 were there for far less time than the 72 years since.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British census in 1922 says that lots of Arabs came to Beersheva from Transjordan and Arabia
> 
> 
> Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elderofziyon.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not mentioned was the fact that the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925 gave Palestinians who were out of country for business, education, employment, etc., 3 years to return to Palestine to claim their citizenship.
Click to expand...


The article is about illegal Arab migration in the period of 1928-1931.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> *Drs. Rabab Abdulhadi and Linda Quiquivix speak on the Nakba at UCLA
> 
> *


Definition of nakba: Arabs choose war against Israel, lose, and flee—and whine about it for almost three-quarters of a century to today.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MartyNYC said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Drs. Rabab Abdulhadi and Linda Quiquivix speak on the Nakba at UCLA
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of nakba: Arabs choose war against Israel, lose, and flee—and whine about it for almost three-quarters of a century to today.
Click to expand...

Which Arabs?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Drs. Rabab Abdulhadi and Linda Quiquivix speak on the Nakba at UCLA
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of nakba: Arabs choose war against Israel, lose, and flee—and whine about it for almost three-quarters of a century to today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
Click to expand...


According to Gaza govt. Egyptian and Saudi.
With the addition of those from Iraq and Syria as pointed before.
The same Arabs who expelled Jews from allover the middle east came for the same in Israel.

But you already knew this - the dhimmis eventually won big time.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Drs. Rabab Abdulhadi and Linda Quiquivix speak on the Nakba at UCLA
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of nakba: Arabs choose war against Israel, lose, and flee—and whine about it for almost three-quarters of a century to today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
Click to expand...


These Arabs 




__





						The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State
					

The General Assembly vote that created Israel was the culmination of decades of hard work on the ground...




					www.hoover.org


----------



## MartyNYC

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Drs. Rabab Abdulhadi and Linda Quiquivix speak on the Nakba at UCLA
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of nakba: Arabs choose war against Israel, lose, and flee—and whine about it for almost three-quarters of a century to today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Gaza govt. Egyptian and Saudi.
> With the addition of those from Iraq and Syria as pointed before.
> The same Arabs who expelled Jews from allover the middle east came for the same in Israel.
> 
> But you already knew this - the dhimmis eventually won big time.
Click to expand...


That was then. Since then, Israel has been developing diplomatic relations with Arabs, from Egypt to Jordan and most recently with Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. A Jewish delegation has even visited Saudi Arabia.

UAE said readying to open doors to Israeli tourists, starting with 2020 Expo


----------



## rylah

MartyNYC said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Drs. Rabab Abdulhadi and Linda Quiquivix speak on the Nakba at UCLA
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of nakba: Arabs choose war against Israel, lose, and flee—and whine about it for almost three-quarters of a century to today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Gaza govt. Egyptian and Saudi.
> With the addition of those from Iraq and Syria as pointed before.
> The same Arabs who expelled Jews from allover the middle east came for the same in Israel.
> 
> But you already knew this - the dhimmis eventually won big time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then. Since then, Israel has been developing diplomatic relations with Arabs, from Egypt to Jordan and most recently with Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. A Jewish delegation has even visited Saudi Arabia.
> 
> UAE said readying to open doors to Israeli tourists, starting with 2020 Expo
Click to expand...


That's great,
but didn't You hear the 'experts'
already declared Saudis monarchs are really Jews.

But now seriously, all this wouldn't be possible without Israel winning, firmly,
and long term its not a matter of signing a promising treaty to hold for several decades,
but of character and mentality that sends a clear message in the 'local language' long way.


----------



## MartyNYC

rylah said:


> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Drs. Rabab Abdulhadi and Linda Quiquivix speak on the Nakba at UCLA
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of nakba: Arabs choose war against Israel, lose, and flee—and whine about it for almost three-quarters of a century to today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Gaza govt. Egyptian and Saudi.
> With the addition of those from Iraq and Syria as pointed before.
> The same Arabs who expelled Jews from allover the middle east came for the same in Israel.
> 
> But you already knew this - the dhimmis eventually won big time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then. Since then, Israel has been developing diplomatic relations with Arabs, from Egypt to Jordan and most recently with Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. A Jewish delegation has even visited Saudi Arabia.
> 
> UAE said readying to open doors to Israeli tourists, starting with 2020 Expo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great,
> but didn't You hear the 'experts'
> already declared Saudis monarchs are really Jews.
> 
> But now seriously, all this wouldn't be possible without Israel winning, firmly,
> and long term its not a matter of signing a promising treaty to hold for several decades,
> but of character and mentality that sends a clear message in the 'local language' long way.
Click to expand...


Saudis and other Sunni Arab countries see Israel as their best defense against Iran. Netanyahu is viewed as their hero, according to Arab sources. They also are aware of Israel’s huge success and have decided cooperation is better than conflict.








						Saudi official says 'Deal of Century' leads to full Palestinian statehood
					

The official slammed Palestinian leadership as “irresponsible” for not even considering the Deal of the Century, which will bring 60 billion USD to their people.




					www.jpost.com


----------



## rylah

MartyNYC said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Drs. Rabab Abdulhadi and Linda Quiquivix speak on the Nakba at UCLA
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of nakba: Arabs choose war against Israel, lose, and flee—and whine about it for almost three-quarters of a century to today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which Arabs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Gaza govt. Egyptian and Saudi.
> With the addition of those from Iraq and Syria as pointed before.
> The same Arabs who expelled Jews from allover the middle east came for the same in Israel.
> 
> But you already knew this - the dhimmis eventually won big time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was then. Since then, Israel has been developing diplomatic relations with Arabs, from Egypt to Jordan and most recently with Saudi Arabia and Gulf states. A Jewish delegation has even visited Saudi Arabia.
> 
> UAE said readying to open doors to Israeli tourists, starting with 2020 Expo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great,
> but didn't You hear the 'experts'
> already declared Saudis monarchs are really Jews.
> 
> But now seriously, all this wouldn't be possible without Israel winning, firmly,
> and long term its not a matter of signing a promising treaty to hold for several decades,
> but of character and mentality that sends a clear message in the 'local language' long way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saudis and other Sunni Arab countries see Israel as their best defense against Iran. Netanyahu is viewed as their hero, according to Arab sources. They also are aware of Israel’s huge success and have decided cooperation is better than conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi official says 'Deal of Century' leads to full Palestinian statehood
> 
> 
> The official slammed Palestinian leadership as “irresponsible” for not even considering the Deal of the Century, which will bring 60 billion USD to their people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jpost.com
Click to expand...


Great news!
Fortunately living in Israel we hear about this developments a day or two before they're getting reported across the globe, if at all. There's also this forum, working almost as an emergency notification system, various sources of information are analyzed in real time to provide as much as possible accurate reports about developments on the ground. Many times hours before being reported in the local news. Big emphasis on media in the Arab world, but this is not MEMRI, not just about translation, not an organization. More like a think tank that beyond real time reports also discusses solutions to various challenges, however the research and findings of which, get the attention of decision makers, and in cases cited as source.

You might have heard of one last year,
after the "day of rage" in response to moving the US embassy,
when following months of disinfo about casualties reported in the west,
they showed Hamas proudly confirming 52  of 60 casualties were their soldiers.

In reality it was Abu Ali, an Arab from Israel who thoroughly investigated each name, after his report started spreading, local media picked up, and when it was clear to Hamas this was going to be reported abroad, only then as last resort to make the most of it, they framed it in terms of heroism, but essentially Hamas was forced to openly admit.

And ahi, Baruch Haba to the forum 
Happy Jerusalem day!


----------



## Sixties Fan

Haaretz published an interesting report over the weekend about how David Ben Gurion had intelligence from the French that the Arabs were going to attack Israel as soon as the British would leave, on May 15, 1948.

The report mentions a few examples of how the British helped the Arabs:



> On the eve of the May 12, 1948, meeting of Minhelet Ha’am, Ben-Gurion received information from French sources to the effect that British intelligence officers and the British High Command in Egypt had succeeded in persuading King Faruq to reverse his earlier position and join the Arab war coalition.
> ...
> Research in the archives of the French army, intelligence branch and Foreign Ministry has revealed many details about how British intelligence personnel and generals in Egypt manipulated Faruq to join in the war against Israel. Among other tactics, British agents made use of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. Thousands of the organization’s members attacked and plundered Jewish and foreign property and demonstrated on the streets of the cities, demanding that the king order the army to take action to save Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and Palestine’s Muslims.





> In the Negev, hundreds of the Brotherhood’s members operated against Jewish settlements. At the same time, the king was told that the Arabs’ conquest of the Negev would encourage the British Army to accede to his request to move its forces there from Egypt.





> However, the most potent lure was the secret supply of weapons to the Egyptian army, in spite of the British government’s embargo on arms sales to the Middle East. In the second week of May, the French noted unusual visits by King Faruq to British army headquarters in Tel al-Kabir. Intelligence that reached the French indicated that the British officers promised the king that if he were to join the war effort, Britain would provide the Egyptian forces with the necessary weapons, ammunition and aircraft.





> According to a report of the French military attaché in Cairo, during the period of May 1-25, the British Army supplied the Egyptian expeditionary force with large quantities of weapons and equipment from its Suez Canal depots, including rifles, machine guns, field artillery, ammunition, water containers and other items.





> Special emphasis was placed on strengthening the Egyptian air force: It received 16 Spitfires, a number of Dakotas, air-to-ground bombs and a great deal of ammunition. The British also agreed to replace planes that were damaged. For their part, the French suspected that British officers were directly involved in planning the Egyptian offensive.





> Faruq’s decision was a pivotal event for Egypt and for the entire region. Israel was now forced to fight on several fronts simultaneously: The Egyptian army advanced from the south toward Tel Aviv, while the armies of Transjordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon attacked from the east and the north.



(full article online)









						Israelis knew the British were supporting Arab forces in 1948
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

In 1948 and suddenly they faced a dire situation. In the fourteen day old State of Israel, the future of the New City of Jerusalem hung in the balance. It was a week since vital supplies had arrived. The people of Jerusalem faced starvation. They needed medicine. Weapons were required to repel attacks.

A hastily constructed makeshift bypass road saved the city and perhaps the newly reborn State of Israel.

Following the passage of UN resolution 181, which divided the land into a proposed Jewish and Arab state, irregular Arab forces took control of the hills overlooking the road to Jerusalem from the coast and often attacked the road, firing upon convoys bringing supplies, causing heavy losses. Food shortages in Jerusalem were acute.

(full article online)









						Remembering the 1948 'Road of Heroism' on Jerusalem Day
					

Only one road supplied the Jews of Jerusalem in 1948 and it was blocked by the Arab Legion. Read the heroic tale of the Burma Road. Op-ed.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

[ It does say Palestine in a very small part of the map, basically it looks like the area where the Philistine Empire was, aka Gaza . It actually does say Philistine ]







Well, it does say “Palestine,” but there is nothing Arab about this map. It is all quite…Biblical.

(full article online)









						Here’s a map of Palestine from 1895
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## MartyNYC

Sixties Fan said:


> [ It does say Palestine in a very small part of the map, basically it looks like the area where the Philistine Empire was, aka Gaza ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it does say “Palestine,” but there is nothing Arab about this map. It is all quite…Biblical.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here’s a map of Palestine from 1895
> 
> 
> Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elderofziyon.blogspot.com



Western map. “Palestine” is a Western name. Here’s a map of Judea, the ancient Greek & Roman name for Jews’ country


----------



## MartyNYC

Prominent Arab historian George Antonius, author of the classic book, “The Arab Awakening,“ in relating the modern history of the Middle East, acknowledges “palestine” is a European invention, a fictional name for the British Mandate, which eventually became the modern state of Israel...


----------



## Sixties Fan

My intention is to point out the critical moment when the aspirations of Jews, the intentions of the British and the wishes of the Arabs came together - and the result made it quite obvious that from this moment on there would be continued tensions of a political, economic, diplomatic and security character, with only one winner.

The conflict commenced in 1920 when the three main actors, the Jews, the Arabs and the British clashed during the Passover holiday in the streets and alleyways of Jerusalem. Present were British military government commanders such as Ronald Storrs and Louis Bols; Arabs such as the future Mufti Amin Al-Husseini and Zionists including Pinchas Rutenberg and Ze`ev Jabotinsky.

While the claim is heard that the McMahon-Hussei Correspondence that began in July 1915, pointed to a British willingness to allot the area of Palestine to become part of a grand Arab State, the fact is that already at the end of June, British policy as contained in the De Bunsen Report was firm that Palestine was a special case and needed to be treated as a separate issue with regard to post-War negotiations if Turkey were defeated. In fact, Gt. Britain needed to retain Palestine in its sphere.

(full article online)









						1920 - The year the conflict commenced
					

The conflict commenced in Spring 1920 when the main actors, Jews, Arabs and British clashed in the streets and alleys of Jerusalem. Op-ed.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

This second article is from LIFE magazine, written right after the Six Day War. Note the Nasser quote.







People were aware of the problems with UNRWA for decades.

(full article online)









						“Obviously, [UNRWA] has an interest in NOT solving the refugee problem”–LIFE, June 1967
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Britain and Palestine: a question of colonialism
					

Britain’s colonial entanglement in Palestine did not begin with the entry of General Allenby into Jerusalem, nor with the Balfour Declaration. Its roots go back to the era of high imperialism in the mid-nineteenth century.




					mondoweiss.net
				




Today, the names of these nineteenth-century would-be colonizers are largely forgotten, as are the actions of the British Mandate officers who laid the dynamite in Jaffa. If taught in schools at all, the “Arab-Israeli conflict” is presented not as a situation of colonialism or occupation but as a conflict of equals, in which Britain had an impossible task and was itself victimized by both sides. The truth of the matter, as Israeli historian Tom Segev asserts, is that “British actions considerably favoured the Zionist enterprise.” Britain continued its alliance and close coordination with the Haganah, the militia of the Labor Zionist movement and the prime instrument of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, “until the very last day of the Mandate.”


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Britain and Palestine: a question of colonialism
> 
> 
> Britain’s colonial entanglement in Palestine did not begin with the entry of General Allenby into Jerusalem, nor with the Balfour Declaration. Its roots go back to the era of high imperialism in the mid-nineteenth century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mondoweiss.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today, the names of these nineteenth-century would-be colonizers are largely forgotten, as are the actions of the British Mandate officers who laid the dynamite in Jaffa. If taught in schools at all, the “Arab-Israeli conflict” is presented not as a situation of colonialism or occupation but as a conflict of equals, in which Britain had an impossible task and was itself victimized by both sides. The truth of the matter, as Israeli historian Tom Segev asserts, is that “British actions considerably favoured the Zionist enterprise.” Britain continued its alliance and close coordination with the Haganah, the militia of the Labor Zionist movement and the prime instrument of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, “until the very last day of the Mandate.”



*Today, the names of these nineteenth-century would-be colonizers are largely forgotten*

Are the much early Muslim colonizers remembered?


----------



## MartyNYC

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Britain and Palestine: a question of colonialism
> 
> 
> Britain’s colonial entanglement in Palestine did not begin with the entry of General Allenby into Jerusalem, nor with the Balfour Declaration. Its roots go back to the era of high imperialism in the mid-nineteenth century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mondoweiss.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today, the names of these nineteenth-century would-be colonizers are largely forgotten, as are the actions of the British Mandate officers who laid the dynamite in Jaffa. If taught in schools at all, the “Arab-Israeli conflict” is presented not as a situation of colonialism or occupation but as a conflict of equals, in which Britain had an impossible task and was itself victimized by both sides. The truth of the matter, as Israeli historian Tom Segev asserts, is that “British actions considerably favoured the Zionist enterprise.” Britain continued its alliance and close coordination with the Haganah, the militia of the Labor Zionist movement and the prime instrument of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, “until the very last day of the Mandate.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Today, the names of these nineteenth-century would-be colonizers are largely forgotten*
> 
> Are the much early Muslim colonizers remembered?
Click to expand...


Arab, Muslim colonizers. Jewish synagogue in Syria centuries before any mosques  Dura-Europos: Excavating Antiquity | Yale University Art Gallery


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Britain and Palestine: a question of colonialism
> 
> 
> Britain’s colonial entanglement in Palestine did not begin with the entry of General Allenby into Jerusalem, nor with the Balfour Declaration. Its roots go back to the era of high imperialism in the mid-nineteenth century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mondoweiss.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today, the names of these nineteenth-century would-be colonizers are largely forgotten, as are the actions of the British Mandate officers who laid the dynamite in Jaffa. If taught in schools at all, the “Arab-Israeli conflict” is presented not as a situation of colonialism or occupation but as a conflict of equals, in which Britain had an impossible task and was itself victimized by both sides. The truth of the matter, as Israeli historian Tom Segev asserts, is that “British actions considerably favoured the Zionist enterprise.” Britain continued its alliance and close coordination with the Haganah, the militia of the Labor Zionist movement and the prime instrument of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, “until the very last day of the Mandate.”



Palestine was a fictional European colonialist name for Jews’ homeland, dating back to the Roman Empire about 2,000 years ago, reflecting the ancient Jewish indigeneity and heritage of their homeland. Even the Philistines, Jews’ enemies originally associated with the name “palestine,” were colonizers from the Greek world...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. This is a printed map of Palestine in 1947 from an Issue of National Geographic.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. This is a printed map of Palestine in 1947 from an Issue of National Geographic.



Ridiculous - just read what the description says.
The map is merely a UN proposition on how to divide the land - not an actual country.

No state or a nation called 'Palestine' *ever *had sovereignty in Jerusalem.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. This is a printed map of Palestine in 1947 from an Issue of National Geographic.



Palestine was Britain’s name for the British Mandate. Transjordan was created by Britain, later Jordan.


----------



## MartyNYC

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. This is a printed map of Palestine in 1947 from an Issue of National Geographic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ridiculous - just read what the description says.
> The map is merely a UN proposition on how to divide the land - not an actual country.
> 
> No state or a nation called 'Palestine' *ever *had sovereignty in Jerusalem.
Click to expand...


Palestine was Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate, which led to Israeli statehood. Transjordan was created by Britain, later named Jordan. This occurred after WW1 in the aftermath of the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Previously, there wasn’t any place “palestine” in the 400-year Ottoman Empire, as this 1900 map shows...


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. This is a printed map of Palestine in 1947 from an Issue of National Geographic.



As prominent Arab historian George Antonius notes, “Palestine” was merely Britain’s name for the British Mandate, a European invention carved out of the Ottoman Empire. Transjordan, as well. Arabs historically viewed the country in its entirety as Syria, Sham in Arabic...


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Palestine Bulletin, the precursor to the Palestine Post/Jerusalem Post, used to have a column where they would translate Arab articles.

After the British White Paper of 1930, Jews demonstrated and rallied against the reduction of immigration that would be allowed. In this context, Arab newspapers responded with direct incitement against Jews. (They weren’t woke enough in those days to say “Zionists.”)

Felesteen, published on June 5, 1930:





(full article online)









						Some Arab incitement from 90 years ago
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## rylah

*Rabbi Yehuda Alkalai - Zionist visionary who predated Herzl*


----------



## rylah

*Mazal Mosseri a Zionist Publisher in Cairo Egypt*

Snipet: among many things, she was sued for libel by Hitler and Mussoulini.

A very interesting woman, and a story usually untold.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Salma Karmi-Ayyoub Highlights: From Balfour to Boris Johnson Event

*


----------



## MartyNYC

About 1,800 years before Balfour was Israel.


----------



## Sixties Fan

(June 10, 2020 / JNS) The legal right of the Jewish people to reconstitute their historic homeland was recognized at the San Remo Conference of 1920 and by virtue of the Mandate for Palestine that resulted from it. This was unanimously endorsed by all 51 nations that were in the League of Nations, which then constituted the entire international community.

International lawyer Cynthia D. Wallace writes: “The Mandate system had been set up under Article 22 of the Covenant of the newly formed League of Nations that had arisen out of the Paris peace process to deal with such post-war emerging territories. At San Remo, the Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain as a ‘sacred trust of civilization,’ and the language of the Balfour Declaration was enshrined in both the San Remo Resolution and the League Mandate, which stand on their own as valid international legal instruments with the full force of treaty law.”

Wallace is by no means the only international lawyer who recognizes that the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute their national home in their historic homeland was enshrined in international law at San Remo. At the heart of the historic Jewish homeland was the Old City of Jerusalem and the territory today known as “the West Bank.”

Territorially the legal right of the Arabs to self-determination was accorded to them by the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon (under the French), and Mesopotamia—now Iraq—(under the British), and later in Transjordan, which was originally part of the Mandate for Palestine.

(full article online)









						A British mandate to recognize Israeli sovereignty
					

The British government should be supporting the Trump peace process, rather than punishing Israel for exercising a right that was granted to it under international law 100 years ago.




					www.jns.org


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  Sixties Fan, et al,





Sixties Fan said:


> •  the right of the Jewish people​•  to reconstitute their national home​•  in their historic homeland​
> Territorially the legal right of the Arabs to self-determination was accorded to them by the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon (under the French), and Mesopotamia—now Iraq—(under the British), and later in Transjordan, which was originally part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> ​


*(COMMENT)*

I know that there must be some Arab Palestinians that wonder - what would have happened --- and --- where would the be today - if they had accepted the British invitation to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions. And where would they be today, in terms of sovereign territory, if the had accepted the recommendations of A/RES/181(II). They might have actually wound-up with much much more than what the have now, in terms of total sovereignty and full civil and security control with a totally different regime than that of Palestinian Authority. There may have never emerged with all the various squabbling factions they have today _(an alternative history 'if')._.. How much better-of would they be? The crazy Egyptian may never have formed the Al-Fatah.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MartyNYC

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Sixties Fan, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> •  the right of the Jewish people​•  to reconstitute their national home​•  in their historic homeland​
> Territorially the legal right of the Arabs to self-determination was accorded to them by the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon (under the French), and Mesopotamia—now Iraq—(under the British), and later in Transjordan, which was originally part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> View attachment 349031​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I know that there must be some Arab Palestinians that wonder - what would have happened --- and --- where would the be today - if they had accepted the British invitation to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions. And where would they be today, in terms of sovereign territory, if the had accepted the recommendations of A/RES/181(II). They might have actually wound-up with much much more than what the have now, in terms of total sovereignty and full civil and security control with a totally different regime than that of Palestinian Authority. There may have never emerged with all the various squabbling factions they have today _(an alternative history 'if')._.. How much better-of would they be? The crazy Egyptian may never have formed the Al-Fatah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Gaza is an example of a “Palestinian“ state: First thing they did when Israel withdrew was to destroy the greenhouses. Then, they elected Hamas, a terrorist group that has imposed totalitarian rule. Gaza has been infiltrated by ISIS and other terrorist groups. Another failed Islamic entity.


----------



## rylah

MartyNYC said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Sixties Fan, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> •  the right of the Jewish people​•  to reconstitute their national home​•  in their historic homeland​
> Territorially the legal right of the Arabs to self-determination was accorded to them by the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon (under the French), and Mesopotamia—now Iraq—(under the British), and later in Transjordan, which was originally part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> View attachment 349031​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I know that there must be some Arab Palestinians that wonder - what would have happened --- and --- where would the be today - if they had accepted the British invitation to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions. And where would they be today, in terms of sovereign territory, if the had accepted the recommendations of A/RES/181(II). They might have actually wound-up with much much more than what the have now, in terms of total sovereignty and full civil and security control with a totally different regime than that of Palestinian Authority. There may have never emerged with all the various squabbling factions they have today _(an alternative history 'if')._.. How much better-of would they be? The crazy Egyptian may never have formed the Al-Fatah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gaza is an example of a “Palestinian“ state: First thing they did when Israel withdrew was to destroy the greenhouses. Then, they elected Hamas, a terrorist group that has imposed totalitarian rule. Gaza has been infiltrated by ISIS and other terrorist groups. Another failed Islamic entity.
Click to expand...


Actually Chaz is kinda an example of a "Palestinian state"...

Same tactics, same corruption, same fanatical zeal.

Same hate for anything America.


----------



## MartyNYC

rylah said:


> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Sixties Fan, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> •  the right of the Jewish people​•  to reconstitute their national home​•  in their historic homeland​
> Territorially the legal right of the Arabs to self-determination was accorded to them by the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon (under the French), and Mesopotamia—now Iraq—(under the British), and later in Transjordan, which was originally part of the Mandate for Palestine.
> View attachment 349031​
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I know that there must be some Arab Palestinians that wonder - what would have happened --- and --- where would the be today - if they had accepted the British invitation to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions. And where would they be today, in terms of sovereign territory, if the had accepted the recommendations of A/RES/181(II). They might have actually wound-up with much much more than what the have now, in terms of total sovereignty and full civil and security control with a totally different regime than that of Palestinian Authority. There may have never emerged with all the various squabbling factions they have today _(an alternative history 'if')._.. How much better-of would they be? The crazy Egyptian may never have formed the Al-Fatah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gaza is an example of a “Palestinian“ state: First thing they did when Israel withdrew was to destroy the greenhouses. Then, they elected Hamas, a terrorist group that has imposed totalitarian rule. Gaza has been infiltrated by ISIS and other terrorist groups. Another failed Islamic entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Chaz is kinda an example of a "Palestinian state"...
> 
> Same tactics, same corruption, same fanatical zeal.
> 
> Same hate for anything America.
Click to expand...


Chaza.


----------



## P F Tinmore

From April 1st to May 14, 1948 – before Israel was declared, before the British left, and before any Arab soldier entered Palestine to save it – Zionist militias essentially conquered Palestine.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> From April 1st to May 14, 1948 – before Israel was declared, before the British left, and before any Arab soldier entered Palestine to save it – Zionist militias essentially conquered Palestine.



Check your dates, because by April 1st,
Arabs military units from various countries have been active already for decades .


*In 1936,* al-Qawuqji began fighting the British and the Jewish population in Mandatory Palestine in actions that would become known as the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. He represented the* Iraqi *Society for the Defense of Palestine*,* which was separate from forces under the control of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Husseini.[8] Al-Qawuqji resigned his commission in the Iraqi army and his position at the Royal Military College to lead approximately* fifty armed guerrillas into Mandatory Palestine.*[9]

*On January 8, 1948,* the borders of British-held Palestine were breached by a battalion of the ALA - "the Second Yarmuk Battalion" which was 330-soldiers strong and was commanded by Adib Shishakli. Entering from Syria, the battalion set its headquarters near Tarshiha in the Galilee. On January 20, 1948, this battalion attacked Kibbutz Yehiam and failed.









						Arab Liberation Army - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> From April 1st to May 14, 1948 – before Israel was declared, before the British left, and before any Arab soldier entered Palestine to save it – Zionist militias essentially conquered Palestine.



Maybe, read a history book? Palestine was Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate, created to establish Israeli statehood. Earlier, it was a fictional Roman name imposed on ancient Israel.

There never has been a place palestine founded by Arabs, “palestinians“ (Arabs), Muslims, or any Middle Eastern people.


----------



## Sixties Fan

According to the profound reckoning of the erudite _New York Review of Books_, the southern Israeli city of Beersheba is Palestinian territory. By the editors’ logic, the same goes for the central Israeli cities of Ramle, Lod, Modiin (home of this Israeli researcher and over more than 90,000 other Israelis), as well as Ben-Gurion International Airport. The ruling by _Review of Books_ editors from their lofty perch in Manhattan also places Nahariya, Acco, Nazareth in Palestinian territory.

The intellectual giants at the elite literary journal have made clear that, for them, it is the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan – categorically rejected by Palestinian Arabs and surrounding Arab states at the time – which is the basis for now determining what is Palestinian territory.




The U.N.’s 1947 Partition Plan

Thus, while _The New York Times_, _Wall Street Journal_, _Washington Post_, _Los Angeles Times_, Voice of America, Deutsche Presse-Agentur have all commendably corrected erroneous assertions that the disputed West Bank, and in particular areas in which Israeli settlements are located, are Palestinian territory, _The Review of Book_ outliers have preferred to redraw the map entirely. When challenged about the designation of disputed West Bank land as “Palestinian,”_ NYRB_ editors cited the United Nations Partition Plan – a proposal roundly rejected by the Palestinian Arab leadership over seven decades ago – insisting that the West Bank is Palestinian territory. The natural conclusion about other areas also designated as part of the Arab state under the plan that the Arabs never accepted – Beersheba, Ramla, Lod, Modiin, Bet Shemesh, Acco, Nahariya, the airport,  and more – is that they, too, are Palestinian territory. (On the other hand, under the 1947 Partition Plan, Palestinians have no right to Jerusalem, as it was intended to be an international _corpus separatum_, under United Nations administration.)

(full article online)









						NYRB Looks To 1947 Partition Plan to Determine Palestinian Territories
					

According to the reckoning of the erudite New York Review of Books, the southern Israeli city of Beersheba is Palestinian territory. Displaying the same




					www.camera.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> According to the profound reckoning of the erudite _New York Review of Books_, the southern Israeli city of Beersheba is Palestinian territory. By the editors’ logic, the same goes for the central Israeli cities of Ramle, Lod, Modiin (home of this Israeli researcher and over more than 90,000 other Israelis), as well as Ben-Gurion International Airport. The ruling by _Review of Books_ editors from their lofty perch in Manhattan also places Nahariya, Acco, Nazareth in Palestinian territory.
> 
> The intellectual giants at the elite literary journal have made clear that, for them, it is the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan – categorically rejected by Palestinian Arabs and surrounding Arab states at the time – which is the basis for now determining what is Palestinian territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The U.N.’s 1947 Partition Plan
> 
> Thus, while _The New York Times_, _Wall Street Journal_, _Washington Post_, _Los Angeles Times_, Voice of America, Deutsche Presse-Agentur have all commendably corrected erroneous assertions that the disputed West Bank, and in particular areas in which Israeli settlements are located, are Palestinian territory, _The Review of Book_ outliers have preferred to redraw the map entirely. When challenged about the designation of disputed West Bank land as “Palestinian,”_ NYRB_ editors cited the United Nations Partition Plan – a proposal roundly rejected by the Palestinian Arab leadership over seven decades ago – insisting that the West Bank is Palestinian territory. The natural conclusion about other areas also designated as part of the Arab state under the plan that the Arabs never accepted – Beersheba, Ramla, Lod, Modiin, Bet Shemesh, Acco, Nahariya, the airport,  and more – is that they, too, are Palestinian territory. (On the other hand, under the 1947 Partition Plan, Palestinians have no right to Jerusalem, as it was intended to be an international _corpus separatum_, under United Nations administration.)
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYRB Looks To 1947 Partition Plan to Determine Palestinian Territories
> 
> 
> According to the reckoning of the erudite New York Review of Books, the southern Israeli city of Beersheba is Palestinian territory. Displaying the same
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.camera.org


Israel captured the West Bank in 1967 from the Kingdom of Jordan, which had occupied the territory since its 1948-49 war with Israel.​
The person who wrote this is very confused.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel captured the West Bank in 1967 from the Kingdom of Jordan, which had occupied the territory since its 1948-49 war with Israel.​
> The person who wrote this is very confused.



You’re not very good at this. Jordan seized what was internationally known as Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish land, in the ‘48 War, calling the land west bank (of the Jordan River). It’s noteworthy Jordan never called the land palestine nor did it create a palestinian state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MartyNYC said:


> You’re not very good at this. Jordan seized what was internationally known as Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish land, in the ‘48 War, calling the land west bank (of the Jordan River). It’s noteworthy Jordan never called the land palestine nor did it create a palestinian state.


OK, but you missed the point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> OK, but you missed the point.



That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
Click to expand...

What war did the Palestinians lose?
When was the surrender?
What was in the peace treaty?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
Click to expand...


*What war did the Palestinians lose?*

What war did the Palestinians win?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What war did the Palestinians lose?*
> 
> What war did the Palestinians win?
Click to expand...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What war did the Palestinians lose?*
> 
> What war did the Palestinians win?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So, the Arabs lost, again, and want a do over? LOL!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What war did the Palestinians lose?*
> 
> What war did the Palestinians win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Arabs lost, again, and want a do over? LOL!
Click to expand...

That is the question you ducked.


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel was established on outright robbery.
This is a picture of a Palestinian couple (the man in the wheelchair (Abu Samir) and his wife next to him) standing outside a building that was Abu Samir's family home in Ijzim village, Haifa, before the Nakba. The property is now inhabited by an Israeli couple who appear in the same picture.


----------



## Sixties Fan

[We are owed 80% of the Mandate.  We may never get any of it back thanks to the British betrayal and Muslim learned hatred for Jews ]





Herbert Samuel met in Jerusalem with the Military Governor of Palestine, Major General Louis Bols, on June 30, 1920, the day he arrived in Jaffa. Bols wrote out a receipt, which Samuel signed. “Received from Major General Sir Louis Bols, one Palestine, complete.” (Hebrew Union College Klau Library)

(full article online)









						The British Mandate Began 100 Years Ago, June 30, 1920 – A Photo Essay
					

“Received from Major General Sir Louis Bols, one Palestine, complete.” - British High Commissioner of the Mandate Herbert Samuel - The British Mandate Began 100 Years Ago, June 30, 1920 – A Photo Essay - Lenny Ben-David




					jcpa.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What war did the Palestinians lose?*
> 
> What war did the Palestinians win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Arabs lost, again, and want a do over? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question you ducked.
Click to expand...


Arabs want a do over because they're whiney losers.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What war did the Palestinians lose?*
> 
> What war did the Palestinians win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Arabs lost, again, and want a do over? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question you ducked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs want a do over because they're whiney losers.
Click to expand...

Israel is prematurely claiming victory.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What war did the Palestinians lose?*
> 
> What war did the Palestinians win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Arabs lost, again, and want a do over? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question you ducked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs want a do over because they're whiney losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is prematurely claiming victory.
Click to expand...


After beating the Arabs, again, how long should they wait? 
47 years? 53 years? 64 years? 71 years? 100 years? 1000 years?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What war did the Palestinians lose?*
> 
> What war did the Palestinians win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Arabs lost, again, and want a do over? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question you ducked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs want a do over because they're whiney losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is prematurely claiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After beating the Arabs, again, how long should they wait?
> 47 years? 53 years? 64 years? 71 years? 100 years? 1000 years?
Click to expand...

Israel is spending hundreds of million dollars a year to defeat Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinian women and children flee Tantura village in Haifa on 22 May 1948. Fathers, brothers, sons and husbands were detained by Zionist gangs and executed by firing squad. The martyrs were forced to dig their own graves before they were killed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What war did the Palestinians lose?*
> 
> What war did the Palestinians win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Arabs lost, again, and want a do over? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question you ducked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs want a do over because they're whiney losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is prematurely claiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After beating the Arabs, again, how long should they wait?
> 47 years? 53 years? 64 years? 71 years? 100 years? 1000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is spending hundreds of million dollars a year to defeat Palestine.
Click to expand...


Why would they spend money to defeat a figment of your imagination?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ayn Ghazal massacre: on 25 July 1948 Zionist gangs slaughtered about 30 Palestinians of the residents of Ayn Ghazal village, south of Haifa city.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What war did the Palestinians lose?*
> 
> What war did the Palestinians win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Arabs lost, again, and want a do over? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question you ducked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs want a do over because they're whiney losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is prematurely claiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After beating the Arabs, again, how long should they wait?
> 47 years? 53 years? 64 years? 71 years? 100 years? 1000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is spending hundreds of million dollars a year to defeat Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they spend money to defeat a figment of your imagination?
Click to expand...

Indeed?????


----------



## P F Tinmore

Jewish gangs loot Palestinian homes in Haifa after the occupation of the city and the mass killing of its residents on 22 April 1948.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
Click to expand...


Palestinians actually won, the Arabs lost.

Surrender was in places like Faradis.
In the treaty was total submission, i.e. '_salam_'. 

I know my grandpa felt a great joy in the victory.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What war did the Palestinians lose?*
> 
> What war did the Palestinians win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Arabs lost, again, and want a do over? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question you ducked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs want a do over because they're whiney losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is prematurely claiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After beating the Arabs, again, how long should they wait?
> 47 years? 53 years? 64 years? 71 years? 100 years? 1000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is spending hundreds of million dollars a year to defeat Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they spend money to defeat a figment of your imagination?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed?????
Click to expand...


If they wait another 20 years to make peace with Israel, will "Palestine" be as big as Liechtenstein?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Ayn Ghazal massacre: on 25 July 1948 Zionist gangs slaughtered about 30 Palestinians of the residents of Ayn Ghazal village, south of Haifa city.





P F Tinmore said:


> Jewish gangs loot Palestinian homes in Haifa after the occupation of the city and the mass killing of its residents on 22 April 1948.




Nice anecdotes, and nothing more.
It's a commonly known fact Arabs left Haifa on their own admission,
the mayor expressed asked them to stay and promised full protection.

But war is war, I'm sure Arabs didn't expect a response
when they expelled all the local Jews from their holy cities.

Tough justice.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but you missed the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Arabs lost, again, and want a do over?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What war did the Palestinians lose?*
> 
> What war did the Palestinians win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the Arabs lost, again, and want a do over? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the question you ducked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arabs want a do over because they're whiney losers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is prematurely claiming victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After beating the Arabs, again, how long should they wait?
> 47 years? 53 years? 64 years? 71 years? 100 years? 1000 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel is spending hundreds of million dollars a year to defeat Palestine.
Click to expand...


Really believe that none sense? Like seriously?

You mean less than 1% of Israel's GDP?

I guess the rest goes to defeating Narnia.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinians on 15 May of every year mark the ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist gangs in 1948.
72 years later, the Nakba is ongoing. Israel is still displacing and colonizing, and refugees are still denied their right of return.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinians on 15 May of every year mark the ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist gangs in 1948.
> 72 years later, the Nakba is ongoing. Israel is still displacing and colonizing, and refugees are still denied their right of return.



"We lost, we want a do over"


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinians on 15 May of every year mark the ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist gangs in 1948.
> 72 years later, the Nakba is ongoing. Israel is still displacing and colonizing, and refugees are still denied their right of return.


What ethnic cleansing are you rattling on about?


----------



## rylah




----------



## rylah

*How the British Mandate Manipulated Arab demographics in the Land of Israel*

*New research reveals the way the British Mandate allowed hundreds of thousands of Arabs to immigrate to the Land of Israel while the gates to the Land were closed to Jews. Today, those Arabs claim that they have been here since time immemorial…*

One of the most commonly repeated claims made by spokesmen of Arabs from Judea and Samaria is the claim that they have been connected to the Land for many generations, but new research by Dr. Rivka Shpak-Lissak shows that this is not true at all.

The research, which is included in its totality in her book *When and How did the Arabs and Muslims Immigrate to the Land of Israel* (Yediot Aharonot Press), reveals how the regime of the British Mandate brought about the flow of hundreds of thousands of Arabs to the Land of Israel. This occurred despite the fact that the purpose of the Mandate was to establish a national home for the Jewish People in the Land of Israel.

Dr. Shpak-Lissak states that the British Mandate betrayed its function and acted in a manner totally opposite to its avowed purpose. In an interview with Arutz 7, she described the main point of her research, which is that “the Transjordanian Border Control Corps, whose role was to patrol the Jordanian borders with Lebanon and Syria until Akaba, received orders directly from the Mandate to ignore the entry of Arabs to the Land but not to allow entry to Jews to the Land, because there had been attempts of Jews trying to enter via Syria”.

Shpak-Lissak also says: “The border was totally open and anyone who wanted to enter could have done it. Sinai also was open, without oversight, and anyone could have passed through. In this way, many Arabs and Muslims took advantage of the possibility to enter”.

“They wanted to enter because the conditions in the Land were much better, Jews as well as Christian organizations such as the Templars and the Mandate government were investing money here. As a result, there was development, the standard of living rose and wages were higher than in the Arab countries, so it is no wonder that they wanted to enter”.

Research data shows that “the British did not want the Jews to establish a Jewish state. They forsook and betrayed the role that was assigned to them by the League of Nations and then by the UN to establish a national home for the Jewish People”.

The dimensions of Arab immigration that occurred under the British Mandate and under their protection cannot be stated exactly, but it is possible to get an idea from the words of a Muslim Sheikh at the a national assemble that was held in Jaffa on the 9th of April, 1940. “He said at that time, ‘Thanks to the British Mandate, we have grown from a half million to a million’. He said that in 1940, but by ’47, there were already a million and two hundred thousand”.

During the interview, Shpak-Lissak also said, relating to her research: “I examined documents of the Hagana, the Zionist archives and the state archives and I discovered how it happened that in Arab settlements the population increased not from natural growth and how, throughout the Land, new settlements were established or joined already existing settlements. There is research by Prof. David Grossman and Prof. Moshe Breuer that relates to the southern part of the Land and shows that at least 25,000 Egyptians settled in these villages”.

Regarding the Egyptian immigration into the Land of Israel Shpak-Lissak stated that “Most of the refugees in Gaza are Egyptian and the best proof of this is that in an interview in 2012, a Fatah representative plainly stated that ‘Half of us are Egyptian’. They have relatives in Egypt and other Arab countries. There is another proof that fifty thousand Houranis from southern Syria entered the Land freely and told Eliyahu Eilat, a Jewish Agency representative, that they can pass freely by way of the Yarmouk River. This is how the British increased the number of Muslims in the Land, all with the aim of preventing a Jewish majority and establishing a Jewish state”.

Regarding British interests, she explained: “The Arab states have oil, so it is very important to maintain good relations with the Arab countries, who do not want a Jewish state. Moreover, there is also the Suez Canal, which is controlled by Egypt and it is important to have good relations with Egypt. British imperialist interests dictated that she would support the Arabs and not the Jews”.

Dr. Shpak-Lissak also said that “During the First World War, the British army brought in Egyptian workers to work in the Egyptian military camps. They were brought here [to the Land of Israel] and remained, and in the Second World War, instead of using local residents they brought in Egyptian and Syrian workers. They brought laborers in trucks from Syria and Lebanon to work for the British army”.

Shpak-Lissak’s book is a continuation of the first part of her research in which she examined the era that preceded the Mandate period, on the events regarding the Muslim presence in the Land of Israel beginning in the year 640, when they came from the Arab Peninsula and conquered the Land. “All of the research, which includes testimonies by Muslim tourists, shows that in the entire period of the Arab occupation there was a Christian majority here. The Arabs did not settle in the Land. The Bedouins, who were the conquering army, proceeded southward and those who remained preferred to camp on the border of the desert. In the large cities in the Land there were approximately thirty thousand Arabs who served the regime and for the entire period until the middle of the 14th century, the Christians were the largest group. It was the Mamluks who destroyed the Christian majority, which had begun to shrink even prior; during the four hundred years of Arab rule, the population had decreased from three million to a half million. The Arabs destroyed the economy and the security of the Land. In addition to the massacres and slaughter, there was a gradual Islamization, which ended around the middle of the 14th century when the Christians were eliminated as the majority group”.

“The Jews have a history of at least a thousand years before the Arab conquest. We never left the Land by our free will. The first holocaust of the Jewish People was here. Anyone who knows history knows that we were here, and the Palestinians are trying to erase this. They used to claim that they are the Jebusites, another time it was that they are the Canaanites and then they were actually of Jewish extraction but there is no proof for this in the research. The fact that the Jews are not the most beloved of peoples has helped them. Goebbels said that if you tell a lie a thousand times it will be accepted. Indeed, the Arab and Palestinian propaganda has achieved this; they have told a total lie and anti-Semitism helped them along. The Europeans played no small part in this”.

In all of her interviews, Dr. Shpak-Lissak emphasizes that does not identify with the Israeli Right, however, she presents her research in Israel and abroad because she is disgusted with the lies and demonization of Israel.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate        
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* And you have the gall to imply that someone dodged the issue.



P F Tinmore said:


> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab-Israeli Conflict _[a regional armed international Armed Conflict (IAC) wherein "no formal declaration of war or recognition of the situation is required]_ involved the multinational Arab League Forces on the assault against the Israeli Forces. The Arab League Forces has the stated objective: "intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed." The Arab League was of the opinion that as the "Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order." It was based on the premise that the UN Palestine Commission was not a "legally constituted authority."  

The Arab League intervened on behalf of the Arab Palestinians with the plan to "set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principle of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter."  Of course, in reality, the Arab League nations saw this as an opportunity for territorial expansion. 

*(POINT OF REFERENCE)*

When anyone says that the - "Palestinians lost the war" - what they are really describing is the "lost opportunity" for the "inhabitants under the principle of self-determination" to establish a self-governing institution.  They lost in respect to the pre-Conflict apportionment by the UN Recommendation to an Arab country.   Jordan and Egypt staked-out their territorial gains while the remainder of the Arab League participants had no appreciable advantage to claim. There was no territory for the inhabitants to claim under the right of self-determination. 

OUTCOMES:​•   Israel did not win - merely - successfully defended.​•  The Arab League gained territory.​•  The Arab Palestinians (inhabitants) lost the opportunity to be self-governing.​
You _(P F Tinmore)_ seem to, a majority of times, take the myopic and narrow political view - with the visual images of reality that is just out of focus.  You are correct only in the most limited strand of what happened in that the Arab Palestinians _(the inhabitants)_ contributed nothing to the cause of self-determination, and therefore lost nothing in the cause.  

The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee in 1945 (not the Arab Palestinians).  The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee as the "supreme executive body of Palestinian Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine" (not the Arab Palestinians).  And the 1948 conflict was waged by the Arab League (not the Arab Palestinians).
 



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


>



Arab palestine? No p in Arabic.

Palestine was a fictional Roman name imposed on Jews, about 2,000 years ago, referring to Philistines who were related to Greeks.

No Arabs here in Jewish Judea...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* And you have the gall to imply that someone dodged the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab-Israeli Conflict _[a regional armed international Armed Conflict (IAC) wherein "no formal declaration of war or recognition of the situation is required]_ involved the multinational Arab League Forces on the assault against the Israeli Forces. The Arab League Forces has the stated objective: "intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed." The Arab League was of the opinion that as the "Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order." It was based on the premise that the UN Palestine Commission was not a "legally constituted authority."
> 
> The Arab League intervened on behalf of the Arab Palestinians with the plan to "set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principle of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter."  Of course, in reality, the Arab League nations saw this as an opportunity for territorial expansion.
> 
> *(POINT OF REFERENCE)*
> 
> When anyone says that the - "Palestinians lost the war" - what they are really describing is the "lost opportunity" for the "inhabitants under the principle of self-determination" to establish a self-governing institution.  They lost in respect to the pre-Conflict apportionment by the UN Recommendation to an Arab country.   Jordan and Egypt staked-out their territorial gains while the remainder of the Arab League participants had no appreciable advantage to claim. There was no territory for the inhabitants to claim under the right of self-determination.
> 
> OUTCOMES:​•   Israel did not win - merely - successfully defended.​•  The Arab League gained territory.​•  The Arab Palestinians (inhabitants) lost the opportunity to be self-governing.​
> You _(P F Tinmore)_ seem to, a majority of times, take the myopic and narrow political view - with the visual images of reality that is just out of focus.  You are correct only in the most limited strand of what happened in that the Arab Palestinians _(the inhabitants)_ contributed nothing to the cause of self-determination, and therefore lost nothing in the cause.
> 
> The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee in 1945 (not the Arab Palestinians).  The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee as the "supreme executive body of Palestinian Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine" (not the Arab Palestinians).  And the 1948 conflict was waged by the Arab League (not the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

You really have to unpack the "1948 war." Who were the players? It was not "the Arabs" attacking Israel as the Israeli bullshit would have you believe.

*Palestine* The allied powers mapped out new states in that area. Each state had defined international borders. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and the inhabitants became citizens of those new states by international law. (The rule of nationality and state succession.) The Mandate affirmed Palestinian citizenship by domestic law in the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925. The Palestinians became the sovereign people in their new state. During the Mandate period, Britain prevented the establishment of a democratic government including a military. By 1939 the Palestinians were disarmed and their leaders were exiled or killed. They were a completely civilian population.

*Israel *Israel was a foreign colonial project. (Their term not mine.) Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. It was funded by foreign money and was populated by foreign settlers. Britain facilitated the creation of "a state within a state"  (Britain's term not mine.) including a military. Britain used its military to provide cover for this colonial project.

*The Arab States* There was not much there. Lebanon only had a few thousand troops. They could not even protect their own borders. Syria was not much better. They entered Palestine for a brief period then withdrew. The Zionists promised Jordan (The only real military in the area.) the West Bank and $3M a year for 5 years if it did not attack Israel. Jordan moved its troops into the West Bank to defend its promised territory. Egypt only managed to defend the Gaza Strip.

There were two things going on at that time. The Zionists had a military complete with command and control. They started conscripting troops by December of 1947. They began attacking and clearing the Palestinian civilians in 1947 and there were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees by the time any Arab army entered Palestine.

Then the 1948 war began.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* And you have the gall to imply that someone dodged the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab-Israeli Conflict _[a regional armed international Armed Conflict (IAC) wherein "no formal declaration of war or recognition of the situation is required]_ involved the multinational Arab League Forces on the assault against the Israeli Forces. The Arab League Forces has the stated objective: "intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed." The Arab League was of the opinion that as the "Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order." It was based on the premise that the UN Palestine Commission was not a "legally constituted authority."
> 
> The Arab League intervened on behalf of the Arab Palestinians with the plan to "set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principle of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter."  Of course, in reality, the Arab League nations saw this as an opportunity for territorial expansion.
> 
> *(POINT OF REFERENCE)*
> 
> When anyone says that the - "Palestinians lost the war" - what they are really describing is the "lost opportunity" for the "inhabitants under the principle of self-determination" to establish a self-governing institution.  They lost in respect to the pre-Conflict apportionment by the UN Recommendation to an Arab country.   Jordan and Egypt staked-out their territorial gains while the remainder of the Arab League participants had no appreciable advantage to claim. There was no territory for the inhabitants to claim under the right of self-determination.
> 
> OUTCOMES:​•   Israel did not win - merely - successfully defended.​•  The Arab League gained territory.​•  The Arab Palestinians (inhabitants) lost the opportunity to be self-governing.​
> You _(P F Tinmore)_ seem to, a majority of times, take the myopic and narrow political view - with the visual images of reality that is just out of focus.  You are correct only in the most limited strand of what happened in that the Arab Palestinians _(the inhabitants)_ contributed nothing to the cause of self-determination, and therefore lost nothing in the cause.
> 
> The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee in 1945 (not the Arab Palestinians).  The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee as the "supreme executive body of Palestinian Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine" (not the Arab Palestinians).  And the 1948 conflict was waged by the Arab League (not the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to unpack the "1948 war." Who were the players? It was not "the Arabs" attacking Israel as the Israeli bullshit would have you believe.
> 
> *Palestine* The allied powers mapped out new states in that area. Each state had defined international borders. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and the inhabitants became citizens of those new states by international law. (The rule of nationality and state succession.) The Mandate affirmed Palestinian citizenship by domestic law in the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925. The Palestinians became the sovereign people in their new state. During the Mandate period, Britain prevented the establishment of a democratic government including a military. By 1939 the Palestinians were disarmed and their leaders were exiled or killed. They were a completely civilian population.
> 
> *Israel *Israel was a foreign colonial project. (Their term not mine.) Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. It was funded by foreign money and was populated by foreign settlers. Britain facilitated the creation of "a state within a state"  (Britain's term not mine.) including a military. Britain used its military to provide cover for this colonial project.
> 
> *The Arab States* There was not much there. Lebanon only had a few thousand troops. They could not even protect their own borders. Syria was not much better. They entered Palestine for a brief period then withdrew. The Zionists promised Jordan (The only real military in the area.) the West Bank and $3M a year for 5 years if it did not attack Israel. Jordan moved its troops into the West Bank to defend its promised territory. Egypt only managed to defend the Gaza Strip.
> 
> There were two things going on at that time. The Zionists had a military complete with command and control. They started conscripting troops by December of 1947. They began attacking and clearing the Palestinian civilians in 1947 and there were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees by the time any Arab army entered Palestine.
> 
> Then the 1948 war began.
Click to expand...


Still trolling? Psychiatry can help.

As renowned Arab scholar Fouad Ajami notes, Arabs attacked Israel
The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* And you have the gall to imply that someone dodged the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What war did the Palestinians lose?
> When was the surrender?
> What was in the peace treaty?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab-Israeli Conflict _[a regional armed international Armed Conflict (IAC) wherein "no formal declaration of war or recognition of the situation is required]_ involved the multinational Arab League Forces on the assault against the Israeli Forces. The Arab League Forces has the stated objective: "intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed." The Arab League was of the opinion that as the "Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order." It was based on the premise that the UN Palestine Commission was not a "legally constituted authority."
> 
> The Arab League intervened on behalf of the Arab Palestinians with the plan to "set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principle of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter."  Of course, in reality, the Arab League nations saw this as an opportunity for territorial expansion.
> 
> *(POINT OF REFERENCE)*
> 
> When anyone says that the - "Palestinians lost the war" - what they are really describing is the "lost opportunity" for the "inhabitants under the principle of self-determination" to establish a self-governing institution.  They lost in respect to the pre-Conflict apportionment by the UN Recommendation to an Arab country.   Jordan and Egypt staked-out their territorial gains while the remainder of the Arab League participants had no appreciable advantage to claim. There was no territory for the inhabitants to claim under the right of self-determination.
> 
> OUTCOMES:​•   Israel did not win - merely - successfully defended.​•  The Arab League gained territory.​•  The Arab Palestinians (inhabitants) lost the opportunity to be self-governing.​
> You _(P F Tinmore)_ seem to, a majority of times, take the myopic and narrow political view - with the visual images of reality that is just out of focus.  You are correct only in the most limited strand of what happened in that the Arab Palestinians _(the inhabitants)_ contributed nothing to the cause of self-determination, and therefore lost nothing in the cause.
> 
> The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee in 1945 (not the Arab Palestinians).  The Arab League reconstituted the Arab Higher Committee as the "supreme executive body of Palestinian Arabs in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine" (not the Arab Palestinians).  And the 1948 conflict was waged by the Arab League (not the Arab Palestinians).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have to unpack the "1948 war." Who were the players? It was not "the Arabs" attacking Israel as the Israeli bullshit would have you believe.
> 
> *Palestine* The allied powers mapped out new states in that area. Each state had defined international borders. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and the inhabitants became citizens of those new states by international law. (The rule of nationality and state succession.) The Mandate affirmed Palestinian citizenship by domestic law in the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925. The Palestinians became the sovereign people in their new state. During the Mandate period, Britain prevented the establishment of a democratic government including a military. By 1939 the Palestinians were disarmed and their leaders were exiled or killed. They were a completely civilian population.
> 
> *Israel *Israel was a foreign colonial project. (Their term not mine.) Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. It was funded by foreign money and was populated by foreign settlers. Britain facilitated the creation of "a state within a state"  (Britain's term not mine.) including a military. Britain used its military to provide cover for this colonial project.
> 
> *The Arab States* There was not much there. Lebanon only had a few thousand troops. They could not even protect their own borders. Syria was not much better. They entered Palestine for a brief period then withdrew. The Zionists promised Jordan (The only real military in the area.) the West Bank and $3M a year for 5 years if it did not attack Israel. Jordan moved its troops into the West Bank to defend its promised territory. Egypt only managed to defend the Gaza Strip.
> 
> There were two things going on at that time. The Zionists had a military complete with command and control. They started conscripting troops by December of 1947. They began attacking and clearing the Palestinian civilians in 1947 and there were about 300,000 Palestinian refugees by the time any Arab army entered Palestine.
> 
> Then the 1948 war began.
Click to expand...


The usual bag of nonesense innuendo.

Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
It's like building a room for a non-born baby. A state must actually exist, function as one.

And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that by that time Palestine was already vested with sovereignty of the Jewish Nation, and defined thus, from day one.

It doesn't matter where the Jewish Agency was established,
as long as it helped the sovereign nation achieve functioning statehood.

Kinda like your Narnia...vs responsible adults.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.


Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that by that time Palestine was already vested with sovereignty of the Jewish Nation, and defined thus, from day one.


Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
Click to expand...


Again, you're confusing mere geographical boundary with an actual state.
That Central Park has its infrastructure boundaries, doesn't indicate a "State of Central Park".

The baby must be born and function as independent body,
merely building a room for an unconvinced child doesn't make it alive.

Wishful thinking maybe, not the order of things.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that by that time Palestine was already vested with sovereignty of the Jewish Nation, and defined thus, from day one.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...


I know, selective vision would be more convenient. 

And yet before the Treaty of Lausanne,
the designation of that territory was already defined by the sovereignty of the Jewish Nation.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate        
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  The *Treaty of Lausanne* did NOT obligate the Allied Powers on any matter relative to the Arab Palestinians or any post-War Inhabitants.  

*(Ω)*  The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty; they were NOT one of the "parties concerned."  ​*(Ω)*  Palestine was not mentioned in the Treaty. ​*(Ω)*  The Treaty did not define any international borders relative to Palestine. ​*(Ω)*  No clause pertaining to territory within the Treaty transferred any territory of the region under discussion to the post-War Inhabitants. ​


			
				Part I said:
			
		

> *{LINK}*





			
				Part I 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 recognized 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 neighborly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​


​


P F Tinmore said:


> *Palestine* The allied powers mapped out new states in that area. Each state had defined international borders. The Treaty of Lausanne transferred the territory to the respective new states and the inhabitants became citizens of those new states by international law.


*(COMMENT)*

Article 30 of the Treaty applies to the assignment of "Nationality" to the inhabitance of the territories.  The obligation to the assignment of nationality was met by the creation of the 1925 Citizenship Law.

The entire purpose of this clause had to do with the elimination of the possibility of "Stateless People."  It had nothing to do with the transfer of territory.



rylah said:


> It doesn't matter where the Jewish Agency was established, as long as it helped the sovereign nation achieve functioning statehood.


*(COMMENT)*

The Allied Powers were responsible for the circumstances requiring the establishment of the Jewish Agency _*(Article 4, Mandate for Palestine*)_.



			
				Paragraph 6  A/AC.14/8  UK History of Administration  2 October 1947 said:
			
		

> *{LINK}*





			
				Paragraph 6  A/AC.14/8  UK History of Administration  2 October 1947 said:
			
		

> “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitates Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, *in cooperation 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”.​​


​



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate        
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* This is not totally correct.



rylah said:


> Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.





P F Tinmore said:


> Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.


*(COMMENT)*

While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar _(just a few examples)_.     
As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives _(which are what we are discussing)_.


			
				Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
			
		

> *Sovereignty*
> Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
> Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.




			
				Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
			
		

> *Sovereignty *
> ‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.  Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international
> order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .



I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning.  But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* This is not totally correct.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar _(just a few examples)_.
> As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives _(which are what we are discussing)_.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*​Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty *​‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.  Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning.  But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




			
				Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
			
		

> *Sovereignty*
> Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
> Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.


Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
---------------------
*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.



			The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
		

You always claim that military power negates rights.


----------



## MartyNYC

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that by that time Palestine was already vested with sovereignty of the Jewish Nation, and defined thus, from day one.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, selective vision would be more convenient.
> 
> And yet before the Treaty of Lausanne,
> the designation of that territory was already defined by the sovereignty of the Jewish Nation.
Click to expand...


British Mandate, nicknamed palestine, was established at the San Remo Conference to implement the Balfour Declaration resulting in Israeli statehood, as stated in the actual mandate text. No mention of the creation of a state of palestine or a palestinian state. No palestinian nation existed.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* This is not totally correct.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar _(just a few examples)_.
> As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives _(which are what we are discussing)_.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*​Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty *​‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.  Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning.  But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*
> Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
> Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
> ---------------------
> 
> *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.​​
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> You always claim that military power negates rights.
Click to expand...


Never been a palestinian nation. Palestine was merely Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate, an old Roman name imposed on Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Article 30 of the Treaty applies to the assignment of "Nationality" to the inhabitance of the territories. The obligation to the assignment of nationality was met by the creation of the 1925 Citizenship Law.
> 
> The entire purpose of this clause had to do with the elimination of the possibility of "Stateless People." It had nothing to do with the transfer of territory.


So they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.


You are too funny.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 30 of the Treaty applies to the assignment of "Nationality" to the inhabitance of the territories. The obligation to the assignment of nationality was met by the creation of the 1925 Citizenship Law.
> 
> The entire purpose of this clause had to do with the elimination of the possibility of "Stateless People." It had nothing to do with the transfer of territory.
> 
> 
> 
> So they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.
> 
> 
> You are too funny.
Click to expand...

Palestine was a Roman name imposed on Jews. Historically, Jews are palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MartyNYC said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that by that time Palestine was already vested with sovereignty of the Jewish Nation, and defined thus, from day one.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, selective vision would be more convenient.
> 
> And yet before the Treaty of Lausanne,
> the designation of that territory was already defined by the sovereignty of the Jewish Nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> British Mandate, nicknamed palestine, was established at the San Remo Conference to implement the Balfour Declaration resulting in Israeli statehood, as stated in the actual mandate text. No mention of the creation of a state of palestine or a palestinian state. No palestinian nation existed.
Click to expand...

Where do they mention state, Israel or exclusive sovereignty.

Links with quotes please.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that by that time Palestine was already vested with sovereignty of the Jewish Nation, and defined thus, from day one.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, selective vision would be more convenient.
> 
> And yet before the Treaty of Lausanne,
> the designation of that territory was already defined by the sovereignty of the Jewish Nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> British Mandate, nicknamed palestine, was established at the San Remo Conference to implement the Balfour Declaration resulting in Israeli statehood, as stated in the actual mandate text. No mention of the creation of a state of palestine or a palestinian state. No palestinian nation existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do they mention state, Israel or exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> Links with quotes please.
Click to expand...


Jewish National Home appears prominently in the British Mandate, nicknamed palestine. There wasn’t a palestine in the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate      
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* You often claim that I said something, → that I really did not say at all*!*




P F Tinmore said:


> 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.​​
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> ​
> You always claim that military power negates rights.



*(COMMENT)*

I don't think I have ever maintained military power does anything relative to "rights."  In our discussions of late, especially in *my Posting #636*, I don't believe I raised the issue of the application of "Military Power" even once.  Article 4 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention has nothing at all to do with the "Right to Sovereignty."  In fact, "sovereignty" is *not addressed* even once as a right or duty in the  Convention; except externally as a reservation by the US.

Military Power becomes a strength in terms of the defense of territorial integrity.  A nation that cannot maintain territorial integrity and cannot exercise the responsibilities and duties of government authority over that territory, CAN NOT claim to have the Right of Sovereignty in that territory.  But over the years, I have recognized that you tend to confuse what the meaning of having a "RIGHT" conveys.

I have the "*Righ*t" to earn a million dollars.  No one is "*Obligated*" to pay me a million dollars.  You have the "right" to maintain a million dollars.  But no one is "obligated" to protect your million dollars without due compensation.
 ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪ ​The same is true of territory.  If the Arab Palestinians have territory in which they can demonstrate they exercise the responsibilities and duties of government authority over, they can claim "sovereignty."  Once they are a sovereign nation, they are juridically equal_ (among other nations)_, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate        
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:  By George, I think you have it (almost).



RoccoR said:


> Article 30 of the Treaty applies to the assignment of "Nationality" to the inhabitance of the territories. The obligation to the assignment of nationality was met by the creation of the 1925 Citizenship Law.
> 
> The entire purpose of this clause had to do with the elimination of the possibility of "Stateless People." It had nothing to do with the transfer of territory.





P F Tinmore said:


> So they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.
> 
> 
> You are too funny.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, I agree.  It takes a bit of gray matter exercise to get this much of an understanding.

(Paraphrasing on an excerpt from "Memorandum "A" of A/AC.21/UK/42 TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” 25 February 1948)
Palestine was a legal entity but was NOT a sovereign state. Palestine was a territory administered under Mandate by His Majesty Government (United Kingdom), who was entirely responsible for both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs during the period June 1920 to May 1948.​
Remember, the Palestine Government was a territory administered under Mandate by the Sovereign State of the United Kingdom.  This was recognized by the Permanent Court of International Justice / International Court of Justice:

*  A05  Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions *​*




 Judgment of 26 March 1925 (including the text of the declaration of M. Altamira)  *​​


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

MartyNYC said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course you conveniently leave out the fact that by that time Palestine was already vested with sovereignty of the Jewish Nation, and defined thus, from day one.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, selective vision would be more convenient.
> 
> And yet before the Treaty of Lausanne,
> the designation of that territory was already defined by the sovereignty of the Jewish Nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> British Mandate, nicknamed palestine, was established at the San Remo Conference to implement the Balfour Declaration resulting in Israeli statehood, as stated in the actual mandate text. No mention of the creation of a state of palestine or a palestinian state. No palestinian nation existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do they mention state, Israel or exclusive sovereignty.
> 
> Links with quotes please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish National Home appears prominently in the British Mandate, nicknamed palestine. There wasn’t a palestine in the Ottoman Empire.
Click to expand...

Nice duck.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I don't believe I raised the issue of the application of "Military Power" even once.


You always do. The only thing between Palestinians and their rights is Israel's guns.

You have always approve that.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I raised the issue of the application of "Military Power" even once.
> 
> 
> 
> You always do. The only thing between Palestinians and their rights is Israel's guns.
> 
> You have always approve that.
Click to expand...

You have that wrong. The only thing between the Pal-Arabs and their korans, delusions of Jew slaughter and some imagined caliphate are Israeli's guns. The Arab-Moslem terrorists have a perceived right to the slaughter of the Jewish people. They have that spelled out in clear terms.



			The Avalon Project : The Palestinian National Charter
		







__





						Hamas Charter
					





					www.acpr.org.il


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I raised the issue of the application of "Military Power" even once.
> 
> 
> 
> You always do. The only thing between Palestinians and their rights is Israel's guns.
> 
> You have always approve that.
Click to expand...


Palestine was a fictional Roman name for ancient Israel, and Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate which became modern Israel.

Jews historically are the true palestinians. Otherwise, palestinians do not exist.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate      
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * The only thing between Palestinians and their Rights is the inept Arab Palestinian Government and the sheep like following → of the Arab Palestinian People.  It is their government and they should be held responsible for fixing it.



RoccoR said:


> I don't believe I raised the issue of the application of "Military Power" even once.





P F Tinmore said:


> You always do. The only thing between Palestinians and their rights is Israel's guns.


*(COMMENT)*

Israel guns come out only when the danger of Arab Palestinian Violence is afoot.  Remember, it is the Arab Palestinian Policy that:

◈◈  "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase."​Speaker at Hamas Police Graduation Ceremony:​◈  The Sons of Palestine Were Born to Blow up Their Enemies, Die as Martyrs.​​




P F Tinmore said:


> You have always approve that.


*(COMMENT)*

As to what I* → "always approve:*" Anyday is a good day to kill psychopaths and terrorists.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was established on outright robbery.
> This is a picture of a Palestinian couple (the man in the wheelchair (Abu Samir) and his wife next to him) standing outside a building that was Abu Samir's family home in Ijzim village, Haifa, before the Nakba. The property is now inhabited by an Israeli couple who appear in the same picture.




You utterly fail to understand the context here, which is:  the need for the reclamation of the Jewish homeland precisely because it was taken from the Jewish people.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You always claim that military power negates rights.



Nope.  The claim is that the vague, and not entirely confirmed in IL, "right" to sovereignty /= actual sovereignty.  The Arab Palestinians, as a distinct people with a claimed right to self-determination, are required to fulfill certain obligations in order to achieve sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The only thing between Palestinians and their Rights is the inept Arab Palestinian Government and the sheep like following → of the Arab Palestinian People.  It is their government and they should be held responsible for fixing it.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I raised the issue of the application of "Military Power" even once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always do. The only thing between Palestinians and their rights is Israel's guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel guns come out only when the danger of Arab Palestinian Violence is afoot.  Remember, it is the Arab Palestinian Policy that:
> 
> ◈◈  "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase."​Speaker at Hamas Police Graduation Ceremony:​◈  The Sons of Palestine Were Born to Blow up Their Enemies, Die as Martyrs.​​
> View attachment 358810​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have always approve that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> As to what I* → "always approve:*" Anyday is a good day to kill psychopaths and terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Your usual slime piece.

A recent case in point about Israel's guns.:

Many people in Gaza want to go back to farming their land, working their shops, picking their oranges, etc. that they have the right to do. Israel guns them down.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> The only thing between Palestinians and their rights is Israel's guns.



The only thing between Arab Palestinians and their "rights" is the acceptance of equivalent Jewish rights and peace treaties with the neighbors.  A people who refuse to make agreements with their neighbors is, by definition, not capable of Statehood.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was established on outright robbery.
> This is a picture of a Palestinian couple (the man in the wheelchair (Abu Samir) and his wife next to him) standing outside a building that was Abu Samir's family home in Ijzim village, Haifa, before the Nakba. The property is now inhabited by an Israeli couple who appear in the same picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You utterly fail to understand the context here, which is:  the need for the reclamation of the Jewish homeland precisely because it was taken from the Jewish people.
Click to expand...

Not by the Palestinians. You need to take that up with the foreign invaders who expelled you.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing between Palestinians and their rights is Israel's guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing between Arab Palestinians and their "rights" is the acceptance of equivalent Jewish rights and peace treaties with the neighbors.  A people who refuse to make agreements with their neighbors is, by definition, not capable of Statehood.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians are at peace with all their neighbors.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was established on outright robbery.
> This is a picture of a Palestinian couple (the man in the wheelchair (Abu Samir) and his wife next to him) standing outside a building that was Abu Samir's family home in Ijzim village, Haifa, before the Nakba. The property is now inhabited by an Israeli couple who appear in the same picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You utterly fail to understand the context here, which is:  the need for the reclamation of the Jewish homeland precisely because it was taken from the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by the Palestinians. You need to take that up with the foreign invaders who expelled you.
Click to expand...



Um.  Yeah.  So, the Arabs.  Including the ones who call themselves Palestinians but differentiate themselves from others by identifying as, you know, Arabs.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing between Palestinians and their rights is Israel's guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing between Arab Palestinians and their "rights" is the acceptance of equivalent Jewish rights and peace treaties with the neighbors.  A people who refuse to make agreements with their neighbors is, by definition, not capable of Statehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are at peace with all their neighbors.
Click to expand...


Lol.  Arguable.  

But you danced away from the point -- which is the requirement to take up the "rights" they claim by performing certain obligations such as acknowledging other's rights and entering into agreements with other States.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore 

Why is it funny to expect that sovereignty comes with responsibility as well as rights?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore
> 
> Why is it funny to expect that sovereignty comes with responsibility as well as rights?


I never said it didn't.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing between Palestinians and their rights is Israel's guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing between Arab Palestinians and their "rights" is the acceptance of equivalent Jewish rights and peace treaties with the neighbors.  A people who refuse to make agreements with their neighbors is, by definition, not capable of Statehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians are at peace with all their neighbors.
Click to expand...

Except the neighbors they're trying to kill.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel was established on outright robbery.
> This is a picture of a Palestinian couple (the man in the wheelchair (Abu Samir) and his wife next to him) standing outside a building that was Abu Samir's family home in Ijzim village, Haifa, before the Nakba. The property is now inhabited by an Israeli couple who appear in the same picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You utterly fail to understand the context here, which is:  the need for the reclamation of the Jewish homeland precisely because it was taken from the Jewish people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by the Palestinians. You need to take that up with the foreign invaders who expelled you.
Click to expand...


Who are the foreign invaders of Jews’ ancient homeland? ⤵️


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> Why is it funny to expect that sovereignty comes with responsibility as well as rights?
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it didn't.
Click to expand...



No, you just laughed at the post which suggested that Arab Palestinians have responsibilities as well as rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore
> 
> Why is it funny to expect that sovereignty comes with responsibility as well as rights?
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just laughed at the post which suggested that Arab Palestinians have responsibilities as well as rights.
Click to expand...

Because it was a stupid post. A mere speculation.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate      
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:  Maybe I misread your intention as well*!*



Shusha said:


> Why is it funny to expect that sovereignty comes with responsibility as well as rights?





P F Tinmore said:


> I never said it didn't.





Shusha said:


> No, you just laughed at the post which suggested that Arab Palestinians have responsibilities as well as rights.





P F Tinmore said:


> Because it was a stupid post. A mere speculation.


*(COMMENT)*

(Ω) What did you find humorous?  _(Just so we all can have a laugh...)_​(Ω) What did you find stupid?  _(Just so we all can learn something...)_​(Ω) What did you find speculative?  _(Just so we all can better support our opinions - or → refute your conjecture...)_​



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Maybe I misread your intention as well*!*
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it funny to expect that sovereignty comes with responsibility as well as rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just laughed at the post which suggested that Arab Palestinians have responsibilities as well as rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a stupid post. A mere speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> (Ω) What did you find humorous?  _(Just so we all can have a laugh...)_​(Ω) What did you find stupid?  _(Just so we all can learn something...)_​(Ω) What did you find speculative?  _(Just so we all can better support our opinions - or → refute your conjecture...)_​
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

She speculates that the Palestinians would not be responsible with freedom and responsibility. I don't know why she would say that.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Maybe I misread your intention as well*!*
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it funny to expect that sovereignty comes with responsibility as well as rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just laughed at the post which suggested that Arab Palestinians have responsibilities as well as rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a stupid post. A mere speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> (Ω) What did you find humorous?  _(Just so we all can have a laugh...)_​(Ω) What did you find stupid?  _(Just so we all can learn something...)_​(Ω) What did you find speculative?  _(Just so we all can better support our opinions - or → refute your conjecture...)_​
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She speculates that the Palestinians would not be responsible with freedom and responsibility. I don't know why she would say that.
Click to expand...


Palestinians named for many places except palestine...


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate      
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:  Knowledge is telling the past. Wisdom is predicting the future. 
......................................................................................_W. Timothy Garvey_
But the best prediction of future events and the path the Arab Palestinians will take come from the past and the history of those events.


P F Tinmore said:


> She speculates that the Palestinians would not be responsible with freedom and responsibility. I don't know why she would say that.







GTD Search Results  
Terrorist Incidents by HAMAS
_(Excluding Rocket Attacks)_​*(COMMENT)*

If we study the progress the Arab Palestinians made in the Gaza Strip, after the unilateral withdrawal by Israeli Forces, is to look at what the Arab Palestinians did between 2005 and 2007.  In addition to the terrorist attacks noted in the chart, rocket attacks increased from 488 in *2005* to *2,427 in 2007*. HAMAS _(the de facto government)_ expended much of its resources in its development of the Izz ad-Din Abd al-Qassam Brigades.

We will never know how many lives were saved, and how many attacks were aborted as a result of Israeli counter-terrorism operations and the countermeasures put in place by Israeli military, police and security personnel.  But as a result of today's overall effort, we see almost no suicide bombers _(although there are calls for them)_ and a significant reduction in the more conventional rocket and mortar fire.  And we see a shift to an entirely different kind of weaponry, from generations long since past.

*(∑)*  Speculation, I don't think so.  I think it is reasonable to assume, given the history of criminal behaviors by the Arab Palestinians, both by independents _(non-state actors)_ and government-sponsored _(state actors)_, that represent a shift in tactics to exploit new security vulnerabilities.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Knowledge is telling the past. Wisdom is predicting the future.
> ......................................................................................_W. Timothy Garvey_
> But the best prediction of future events and the path the Arab Palestinians will take come from the past and the history of those events.
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> She speculates that the Palestinians would not be responsible with freedom and responsibility. I don't know why she would say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 359155
> GTD Search Results
> Terrorist Incidents by HAMAS
> _(Excluding Rocket Attacks)_​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> If we study the progress the Arab Palestinians made in the Gaza Strip, after the unilateral withdrawal by Israeli Forces, is to look at what the Arab Palestinians did between 2005 and 2007.  In addition to the terrorist attacks noted in the chart, rocket attacks increased from 488 in *2005* to *2,427 in 2007*. HAMAS _(the de facto government)_ expended much of its resources in its development of the Izz ad-Din Abd al-Qassam Brigades.
> 
> We will never know how many lives were saved, and how many attacks were aborted as a result of Israeli counter-terrorism operations and the countermeasures put in place by Israeli military, police and security personnel.  But as a result of today's overall effort, we see almost no suicide bombers _(although there are calls for them)_ and a significant reduction in the more conventional rocket and mortar fire.  And we see a shift to an entirely different kind of weaponry, from generations long since past.
> 
> *(∑)*  Speculation, I don't think so.  I think it is reasonable to assume, given the history of criminal behaviors by the Arab Palestinians, both by independents _(non-state actors)_ and government-sponsored _(state actors)_, that represent a shift in tactics to exploit new security vulnerabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

When did the Palestinians ever have the freedom to be responsible?


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Knowledge is telling the past. Wisdom is predicting the future.
> ......................................................................................_W. Timothy Garvey_
> But the best prediction of future events and the path the Arab Palestinians will take come from the past and the history of those events.
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> She speculates that the Palestinians would not be responsible with freedom and responsibility. I don't know why she would say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 359155
> GTD Search Results
> Terrorist Incidents by HAMAS
> _(Excluding Rocket Attacks)_​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> If we study the progress the Arab Palestinians made in the Gaza Strip, after the unilateral withdrawal by Israeli Forces, is to look at what the Arab Palestinians did between 2005 and 2007.  In addition to the terrorist attacks noted in the chart, rocket attacks increased from 488 in *2005* to *2,427 in 2007*. HAMAS _(the de facto government)_ expended much of its resources in its development of the Izz ad-Din Abd al-Qassam Brigades.
> 
> We will never know how many lives were saved, and how many attacks were aborted as a result of Israeli counter-terrorism operations and the countermeasures put in place by Israeli military, police and security personnel.  But as a result of today's overall effort, we see almost no suicide bombers _(although there are calls for them)_ and a significant reduction in the more conventional rocket and mortar fire.  And we see a shift to an entirely different kind of weaponry, from generations long since past.
> 
> *(∑)*  Speculation, I don't think so.  I think it is reasonable to assume, given the history of criminal behaviors by the Arab Palestinians, both by independents _(non-state actors)_ and government-sponsored _(state actors)_, that represent a shift in tactics to exploit new security vulnerabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When did the Palestinians ever have the freedom to be responsible?
Click to expand...


The palestinians? Named for the British Mandate, called palestine, a European imperialist, colonialist entity that ceased to exist in 1948 with Israeli statehood. Not very authentic.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Maybe I misread your intention as well*!*
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it funny to expect that sovereignty comes with responsibility as well as rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just laughed at the post which suggested that Arab Palestinians have responsibilities as well as rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a stupid post. A mere speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> (Ω) What did you find humorous?  _(Just so we all can have a laugh...)_​(Ω) What did you find stupid?  _(Just so we all can learn something...)_​(Ω) What did you find speculative?  _(Just so we all can better support our opinions - or → refute your conjecture...)_​
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She speculates that the Palestinians would not be responsible with freedom and responsibility. I don't know why she would say that.
Click to expand...


Welcome To Palestine! Feel the love?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate      
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * You cannot use that as an excuse.



P F Tinmore said:


> When did the Palestinians ever have the freedom to be responsible?


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians were offered numerous opportunities to become involved in self-governing institutions.  Each time the Jewish Agency was offered an opportunity, the Arab Higher Committee was offered the same opportunity.  You cannot blame the Israelis for the land grab by the Arab League _(Jordan and Egypt in particular)_.  Even today, the Arab Palestinians have the "responsibility to establish an effective and corrupt-free government" in Ramallah and Gaza; they just lay back and whine that it is too hard to do.  With each passing day that the general population allows the criminal activity to run the government, is an example and demonstration of the Arab Palestinian People's lack of responsible action.

Right now, the Arab Palestinians have a chance to come to an agreement that might lead to a state that is hugely well developed and sound.  Yet, they would ignore the opportunity yet again, and would rather say goodbye to a significant swath of territory.  The Israelis, once they annex territory, will not give it back.  And the Arab Palestinians will have no one to blame but themselves.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> When did the Palestinians ever have the freedom to be responsible?



They were free to not fire rockets from Gaza.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Knowledge is telling the past. Wisdom is predicting the future.
> ......................................................................................_W. Timothy Garvey_
> But the best prediction of future events and the path the Arab Palestinians will take come from the past and the history of those events.
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> She speculates that the Palestinians would not be responsible with freedom and responsibility. I don't know why she would say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 359155
> GTD Search Results
> Terrorist Incidents by HAMAS
> _(Excluding Rocket Attacks)_​*(COMMENT)*
> 
> If we study the progress the Arab Palestinians made in the Gaza Strip, after the unilateral withdrawal by Israeli Forces, is to look at what the Arab Palestinians did between 2005 and 2007.  In addition to the terrorist attacks noted in the chart, rocket attacks increased from 488 in *2005* to *2,427 in 2007*. HAMAS _(the de facto government)_ expended much of its resources in its development of the Izz ad-Din Abd al-Qassam Brigades.
> 
> We will never know how many lives were saved, and how many attacks were aborted as a result of Israeli counter-terrorism operations and the countermeasures put in place by Israeli military, police and security personnel.  But as a result of today's overall effort, we see almost no suicide bombers _(although there are calls for them)_ and a significant reduction in the more conventional rocket and mortar fire.  And we see a shift to an entirely different kind of weaponry, from generations long since past.
> 
> *(∑)*  Speculation, I don't think so.  I think it is reasonable to assume, given the history of criminal behaviors by the Arab Palestinians, both by independents _(non-state actors)_ and government-sponsored _(state actors)_, that represent a shift in tactics to exploit new security vulnerabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

That ducks my post.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate      
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:  The hell it does.



P F Tinmore said:


> That ducks my post.


*(COMMENT)*

They (Arab Palestinians) have freedom and responsibility NOW to run, manage, and maintain an effective and fair government.  Yet they left Fahtah and HAMAS run things.  They simply don't have the capacity or willingness to do the right thing.

That is not ducking the question, it is right on target.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MartyNYC

Welcome To Palestine! 

Another Brutal Crackdown by Hamas in Gaza. Beatings & Arrests of Rights Defenders, Journalists, Demonstrators Reflect Systematic Practice.

Another Brutal Crackdown by Hamas in Gaza   | Human Rights Watch


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * You cannot use that as an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Palestinians ever have the freedom to be responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were offered numerous opportunities to become involved in self-governing institutions.  Each time the Jewish Agency was offered an opportunity, the Arab Higher Committee was offered the same opportunity.  You cannot blame the Israelis for the land grab by the Arab League _(Jordan and Egypt in particular)_.  Even today, the Arab Palestinians have the "responsibility to establish an effective and corrupt-free government" in Ramallah and Gaza; they just lay back and whine that it is too hard to do.  With each passing day that the general population allows the criminal activity to run the government, is an example and demonstration of the Arab Palestinian People's lack of responsible action.
> 
> Right now, the Arab Palestinians have a chance to come to an agreement that might lead to a state that is hugely well developed and sound.  Yet, they would ignore the opportunity yet again, and would rather say goodbye to a significant swath of territory.  The Israelis, once they annex territory, will not give it back.  And the Arab Palestinians will have no one to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians were offered numerous opportunities to become involved in self-governing institutions.


And they all started with surrender.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Why are we mixing what happened until the creation of Israel with what happened after and today?

Why allow P to drag this thread to anything about the conflict, instead of staying before 1949?

This truly belongs in the "Who are the Palestinians" thread.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * You cannot use that as an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did the Palestinians ever have the freedom to be responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were offered numerous opportunities to become involved in self-governing institutions.  Each time the Jewish Agency was offered an opportunity, the Arab Higher Committee was offered the same opportunity.  You cannot blame the Israelis for the land grab by the Arab League _(Jordan and Egypt in particular)_.  Even today, the Arab Palestinians have the "responsibility to establish an effective and corrupt-free government" in Ramallah and Gaza; they just lay back and whine that it is too hard to do.  With each passing day that the general population allows the criminal activity to run the government, is an example and demonstration of the Arab Palestinian People's lack of responsible action.
> 
> Right now, the Arab Palestinians have a chance to come to an agreement that might lead to a state that is hugely well developed and sound.  Yet, they would ignore the opportunity yet again, and would rather say goodbye to a significant swath of territory.  The Israelis, once they annex territory, will not give it back.  And the Arab Palestinians will have no one to blame but themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arab Palestinians were offered numerous opportunities to become involved in self-governing institutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they all started with surrender.
Click to expand...


How's that working out for the size of a future state?


----------



## MartyNYC

Welcome To Palestine! Authorities crush dissent


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Maybe I misread your intention as well*!*
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it funny to expect that sovereignty comes with responsibility as well as rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just laughed at the post which suggested that Arab Palestinians have responsibilities as well as rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a stupid post. A mere speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> (Ω) What did you find humorous?  _(Just so we all can have a laugh...)_​(Ω) What did you find stupid?  _(Just so we all can learn something...)_​(Ω) What did you find speculative?  _(Just so we all can better support our opinions - or → refute your conjecture...)_​
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She speculates that the Palestinians would not be responsible with freedom and responsibility. I don't know why she would say that.
Click to expand...


Let me lift the veil on your ignorance then.  I say it because the Arab Palestinian governments have NOT been responsible.  Let me give you some examples:  

Incentivized terrorism through laws and government programs which provide income to murderers.  (Martyrs, fighters, freedom-fools whatever you want to call them -- Arabs who attempt to or succeed at killing Jews.  And sure, go ahead and call it a social welfare program if you want, but its still both abhorrent and irresponsible for a government.)

Inciting and celebrating terror in official government statements and at official government events.

Preferential hiring of released prisoners (criminals, homicide or attempted homicide) to the civil service with pay grade assigned by length of imprisonment.

Refusing co-operation and actively preventing citizens from receiving quality medical care.

Refusing co-operation and withdrawing payments for electricity for its citizens.  

Refusing to accept tax transfers and payments, resulting in a failure to pay civil servants, pensions, and social security benefits to its citizens.  

These are just a few examples of a government so irresponsible and corrupt that it can not meet the basic needs of its citizens.  A government which refuses to meet the basic needs of its citizens, by definition, is incapable of Statehood.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Maybe I misread your intention as well*!*
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it funny to expect that sovereignty comes with responsibility as well as rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just laughed at the post which suggested that Arab Palestinians have responsibilities as well as rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was a stupid post. A mere speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> (Ω) What did you find humorous?  _(Just so we all can have a laugh...)_​(Ω) What did you find stupid?  _(Just so we all can learn something...)_​(Ω) What did you find speculative?  _(Just so we all can better support our opinions - or → refute your conjecture...)_​
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She speculates that the Palestinians would not be responsible with freedom and responsibility. I don't know why she would say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me lift the veil on your ignorance then.  I say it because the Arab Palestinian governments have NOT been responsible.  Let me give you some examples:
> 
> Incentivized terrorism through laws and government programs which provide income to murderers.  (Martyrs, fighters, freedom-fools whatever you want to call them -- Arabs who attempt to or succeed at killing Jews.  And sure, go ahead and call it a social welfare program if you want, but its still both abhorrent and irresponsible for a government.)
> 
> Inciting and celebrating terror in official government statements and at official government events.
> 
> Preferential hiring of released prisoners (criminals, homicide or attempted homicide) to the civil service with pay grade assigned by length of imprisonment.
> 
> Refusing co-operation and actively preventing citizens from receiving quality medical care.
> 
> Refusing co-operation and withdrawing payments for electricity for its citizens.
> 
> Refusing to accept tax transfers and payments, resulting in a failure to pay civil servants, pensions, and social security benefits to its citizens.
> 
> These are just a few examples of a government so irresponsible and corrupt that it can not meet the basic needs of its citizens.  A government which refuses to meet the basic needs of its citizens, by definition, is incapable of Statehood.
Click to expand...

You need to reread my post.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> You need to reread my post.


Eyeroll

Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
Click to expand...

 

I can't help you if you miss the point.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
Click to expand...

Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
Click to expand...

Palestinians in politics and other fields.


And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
Click to expand...


Palestine was Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate, which became Israel. Are palestinians British?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
Click to expand...


Casey Kasem was Lebanese.


----------



## MartyNYC

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Casey Kasem was Lebanese.
Click to expand...


Lebanon was named for a mountain, not a people. Not very authentic.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
Click to expand...


Oh, please.  You have got to be kidding me.  You are trying to use people of "Palestinian" ancestry whose families emigrated over a hundred years ago as PROOF that the current government of Arab Palestine is a responsible and effective world government.

That is the equivalent of saying that the government of Scotland is a responsible and effective world government because Shusha in Canada, who is of Scottish descent, is a decent human being.  

You couldn't possibly even come up with a more ridiculous argument.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Casey Kasem was Lebanese.
Click to expand...

Hard to tell for sure. Palestinians, by necessity, are born all over the place. Rashida Tlaib, herself, was born in the US. Her mother was born in Jordan. Her grandmother was born in Palestine. Convince her that she is not Palestinian. Under normal circumstances, they would have all been born in Palestine.

Israel is not normal.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Casey Kasem was Lebanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hard to tell for sure. Palestinians, by necessity, are born all over the place. Rashida Tlaib, herself, was born in the US. Her mother was born in Jordan. Her grandmother was born in Palestine. Convince her that she is not Palestinian. Under normal circumstances, they would have all been born in Palestine.
> 
> Israel is not normal.
Click to expand...


Fakestinians. ⤵️


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Casey Kasem was Lebanese.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hard to tell for sure. Palestinians, by necessity, are born all over the place. Rashida Tlaib, herself, was born in the US. Her mother was born in Jordan. Her grandmother was born in Palestine. Convince her that she is not Palestinian. Under normal circumstances, they would have all been born in Palestine.
> 
> Israel is not normal.
Click to expand...


Syria’s Hafiz al-Asad admonishes Arafat that palestinians are fake...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  You have got to be kidding me.  You are trying to use people of "Palestinian" ancestry whose families emigrated over a hundred years ago as PROOF that the current government of Arab Palestine is a responsible and effective world government.
> 
> That is the equivalent of saying that the government of Scotland is a responsible and effective world government because Shusha in Canada, who is of Scottish descent, is a decent human being.
> 
> You couldn't possibly even come up with a more ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Palestinians born in different countries are different? How so?

BTW, my grandfather was Scottish.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  You have got to be kidding me.  You are trying to use people of "Palestinian" ancestry whose families emigrated over a hundred years ago as PROOF that the current government of Arab Palestine is a responsible and effective world government.
> 
> That is the equivalent of saying that the government of Scotland is a responsible and effective world government because Shusha in Canada, who is of Scottish descent, is a decent human being.
> 
> 
> You couldn't possibly even come up with a more ridiculous argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that Palestinians born in different countries are different? How so?
> 
> BTW, my grandfather was Scottish.
Click to expand...


Hey “genius”: Palestine was just Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate. It’s been a European Christian name for centuries, like Holy Land.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  You have got to be kidding me.  You are trying to use people of "Palestinian" ancestry whose families emigrated over a hundred years ago as PROOF that the current government of Arab Palestine is a responsible and effective world government.
> 
> That is the equivalent of saying that the government of Scotland is a responsible and effective world government because Shusha in Canada, who is of Scottish descent, is a decent human being.
> 
> You couldn't possibly even come up with a more ridiculous argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that Palestinians born in different countries are different? How so?
> 
> BTW, my grandfather was Scottish.
Click to expand...


Well, I could certainly make that argument, but that is not the argument I AM making.  

The argument at hand is the requirement for the Arab Palestinian government to be responsible and effective, and their complete failure to do so.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  You have got to be kidding me.  You are trying to use people of "Palestinian" ancestry whose families emigrated over a hundred years ago as PROOF that the current government of Arab Palestine is a responsible and effective world government.
> 
> That is the equivalent of saying that the government of Scotland is a responsible and effective world government because Shusha in Canada, who is of Scottish descent, is a decent human being.
> 
> You couldn't possibly even come up with a more ridiculous argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that Palestinians born in different countries are different? How so?
> 
> BTW, my grandfather was Scottish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I could certainly make that argument, but that is not the argument I AM making.
> 
> The argument at hand is the requirement for the Arab Palestinian government to be responsible and effective, and their complete failure to do so.
Click to expand...

Why would that be? They are successful in other parts of the world.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  You have got to be kidding me.  You are trying to use people of "Palestinian" ancestry whose families emigrated over a hundred years ago as PROOF that the current government of Arab Palestine is a responsible and effective world government.
> 
> That is the equivalent of saying that the government of Scotland is a responsible and effective world government because Shusha in Canada, who is of Scottish descent, is a decent human being.
> 
> You couldn't possibly even come up with a more ridiculous argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that Palestinians born in different countries are different? How so?
> 
> BTW, my grandfather was Scottish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I could certainly make that argument, but that is not the argument I AM making.
> 
> The argument at hand is the requirement for the Arab Palestinian government to be responsible and effective, and their complete failure to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would that be? They are successful in other parts of the world.
Click to expand...


Um.  There is no other Arab Palestinian government anywhere in the world.  There is no "would" here.  The current Arab Palestinian government has a requirement to be responsible and effective.  It is not.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  You have got to be kidding me.  You are trying to use people of "Palestinian" ancestry whose families emigrated over a hundred years ago as PROOF that the current government of Arab Palestine is a responsible and effective world government.
> 
> That is the equivalent of saying that the government of Scotland is a responsible and effective world government because Shusha in Canada, who is of Scottish descent, is a decent human being.
> 
> You couldn't possibly even come up with a more ridiculous argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that Palestinians born in different countries are different? How so?
> 
> BTW, my grandfather was Scottish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I could certainly make that argument, but that is not the argument I AM making.
> 
> The argument at hand is the requirement for the Arab Palestinian government to be responsible and effective, and their complete failure to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would that be? They are successful in other parts of the world.
Click to expand...


Still trolling after 11+ years?

Palestine is a fictional European Christian name, from a fictional Roman name for ancient Israel, later Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate that became modern Israel. “Palestinian” was Britain’s name for Jews in the Mandate...


----------



## P F Tinmore

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  You have got to be kidding me.  You are trying to use people of "Palestinian" ancestry whose families emigrated over a hundred years ago as PROOF that the current government of Arab Palestine is a responsible and effective world government.
> 
> That is the equivalent of saying that the government of Scotland is a responsible and effective world government because Shusha in Canada, who is of Scottish descent, is a decent human being.
> 
> You couldn't possibly even come up with a more ridiculous argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that Palestinians born in different countries are different? How so?
> 
> BTW, my grandfather was Scottish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I could certainly make that argument, but that is not the argument I AM making.
> 
> The argument at hand is the requirement for the Arab Palestinian government to be responsible and effective, and their complete failure to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would that be? They are successful in other parts of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um.  There is no other Arab Palestinian government anywhere in the world.  There is no "would" here.  The current Arab Palestinian government has a requirement to be responsible and effective.  It is not.
Click to expand...

Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  You have got to be kidding me.  You are trying to use people of "Palestinian" ancestry whose families emigrated over a hundred years ago as PROOF that the current government of Arab Palestine is a responsible and effective world government.
> 
> That is the equivalent of saying that the government of Scotland is a responsible and effective world government because Shusha in Canada, who is of Scottish descent, is a decent human being.
> 
> You couldn't possibly even come up with a more ridiculous argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that Palestinians born in different countries are different? How so?
> 
> BTW, my grandfather was Scottish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I could certainly make that argument, but that is not the argument I AM making.
> 
> The argument at hand is the requirement for the Arab Palestinian government to be responsible and effective, and their complete failure to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would that be? They are successful in other parts of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um.  There is no other Arab Palestinian government anywhere in the world.  There is no "would" here.  The current Arab Palestinian government has a requirement to be responsible and effective.  It is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?
Click to expand...


The current Arab Palestinian government has a requirement to be responsible and effective.  It is not responsible and can not meet its requirements and obligations. 

We are not discussing what "might be" or "what the government might look like, if it was different, or run by different people".  We are discussing what IS.  You know, that which exists in reality. 

I asked you simply for evidence that the Arab Palestinian government was acting responsibly.  You clearly can not provide that, so have gone off on this weird tangent fantasy land where Palestine is governed by Americans.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to reread my post.
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeroll
> 
> Why don’t you give me some examples of the Arab Palestinian governments acting responsibly, then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help you if you miss the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point seems to be that the Arab Palestinian government is acting responsibly.   Or would act responsibly. But you offer no insight as to why you believe that let alone evidence that it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinians in politics and other fields.
> 
> 
> And don't forget Rashida Tlaib.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  You have got to be kidding me.  You are trying to use people of "Palestinian" ancestry whose families emigrated over a hundred years ago as PROOF that the current government of Arab Palestine is a responsible and effective world government.
> 
> That is the equivalent of saying that the government of Scotland is a responsible and effective world government because Shusha in Canada, who is of Scottish descent, is a decent human being.
> 
> You couldn't possibly even come up with a more ridiculous argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that Palestinians born in different countries are different? How so?
> 
> BTW, my grandfather was Scottish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I could certainly make that argument, but that is not the argument I AM making.
> 
> The argument at hand is the requirement for the Arab Palestinian government to be responsible and effective, and their complete failure to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would that be? They are successful in other parts of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um.  There is no other Arab Palestinian government anywhere in the world.  There is no "would" here.  The current Arab Palestinian government has a requirement to be responsible and effective.  It is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?
Click to expand...


Palestine is a European Christian name for Jews’ homeland and was Britain’s name for the British Mandate, which became Israel. Jews were called palestinians—These are made-up Western names. ⤵️


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate      
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* No matter where you are born, the environment influences people's lives in many ways some of them are unimaginable. A part of us is a product of our environment as we interact in various experiential human activities.



P F Tinmore said:


> Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?


*(COMMENT)*

In general, we call this _(apply)_ by the name:  Environmental Psychology.  Although I've been to programs that refer to it as evolutionary developments in human behavior and cognitive processes.

The people that grow up in the Barrio, Washington Park, and Bedford–Stuyvesant, are noticeably different in the way they interface with society from their experiences.  The same as those that grow up in Beruit, Baghdad, Garage Valley  _(AKA: Shanghai)_ in Moscow, and Redfern in Sydney, → similar to the others, yet different.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are incubators for the most dangerous of people.  Yet, if you take them at an early age, and bring them up in the Mid-West of America of Canada, the character can be changed.  

An American born in the US, outside any of the ghettos, having never set foot in the Middle Eastern Region, will be culturally emerged with the same qualities of life as any other.  They have to opportunity to excel to the same degree as any other child - no different than any other American; with the same probabilities for success.

My children have never heard automatic weapons fire, seen in close proximity a drive-by shooting, or felt the impact of a 122mm Rocket, because they have outside the domains that would experience that.  Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude. _ (Sometimes a positive effect and sometimes in a negative effect.)_

This is the impact that the environment has on people.  If you cannot recognize that, then there is _(probably)_ nothing anyone can do to enlighten you.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* No matter where you are born, the environment influences people's lives in many ways some of them are unimaginable. A part of us is a product of our environment as we interact in various experiential human activities.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In general, we call this _(apply)_ by the name:  Environmental Psychology.  Although I've been to programs that refer to it as evolutionary developments in human behavior and cognitive processes.
> 
> The people that grow up in the Barrio, Washington Park, and Bedford–Stuyvesant, are noticeably different in the way they interface with society from their experiences.  The same as those that grow up in Beruit, Baghdad, Garage Valley  _(AKA: Shanghai)_ in Moscow, and Redfern in Sydney, → similar to the others, yet different.
> 
> The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are incubators for the most dangerous of people.  Yet, if you take them at an early age, and bring them up in the Mid-West of America of Canada, the character can be changed.
> 
> An American born in the US, outside any of the ghettos, having never set foot in the Middle Eastern Region, will be culturally emerged with the same qualities of life as any other.  They have to opportunity to excel to the same degree as any other child - no different than any other American; with the same probabilities for success.
> 
> My children have never heard automatic weapons fire, seen in close proximity a drive-by shooting, or felt the impact of a 122mm Rocket, because they have outside the domains that would experience that.  Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude. _ (Sometimes a positive effect and sometimes in a negative effect.)_
> 
> This is the impact that the environment has on people.  If you cannot recognize that, then there is _(probably)_ nothing anyone can do to enlighten you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.


Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* No matter where you are born, the environment influences people's lives in many ways some of them are unimaginable. A part of us is a product of our environment as we interact in various experiential human activities.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In general, we call this _(apply)_ by the name:  Environmental Psychology.  Although I've been to programs that refer to it as evolutionary developments in human behavior and cognitive processes.
> 
> The people that grow up in the Barrio, Washington Park, and Bedford–Stuyvesant, are noticeably different in the way they interface with society from their experiences.  The same as those that grow up in Beruit, Baghdad, Garage Valley  _(AKA: Shanghai)_ in Moscow, and Redfern in Sydney, → similar to the others, yet different.
> 
> The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are incubators for the most dangerous of people.  Yet, if you take them at an early age, and bring them up in the Mid-West of America of Canada, the character can be changed.
> 
> An American born in the US, outside any of the ghettos, having never set foot in the Middle Eastern Region, will be culturally emerged with the same qualities of life as any other.  They have to opportunity to excel to the same degree as any other child - no different than any other American; with the same probabilities for success.
> 
> My children have never heard automatic weapons fire, seen in close proximity a drive-by shooting, or felt the impact of a 122mm Rocket, because they have outside the domains that would experience that.  Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude. _ (Sometimes a positive effect and sometimes in a negative effect.)_
> 
> This is the impact that the environment has on people.  If you cannot recognize that, then there is _(probably)_ nothing anyone can do to enlighten you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
Click to expand...


Palestine was merely Britain’s fake name for the British Mandate, which became Israel. It originated as a fake Roman name imposed on Jews. Jews were called palestinians. There wasn’t a palestine in the Ottoman Empire. Palestine, palestinian are made-up European names...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* This is not totally correct.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar _(just a few examples)_.
> As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives _(which are what we are discussing)_.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*​Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty *​‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.  Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning.  But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*
> Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
> Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
> 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
> ---------------------
> 
> *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.​​
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> You always claim that military power negates rights.
Click to expand...


And that's exactly why the US is Constitutionally bound by the terms of the Mandate,
vesting all sovereignty for the territory allocated as 'Palestine/E.Y' in the nation of Israel.

Read:  Anglo-American Convention of  1924
and the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* This is not totally correct.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar _(just a few examples)_.
> As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives _(which are what we are discussing)_.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*​Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty *​‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.  Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning.  But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*
> Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
> Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
> 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
> ---------------------
> 
> *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.​​
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> You always claim that military power negates rights.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's exactly why the US is Constitutionally bound by the terms of the Mandate,
> vesting all sovereignty for the territory allocated as 'Palestine/E.Y' in the nation of Israel.
> 
> Read:  Anglo-American Convention of  1924
> and the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922.
Click to expand...

I don't legitimize foreign intervention.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* This is not totally correct.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar _(just a few examples)_.
> As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives _(which are what we are discussing)_.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*​Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty *​‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.  Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning.  But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*
> Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
> Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
> 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
> ---------------------
> 
> *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.​​
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> You always claim that military power negates rights.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's exactly why the US is Constitutionally bound by the terms of the Mandate,
> vesting all sovereignty for the territory allocated as 'Palestine/E.Y' in the nation of Israel.
> 
> Read:  Anglo-American Convention of  1924
> and the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't legitimize foreign intervention.
Click to expand...


And yet your whole narrative of a Pali state,
is based on and born out of this foreign intervention,
even the flags the Arabs wave were drawn by a British officer.
Not to mention, the word _*'Palestine'*_ literally means 'foreign intervention'.

What you support totally contradicts what you say.
And that is how useful idiots are baked.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* This is not totally correct.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar _(just a few examples)_.
> As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives _(which are what we are discussing)_.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*​Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty *​‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.  Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning.  But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*
> Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
> Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
> 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
> ---------------------
> 
> *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.​​
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> You always claim that military power negates rights.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's exactly why the US is Constitutionally bound by the terms of the Mandate,
> vesting all sovereignty for the territory allocated as 'Palestine/E.Y' in the nation of Israel.
> 
> Read:  Anglo-American Convention of  1924
> and the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't legitimize foreign intervention.
Click to expand...


Who are the foreign interventionists?


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* No matter where you are born, the environment influences people's lives in many ways some of them are unimaginable. A part of us is a product of our environment as we interact in various experiential human activities.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why would the Palestinians born elsewhere by different that those born in Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In general, we call this _(apply)_ by the name:  Environmental Psychology.  Although I've been to programs that refer to it as evolutionary developments in human behavior and cognitive processes.
> 
> The people that grow up in the Barrio, Washington Park, and Bedford–Stuyvesant, are noticeably different in the way they interface with society from their experiences.  The same as those that grow up in Beruit, Baghdad, Garage Valley  _(AKA: Shanghai)_ in Moscow, and Redfern in Sydney, → similar to the others, yet different.
> 
> The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are incubators for the most dangerous of people.  Yet, if you take them at an early age, and bring them up in the Mid-West of America of Canada, the character can be changed.
> 
> An American born in the US, outside any of the ghettos, having never set foot in the Middle Eastern Region, will be culturally emerged with the same qualities of life as any other.  They have to opportunity to excel to the same degree as any other child - no different than any other American; with the same probabilities for success.
> 
> My children have never heard automatic weapons fire, seen in close proximity a drive-by shooting, or felt the impact of a 122mm Rocket, because they have outside the domains that would experience that.  Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude. _ (Sometimes a positive effect and sometimes in a negative effect.)_
> 
> This is the impact that the environment has on people.  If you cannot recognize that, then there is _(probably)_ nothing anyone can do to enlighten you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
Click to expand...


Jews are the indigenous people, birdbrain. Israel dates back to antiquity.

Jesus is called King Of Israel in the Bible...


----------



## MartyNYC

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* This is not totally correct.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar _(just a few examples)_.
> As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives _(which are what we are discussing)_.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*​Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty *​‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.  Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning.  But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*
> Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
> Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
> 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
> ---------------------
> 
> *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.​​
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> You always claim that military power negates rights.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's exactly why the US is Constitutionally bound by the terms of the Mandate,
> vesting all sovereignty for the territory allocated as 'Palestine/E.Y' in the nation of Israel.
> 
> Read:  Anglo-American Convention of  1924
> and the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't legitimize foreign intervention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet your whole narrative of a Pali state,
> is based on and born out of this foreign intervention,
> even the flags the Arabs wave were drawn by a British officer.
> Not to mention, the word _*'Palestine'*_ literally means 'foreign intervention'.
> 
> What you support totally contradicts what you say.
> And that is how useful idiots are baked.
Click to expand...


Flag of palestine is a modified flag of Jordan. Jordan was created by Britain, named for a river, not a people. Not very authentic.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* This is not totally correct.
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just on the top of it - you conflate allocation of territories for sovereignty, with a state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessary. The people in a defined territory are the sovereigns in that territory. Governments and states are extensions of the sovereignty of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> While by definition, the sovereignty of a democracy "IS" and extension of the "will of the people," the same is not true for a semi-presidential federation like Russia or an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia or the Dictatorship of Myanmar _(just a few examples)_.
> As distinct from other usages of the term "sovereignty," there are very clear definitions from the political and international law perspectives _(which are what we are discussing)_.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*​Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...​Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Page 565 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty *​‘Sovereignty as a principle of international law must be sharply distinguished from other related uses of the term: sovereignty in its internal aspects and political sovereignty.  Sovereignty in its internal aspects is concerned with the identity of the bearer of supreme authority within a State. This may be an individual or a collective unit. . . . In international relations, the scope of political sovereignty is still less limited [than that within a State]. Political sovereignty is the necessary concomitant of the lack of an effective international​order and the constitutional weaknesses of the international superstructures which have so far been grafted on the law of unorganized international society. . . .​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> I have seen you make this mistake before, as if you are oblivious to the true nature of the meaning.  But you cannot adjust the meaning or narrow the intention, to fit your Arab Palestinian objectives, and still be valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Page 454 • The Routledge Dictionary of Politics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sovereignty*
> Sovereignty means the right to own and control some area of the world...
> Its basic meaning is legitimacy of rule, as opposed to actual power.
> 1924
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty - Israel has the guns.
> ---------------------
> 
> *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.​​
> 
> The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
> 
> 
> You always claim that military power negates rights.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that's exactly why the US is Constitutionally bound by the terms of the Mandate,
> vesting all sovereignty for the territory allocated as 'Palestine/E.Y' in the nation of Israel.
> 
> Read:  Anglo-American Convention of  1924
> and the Lodge-Fish Resolution of 1922.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't legitimize foreign intervention.
Click to expand...


Britain literally created palestine, genius....


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate      
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * Environmental Psychology* NOT* Israeli Aggression




RoccoR said:


> Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.





P F Tinmore said:


> Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.


*(COMMENT)*

There is, around the region of the Middle East, a kind of Dark Psychology, especially in the areas of propaganda, nеurо-linguiѕtiс рrоgrаmming (NLP) аnd рiсk-uр аrtiѕt techniques.  And in no topic can you find more of the асt оf соntrоlling by artful, unfair, оr inѕidiоuѕ mеаnѕ than when you delve into the topic of "Arab Palestinian - Israeli Conflict." Within the conflict you will find all sorts of examples
using the manipulative changes in the thought раttеrn оf thе реорlе, thеir behavior, еmоtiоnѕ, аnd реrсерtiоn оf lifе on a ѕubсоnѕсiоuѕ lеvеl.  This is done by the Arab Palestinian control of textbooks for elementary schools and the intense generational transference by parental powers.  The generalized attitude of today's Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is an outcome of the constant bombardment of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic fog the current generation of parental guidance allows to impress combative images in the minds of children.  This was a long-term investment beginning in some of the central concepts that have fueled the conflict:


			
				Article 15 • The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty • Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 said:
			
		

> It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, *especially the youth *and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses).* It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasio*n that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin).





			
				Article 7 • Popular Duty • PLO Charter said:
			
		

> There is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. *All means of information and education must be adopted *in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible.





			
				Article 10 • Commando (Fedayeen) action • PLO Charter said:
			
		

> This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the *Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.* It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.


This has nothing to do with the image you promote here, the implication of the "Iasrael's boot off your neck" (sic), but is rather a demonstration of the Arab Palestinian success in the spreading of hatred and hostility.  The conflict is full of contradictions, wherein, Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot say they are looking for a peaceful settlement and yet proceed to ramp the effort to incite violence.  And I think that - even in terms of the outside observer - the constant bombardment of the incitement to violence that the promotion of war-like activities - over the last half-century, that we have a tendency to tune out the rhetoric.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * Environmental Psychology* NOT* Israeli Aggression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is, around the region of the Middle East, a kind of Dark Psychology, especially in the areas of propaganda, nеurо-linguiѕtiс рrоgrаmming (NLP) аnd рiсk-uр аrtiѕt techniques.  And in no topic can you find more of the асt оf соntrоlling by artful, unfair, оr inѕidiоuѕ mеаnѕ than when you delve into the topic of "Arab Palestinian - Israeli Conflict." Within the conflict you will find all sorts of examples
> using the manipulative changes in the thought раttеrn оf thе реорlе, thеir behavior, еmоtiоnѕ, аnd реrсерtiоn оf lifе on a ѕubсоnѕсiоuѕ lеvеl.  This is done by the Arab Palestinian control of textbooks for elementary schools and the intense generational transference by parental powers.  The generalized attitude of today's Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is an outcome of the constant bombardment of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic fog the current generation of parental guidance allows to impress combative images in the minds of children.  This was a long-term investment beginning in some of the central concepts that have fueled the conflict:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 • The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty • Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, *especially the youth *and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses).* It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasio*n that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 7 • Popular Duty • PLO Charter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. *All means of information and education must be adopted *in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 10 • Commando (Fedayeen) action • PLO Charter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the *Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.* It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​This has nothing to do with the image you promote here, the implication of the "Iasrael's boot off your neck" (sic), but is rather a demonstration of the Arab Palestinian success in the spreading of hatred and hostility.  The conflict is full of contradictions, wherein, Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot say they are looking for a peaceful settlement and yet proceed to ramp the effort to incite violence.  And I think that - even in terms of the outside observer - the constant bombardment of the incitement to violence that the promotion of war-like activities - over the last half-century, that we have a tendency to tune out the rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Is colonization an aggression?


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * Environmental Psychology* NOT* Israeli Aggression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is, around the region of the Middle East, a kind of Dark Psychology, especially in the areas of propaganda, nеurо-linguiѕtiс рrоgrаmming (NLP) аnd рiсk-uр аrtiѕt techniques.  And in no topic can you find more of the асt оf соntrоlling by artful, unfair, оr inѕidiоuѕ mеаnѕ than when you delve into the topic of "Arab Palestinian - Israeli Conflict." Within the conflict you will find all sorts of examples
> using the manipulative changes in the thought раttеrn оf thе реорlе, thеir behavior, еmоtiоnѕ, аnd реrсерtiоn оf lifе on a ѕubсоnѕсiоuѕ lеvеl.  This is done by the Arab Palestinian control of textbooks for elementary schools and the intense generational transference by parental powers.  The generalized attitude of today's Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is an outcome of the constant bombardment of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic fog the current generation of parental guidance allows to impress combative images in the minds of children.  This was a long-term investment beginning in some of the central concepts that have fueled the conflict:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 • The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty • Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, *especially the youth *and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses).* It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasio*n that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 7 • Popular Duty • PLO Charter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. *All means of information and education must be adopted *in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 10 • Commando (Fedayeen) action • PLO Charter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the *Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.* It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​This has nothing to do with the image you promote here, the implication of the "Iasrael's boot off your neck" (sic), but is rather a demonstration of the Arab Palestinian success in the spreading of hatred and hostility.  The conflict is full of contradictions, wherein, Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot say they are looking for a peaceful settlement and yet proceed to ramp the effort to incite violence.  And I think that - even in terms of the outside observer - the constant bombardment of the incitement to violence that the promotion of war-like activities - over the last half-century, that we have a tendency to tune out the rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is colonization an aggression?
Click to expand...


Arabs and Muslims colonizing Jews’ homeland.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * Environmental Psychology* NOT* Israeli Aggression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is, around the region of the Middle East, a kind of Dark Psychology, especially in the areas of propaganda, nеurо-linguiѕtiс рrоgrаmming (NLP) аnd рiсk-uр аrtiѕt techniques.  And in no topic can you find more of the асt оf соntrоlling by artful, unfair, оr inѕidiоuѕ mеаnѕ than when you delve into the topic of "Arab Palestinian - Israeli Conflict." Within the conflict you will find all sorts of examples
> using the manipulative changes in the thought раttеrn оf thе реорlе, thеir behavior, еmоtiоnѕ, аnd реrсерtiоn оf lifе on a ѕubсоnѕсiоuѕ lеvеl.  This is done by the Arab Palestinian control of textbooks for elementary schools and the intense generational transference by parental powers.  The generalized attitude of today's Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is an outcome of the constant bombardment of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic fog the current generation of parental guidance allows to impress combative images in the minds of children.  This was a long-term investment beginning in some of the central concepts that have fueled the conflict:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 • The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty • Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, *especially the youth *and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses).* It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasio*n that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 7 • Popular Duty • PLO Charter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. *All means of information and education must be adopted *in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 10 • Commando (Fedayeen) action • PLO Charter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the *Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.* It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​This has nothing to do with the image you promote here, the implication of the "Iasrael's boot off your neck" (sic), but is rather a demonstration of the Arab Palestinian success in the spreading of hatred and hostility.  The conflict is full of contradictions, wherein, Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot say they are looking for a peaceful settlement and yet proceed to ramp the effort to incite violence.  And I think that - even in terms of the outside observer - the constant bombardment of the incitement to violence that the promotion of war-like activities - over the last half-century, that we have a tendency to tune out the rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is colonization an aggression?
Click to expand...


Who’s colonizing whom, bright eyes? Jewish synagogue in Syria centuries before the first mosque...
Dura-Europos: Excavating Antiquity | Yale University Art Gallery


----------



## MartyNYC

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * Environmental Psychology* NOT* Israeli Aggression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those that have grown up in a War Zone have a marked difference in their bearing and attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. That is what I have been saying. Those born under Israeli aggression have different attitudes than those that are born in a place like the US. A Palestinian born in the US might be thinking about how to get into law school. Those born in Palestine will be thinking about how to get Iasrael's boot off your neck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is, around the region of the Middle East, a kind of Dark Psychology, especially in the areas of propaganda, nеurо-linguiѕtiс рrоgrаmming (NLP) аnd рiсk-uр аrtiѕt techniques.  And in no topic can you find more of the асt оf соntrоlling by artful, unfair, оr inѕidiоuѕ mеаnѕ than when you delve into the topic of "Arab Palestinian - Israeli Conflict." Within the conflict you will find all sorts of examples
> using the manipulative changes in the thought раttеrn оf thе реорlе, thеir behavior, еmоtiоnѕ, аnd реrсерtiоn оf lifе on a ѕubсоnѕсiоuѕ lеvеl.  This is done by the Arab Palestinian control of textbooks for elementary schools and the intense generational transference by parental powers.  The generalized attitude of today's Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is an outcome of the constant bombardment of anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic fog the current generation of parental guidance allows to impress combative images in the minds of children.  This was a long-term investment beginning in some of the central concepts that have fueled the conflict:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 15 • The Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine is an Individual Duty • Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, *especially the youth *and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses).* It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasio*n that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 7 • Popular Duty • PLO Charter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a Palestinian community and that it has material, spiritual, and historical connection with Palestine are indisputable facts. It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. *All means of information and education must be adopted *in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 10 • Commando (Fedayeen) action • PLO Charter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the *Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.* It also requires the achieving of unity for the national (watani) struggle among the different groupings of the Palestinian people, and between the Palestinian people and the Arab masses, so as to secure the continuation of the revolution, its escalation, and victory.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​This has nothing to do with the image you promote here, the implication of the "Iasrael's boot off your neck" (sic), but is rather a demonstration of the Arab Palestinian success in the spreading of hatred and hostility.  The conflict is full of contradictions, wherein, Hostile Arab Palestinians cannot say they are looking for a peaceful settlement and yet proceed to ramp the effort to incite violence.  And I think that - even in terms of the outside observer - the constant bombardment of the incitement to violence that the promotion of war-like activities - over the last half-century, that we have a tendency to tune out the rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


The idiot has been posting for 11+ years about palestine, 58,000+ posts, except palestine originated as a fictional Roman name for ancient Israel and was Britain’s adopted fictional name for the British Mandate which became modern Israel. Palestine is a Western invention.

There never has been a place palestine founded by Arabs, “palestinians“ (Arabs), Muslims, or any Middle Eastern people.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate    
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * The "Key" to answering this question is UNDERSTANDING the *definitions* of the words.
As it applies to the situation in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 

*SHORT ANSWER: * NO_*!*_



P F Tinmore said:


> Is colonization an aggression?


*(DEFINITIONS)*
​

			
				Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314 said:
			
		

> *Article 1*​​Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.​​_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._​
> *Article 2*​​The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.​


​


			
				Page107 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
			
		

> *colony* ​
> The term ‘colony’ is one of municipal or constitutional rather than international law. As such, its exact significance may vary from municipal system to municipal system.  Thus, the British Interpretation Act 1889 excluded from the expression, not only any part of​
> the British Islands (which include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), but also British India. For historical reasons, the term has been eschewed in the United States’ constitutional law and practice. But the word, generally understood as connoting any non-metropolitan territory of a State, is occasionally employed in instruments of international legal import; e.g., the provision of *art. 1(2) of the Covenant of the League of Nations for the availability of membership to ‘any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony’, General*​
> *Assembly Res. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960* , styled a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), *‘The principle of equal rights*​
> *and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism. See also independence*.​


*(COMMENT)*

So, understand that during the Mandate Period, the use of force was a function of law and order in accordance with the Hague Regulation of 1907.  By understanding that the intervention by the Arab League ignited the 1948 Conflict.  The Arab League crossed the threshold into the Trustee Territory and Israel.  The action by the Arab League constituted "_prima facie_ evidence of an act of aggression." (NOT Israel).   This conflict did not end _(relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip)_ until 1994 _(1979 with Egypt)_ with the Treaty of Peace with Jordan.  This 1948 Conflict included both the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

◈  After 1994, the conflict between non-state actors and Israel is, not only acts of aggression.​◈  It not completely determined yet whether the use by the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force (IRGC-QF) weapons, materials, and funding under Article 8 bis • Para 2g • Crime of aggression _(Article 3g A/RES/3314)_ of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.​


Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Key" to answering this question is UNDERSTANDING the *definitions* of the words.
> As it applies to the situation in the Arab-Israeli Conflict,
> 
> *SHORT ANSWER: * NO_*!*_
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is colonization an aggression?
> 
> 
> 
> *(DEFINITIONS)*
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1*​​Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.​​_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._​
> ​*Article 2*​​The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Page107 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *colony* ​
> ​The term ‘colony’ is one of municipal or constitutional rather than international law. As such, its exact significance may vary from municipal system to municipal system.  Thus, the British Interpretation Act 1889 excluded from the expression, not only any part of​
> ​the British Islands (which include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), but also British India. For historical reasons, the term has been eschewed in the United States’ constitutional law and practice. But the word, generally understood as connoting any non-metropolitan territory of a State, is occasionally employed in instruments of international legal import; e.g., the provision of *art. 1(2) of the Covenant of the League of Nations for the availability of membership to ‘any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony’, General*​
> ​*Assembly Res. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960* , styled a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), *‘The principle of equal rights*​
> ​*and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism. See also independence*.​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(COMMENT)*​​So, understand that during the Mandate Period, the use of force was a function of law and order in accordance with the Hague Regulation of 1907.  By understanding that the intervention by the Arab League ignited the 1948 Conflict.  The Arab League crossed the threshold into the Trustee Territory and Israel.  The action by the Arab League constituted "_prima facie_ evidence of an act of aggression." (NOT Israel).   This conflict did not end _(relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip)_ until 1994 _(1979 with Egypt)_ with the Treaty of Peace with Jordan.  This 1948 Conflict included both the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.​​◈  After 1994, the conflict between non-state actors and Israel is, not only acts of aggression.​◈  It not completely determined yet whether the use by the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force (IRGC-QF) weapons, materials, and funding under Article 8 bis • Para 2g • Crime of aggression _(Article 3g A/RES/3314)_ of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.​
> 
> 
> ​Most Respectfully,​R​
Click to expand...

Who writes your shit? Israel?


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Key" to answering this question is UNDERSTANDING the *definitions* of the words.
> As it applies to the situation in the Arab-Israeli Conflict,
> 
> *SHORT ANSWER: * NO_*!*_
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is colonization an aggression?
> 
> 
> 
> *(DEFINITIONS)*
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1*​​Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.​​_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._​
> ​*Article 2*​​The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Page107 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *colony* ​
> ​The term ‘colony’ is one of municipal or constitutional rather than international law. As such, its exact significance may vary from municipal system to municipal system.  Thus, the British Interpretation Act 1889 excluded from the expression, not only any part of​
> ​the British Islands (which include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), but also British India. For historical reasons, the term has been eschewed in the United States’ constitutional law and practice. But the word, generally understood as connoting any non-metropolitan territory of a State, is occasionally employed in instruments of international legal import; e.g., the provision of *art. 1(2) of the Covenant of the League of Nations for the availability of membership to ‘any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony’, General*​
> ​*Assembly Res. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960* , styled a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), *‘The principle of equal rights*​
> ​*and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism. See also independence*.​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(COMMENT)*​​So, understand that during the Mandate Period, the use of force was a function of law and order in accordance with the Hague Regulation of 1907.  By understanding that the intervention by the Arab League ignited the 1948 Conflict.  The Arab League crossed the threshold into the Trustee Territory and Israel.  The action by the Arab League constituted "_prima facie_ evidence of an act of aggression." (NOT Israel).   This conflict did not end _(relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip)_ until 1994 _(1979 with Egypt)_ with the Treaty of Peace with Jordan.  This 1948 Conflict included both the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.​​◈  After 1994, the conflict between non-state actors and Israel is, not only acts of aggression.​◈  It not completely determined yet whether the use by the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force (IRGC-QF) weapons, materials, and funding under Article 8 bis • Para 2g • Crime of aggression _(Article 3g A/RES/3314)_ of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.​
> 
> 
> ​Most Respectfully,​R​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who writes your shit? Israel?
Click to expand...


Encyclopedia Of Islam: Roman colonists invent palestine on Jews’ homeland. Later, Arabs and Muslims colonize Jews’ homeland. Palestine is Jews’ country.


----------



## Sixties Fan

I stumbled across this 1928 publication of a Missionary society that was founded in 1854 as the Turkish Missions Aid Society and later it was named the Bible Lands Missions Aid Society and is now called Embrace the Middle East.

It contains a map of the Middle East.

Here:







No "Palestine".  Just Syria.

Yes, it reads "Bible Lands" but countries do have modern names, like Bulgaria.

It is 1928.

Why no "Palestine"?









						Palestine or Syria?
					

I stumbled across this 1928 publication  of a Missionary society that was founded in 1854 as the Turkish Missions Aid Society and later it w...




					myrightword.blogspot.com


----------



## MartyNYC

Sixties Fan said:


> I stumbled across this 1928 publication of a Missionary society that was founded in 1854 as the Turkish Missions Aid Society and later it was named the Bible Lands Missions Aid Society and is now called Embrace the Middle East.
> 
> It contains a map of the Middle East.
> 
> Here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No "Palestine".  Just Syria.
> 
> Yes, it reads "Bible Lands" but countries do have modern names, like Bulgaria.
> 
> It is 1928.
> 
> Why no "Palestine"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine or Syria?
> 
> 
> I stumbled across this 1928 publication  of a Missionary society that was founded in 1854 as the Turkish Missions Aid Society and later it w...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> myrightword.blogspot.com



Palestine was a European Christian name, like Holy Land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * The "Key" to answering this question is UNDERSTANDING the *definitions* of the words.
> As it applies to the situation in the Arab-Israeli Conflict,
> 
> *SHORT ANSWER: * NO_*!*_
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is colonization an aggression?
> 
> 
> 
> *(DEFINITIONS)*
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 1*​​Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.​​_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._​
> ​*Article 2*​​The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Page107 • Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *colony* ​
> ​The term ‘colony’ is one of municipal or constitutional rather than international law. As such, its exact significance may vary from municipal system to municipal system.  Thus, the British Interpretation Act 1889 excluded from the expression, not only any part of​
> ​the British Islands (which include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), but also British India. For historical reasons, the term has been eschewed in the United States’ constitutional law and practice. But the word, generally understood as connoting any non-metropolitan territory of a State, is occasionally employed in instruments of international legal import; e.g., the provision of *art. 1(2) of the Covenant of the League of Nations for the availability of membership to ‘any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony’, General*​
> ​*Assembly Res. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960* , styled a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), *‘The principle of equal rights*​
> ​*and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism. See also independence*.​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​*(COMMENT)*​​So, understand that during the Mandate Period, the use of force was a function of law and order in accordance with the Hague Regulation of 1907.  By understanding that the intervention by the Arab League ignited the 1948 Conflict.  The Arab League crossed the threshold into the Trustee Territory and Israel.  The action by the Arab League constituted "_prima facie_ evidence of an act of aggression." (NOT Israel).   This conflict did not end _(relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip)_ until 1994 _(1979 with Egypt)_ with the Treaty of Peace with Jordan.  This 1948 Conflict included both the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.​​◈  After 1994, the conflict between non-state actors and Israel is, not only acts of aggression.​◈  It not completely determined yet whether the use by the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force (IRGC-QF) weapons, materials, and funding under Article 8 bis • Para 2g • Crime of aggression _(Article 3g A/RES/3314)_ of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.​
> 
> 
> ​Most Respectfully,​R​
Click to expand...




			
				Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314 said:
			
		

> *Article 1*
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.


Indeed!


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate    
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:  *On the occasion of the independence of Israel under their Right of Determination, the League of Arab States (LAS) made known ther intervention to intervene in Palestine. Ostensibly, the LAS justified the intervention in their need to "restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed." As a result of that action, for the last 70 years:
​◈  Bloodshed expanded.​◈  Law and order were never achieved.​◈  The Arab Palestinians never achieved sovereignty over a territory.​◈  Jordan annexed the West Bank.​◈  Egypt established a Military Governorship in the Gaza Strip.​◈  A major outbreak of hostilities interrupted the Ceasefire of the Armistice twice (1967, 1973).​₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​*(Ωº)*  Except for Area "A" _(controlled by the Fatah Government)_ and the Gaza Strip _(controlled by the HAMAS Government)_, the Arab Palestinians have no area can truly be called another Arab State _(and even that is under question)_.​*(Ω')*  The two International Treaties of Peace_ [Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979), The Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)]_ are considered unreliable as a means of establishing the permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel _(Article II),_ or the international boundary between Jordan and Israel _(Article 3)._​


			
				Definition of Aggression A/RES/29/3314 said:
			
		

> *Article 1*
> 
> Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.


Indeed! [/quote]


P F Tinmore said:


>


*(COMMENT)

Yes,* I agree_*! *_ The use of Arab Aggression against the newly formed state of Israel in 1948, the threat of the use of force by the LAS in 1967, and the attack by the LAS in 1973 are all described adequately in the phrase "use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State." Although the definition of Aggression A/RES/3314(XXIX) of 14 December 1974 did not exist at the juncture in time for these events._  (The criteria was either the "use of force" or the "threat to use force" which constituted the implementation of measures under Article 51 (Self Defense) of the UN Charter by the State of Israel._

* (CONSEQUENCES)*

Although the Arab Palestinians do not like to admit it, the consistent loss of opportunities to establishing their own self-governing territory has drawn a direct line to the outcomes of their actions we see today.  And those inappropriate acts of hostilities and violence, the homage paid to cowardly acts of Arab Palestinian criminal activity → continue to plague the Arab Palestinians to this day and for the foreseeable future.

The question that lingers in the background is:  How much more injury and destruction can we inflict on Israeli then they can inflict upon the Arab Palestinians either in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank _(including Jerusalem)_?  The answer to this question is not politically calculable.  Neither the Fatah Regime nor the HAMAS Regime has any feeling of guilt or moral compulsion that prevents their faulty leadership from *expending their citizenry in death in certain death*.  The Arab Palestinian leadership looks human enough yet neither Fatah nor HAMAS has a conscience.  They are political-psychopaths.  This unusually hard to predict future moves.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *Yes,* I agree_*! *_ The use of Arab Aggression against the newly formed state of Israel in 1948,


Are you still pebbling that Israeli propaganda Bullshit?

Israel expelled about 300,000 Palestinians before any Arab army entered Palestine. And you call that aggression.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> On the occasion of the independence of Israel under their Right of Determination,


The right to self determination is for the people of the place not for people from someplace else.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the occasion of the independence of Israel under their Right of Determination,
> 
> 
> 
> The right to self determination is for the people of the place not for people from someplace else.
Click to expand...


You're right.......when are the Arabs going back to Saudi Arabia?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate    
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  I acknowledge that the contemporary self-made historians on the matter, who have made their personal fortunes writing books on the topic, have published description of the room on the top floor of the infamous Red House, -- and the accusations of the plan finalized in March 1948, on what Ilan Pappe called in his book _(The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine)_ the "systematic implementation" - and the - "clear-cut case of ethnic cleansing" - even before Israel had been established and well before international laws were put in place.  



RoccoR said:


> *Yes,* I agree_*! *_ The use of Arab Aggression against the newly formed state of Israel in 1948,





P F Tinmore said:


> Are you still pebbling that Israeli propaganda Bullshit?
> 
> Israel expelled about 300,000 Palestinians before any Arab army entered Palestine. And you call that aggression.


*(A QUESTION BEFORE WE START)*

How many countries in the world still have the original inhabitants controlling the now contemporary states?

Hell, there are two dozen Native American tribes that did not survive _(ie Now Extinct)_ the Manifest Destiny alone. This does not include the Ancient or classical historical tribes or the Anasazi*.  *And I won't talk about the original Native Hawaiians who's names I cannot pronounce.

 Similarly, Russian whose many Ancestral people _(some 15 or 20 depending on how you count them)_ did not make it into modern times.  

In the ascension of Qin Shi Huang, First Emperor of China, and later the reign of the Genghis Emperor, it is hard to tell how many tribal types disappeared.  And in India, the list of ancient extinct indigenous tribal populations is huge.

 Well, what can we say about Africa?

*(COMMENT)*

With the exception of a very few isolated Pacific Island nations, you cannot name very many where the original indigenous population still maintains sovereign control, if they are not already extinct.

SO, how far back to you want to apply 20th and 21st Century Law to the world.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​Your argument simply is unworkable in the modern-day. It does not matter what you think the Arab Palestinians are entitled to, all that matters is a workable remedy if, they are owed anything at all.  I doubt that any court on Earth would roll back the clock to accommodate the claim.  You just can't unring the bell.  And current law is interpreted to say that "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."  It does not say anything about dependents or descendants born elsewhere. [Article 12(4) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCRP)]

* (∑)*  You are off-base on both the matter of the indigenous people and on the matter of Ethnic Cleansing or the Right of Return.  And as to the matter of those that are over 70 years old, even if the claim is upheld, they cannot have been involved in any criminal activity.  So, for instance, any of the 30 or 40 thousand people protesting against the border barrier, would not be eligible for return.  Neither would any collaborator with the Palestinian Governments.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  I acknowledge that the contemporary self-made historians on the matter, who have made their personal fortunes writing books on the topic, have published description of the room on the top floor of the infamous Red House, -- and the accusations of the plan finalized in March 1948, on what Ilan Pappe called in his book _(The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine)_ the "systematic implementation" - and the - "clear-cut case of ethnic cleansing" - even before Israel had been established and well before international laws were put in place.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes,* I agree_*! *_ The use of Arab Aggression against the newly formed state of Israel in 1948,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pebbling that Israeli propaganda Bullshit?
> 
> Israel expelled about 300,000 Palestinians before any Arab army entered Palestine. And you call that aggression.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(A QUESTION BEFORE WE START)*
> 
> How many countries in the world still have the original inhabitants controlling the now contemporary states?
> 
> Hell, there are two dozen Native American tribes that did not survive _(ie Now Extinct)_ the Manifest Destiny alone. This does not include the Ancient or classical historical tribes or the Anasazi*.  *And I won't talk about the original Native Hawaiians who's names I cannot pronounce.
> 
> Similarly, Russian whose many Ancestral people _(some 15 or 20 depending on how you count them)_ did not make it into modern times.
> 
> In the ascension of Qin Shi Huang, First Emperor of China, and later the reign of the Genghis Emperor, it is hard to tell how many tribal types disappeared.  And in India, the list of ancient extinct indigenous tribal populations is huge.
> 
> Well, what can we say about Africa?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> With the exception of a very few isolated Pacific Island nations, you cannot name very many where the original indigenous population still maintains sovereign control, if they are not already extinct.
> 
> SO, how far back to you want to apply 20th and 21st Century Law to the world.
> ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​Your argument simply is unworkable in the modern-day. It does not matter what you think the Arab Palestinians are entitled to, all that matters is a workable remedy if, they are owed anything at all.  I doubt that any court on Earth would roll back the clock to accommodate the claim.  You just can't unring the bell.  And current law is interpreted to say that "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."  It does not say anything about dependents or descendants born elsewhere. [Article 12(4) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCRP)]
> 
> * (∑)*  You are off-base on both the matter of the indigenous people and on the matter of Ethnic Cleansing or the Right of Return.  And as to the matter of those that are over 70 years old, even if the claim is upheld, they cannot have been involved in any criminal activity.  So, for instance, any of the 30 or 40 thousand people protesting against the border barrier, would not be eligible for return.  Neither would any collaborator with the Palestinian Governments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Holy deflection, Batman! 

Still peddling that Israeli bullshit, huh?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate    
⁜→  Toddsterpatriot, P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * OK, let's be fair to the Saudis.



RoccoR said:


> On the occasion of the independence of Israel under their Right of Determination,





P F Tinmore said:


> The right to self determination is for the people of the place not for people from someplace else.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're right.......when are the Arabs going back to Saudi Arabia?


*(COMMENT)*

No League of Arab States (LAS) want trouble makers.  _(I mean really?)_

Dated Material:

*Saudi Arabia unleashes new wave of arrests against ...*


			https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2020/2/19/
		

*saudi*-launches-*arrest*-campaign...
A dozen *Palestinians* were *arrested* in February last year, followed by an even harsher campaign in April, which saw the *arrests* of dozens of businessmen, academics and students. An unnamed Hamas official cited in the report said those *arrested* were overwhelmingly Hamas members, and had resided in *Saudi Arabia* for decades.
*Saudi Arabia tries Palestinians accused of Hamas ties*


			https://www.al-monitor.com/.../2020/03/
		

*saudi*-*arabia*-hamas-trials-*palestinians*.html
Mar 12, 2020 · Dozens of *Palestinians* in *Saudi Arabia* are being tried before Riyadh’s special terrorism court for their perceived links to the Hamas movement in Gaza, according to press reports. Of the 68 defendants whose trials began Sunday, most were *Palestinians arrested* in April 2019, along with some Jordanians, according to the reports.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Toddsterpatriot, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * OK, let's be fair to the Saudis.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the occasion of the independence of Israel under their Right of Determination,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to self determination is for the people of the place not for people from someplace else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right.......when are the Arabs going back to Saudi Arabia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> No League of Arab States (LAS) want trouble makers.  _(I mean really?)_
> 
> Dated Material:
> 
> *Saudi Arabia unleashes new wave of arrests against ...*
> 
> 
> https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2020/2/19/
> 
> 
> *saudi*-launches-*arrest*-campaign...
> A dozen *Palestinians* were *arrested* in February last year, followed by an even harsher campaign in April, which saw the *arrests* of dozens of businessmen, academics and students. An unnamed Hamas official cited in the report said those *arrested* were overwhelmingly Hamas members, and had resided in *Saudi Arabia* for decades.
> *Saudi Arabia tries Palestinians accused of Hamas ties*
> 
> 
> https://www.al-monitor.com/.../2020/03/
> 
> 
> *saudi*-*arabia*-hamas-trials-*palestinians*.html
> Mar 12, 2020 · Dozens of *Palestinians* in *Saudi Arabia* are being tried before Riyadh’s special terrorism court for their perceived links to the Hamas movement in Gaza, according to press reports. Of the 68 defendants whose trials began Sunday, most were *Palestinians arrested* in April 2019, along with some Jordanians, according to the reports.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes,* I agree_*! *_ The use of Arab Aggression against the newly formed state of Israel in 1948,
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pebbling that Israeli propaganda Bullshit?
> 
> Israel expelled about 300,000 Palestinians before any Arab army entered Palestine. And you call that aggression.
Click to expand...


By that time the Arab 'Holy War Army' has already put Jerusalem under siege
and was attacking the Jewish villages from within Arab villages.

How many fled or expelled is unknown,
and Arabs had no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the occasion of the independence of Israel under their Right of Determination,
> 
> 
> 
> The right to self determination is for the people of the place not for people from someplace else.
Click to expand...


Exactly why the right to re-constitute sovereignty in Judea is vested with the Jewish nation,
and not the migrating Arab tribes who can't even pronounce the name of the place.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes,* I agree_*! *_ The use of Arab Aggression against the newly formed state of Israel in 1948,
> 
> 
> 
> Are you still pebbling that Israeli propaganda Bullshit?
> 
> Israel expelled about 300,000 Palestinians before any Arab army entered Palestine. And you call that aggression.
Click to expand...


As renowned Arab historian Fouad Ajami notes, Arabs attacked Israel and fled
The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State


----------



## MartyNYC

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the occasion of the independence of Israel under their Right of Determination,
> 
> 
> 
> The right to self determination is for the people of the place not for people from someplace else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly why the right to re-constitute sovereignty in Judea is vested with the Jewish nation,
> and not the migrating Arab tribes who can't even pronounce the name of the place.
Click to expand...


As eminent Middle East historian Franck Salameh notes, palestine was a European Christian name adopted as the name for the British Mandate that became Israel. And, Jews were called palestinians. These are made-up Western words...


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate    
⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Sometimes, in these discussions, we over complicate concepts. The Right to Self-Determination is one of those concepts.



RoccoR said:


> On the occasion of the independence of Israel under their Right of Determination,





P F Tinmore said:


> The right to self determination is for the people of the place not for people from someplace else.





rylah said:


> Exactly why the right to re-constitute sovereignty in Judea is vested with the Jewish nation,
> and not the migrating Arab tribes who can't even pronounce the name of the place.


*(CONTEMPORARY LAW)*

For over half a century confuse the concept of "Self-Determination" as it applies to most of our discussions.  Let's make sure we are all on the same page...

_*Article 1  •  *_*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*​​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.​​2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.​​3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.​
*(COMMENT)*
​◈  It allows the choice in pursuit of the people's "destiny."​◈  It binds all states and does not allow for any exceptions.​◈  It allows the choice in terms of sovereignty.​◈  It allows the choice in terms of international political status.​
This is of particular importance on the issue of the Annexation of Judea and Samaria.  Unilateral annexation by the Israeli's takes the choice of sovereignty and the choice of political status away from the Judeans and the Samarians.  Both the Judeans and the Samarians have the Right to pursue their destiny.  That is why it is so important to understand these simple concepts and not get entangled in the criteria of • people of the place - versus • people of someplace else.  In the meaning of Self-Determination, as outlined in *Article 1*, it only mentions territory ('"place") in the context that the Right of Self-Determination applies equally to the people of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Sometimes, in these discussions, we over complicate concepts. The Right to Self-Determination is one of those concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the occasion of the independence of Israel under their Right of Determination,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to self determination is for the people of the place not for people from someplace else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly why the right to re-constitute sovereignty in Judea is vested with the Jewish nation,
> and not the migrating Arab tribes who can't even pronounce the name of the place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(CONTEMPORARY LAW)*
> 
> For over half a century confuse the concept of "Self-Determination" as it applies to most of our discussions.  Let's make sure we are all on the same page...
> 
> _*Article 1  •  *_*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*​​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.​​2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.​​3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> ​◈  It allows the choice in pursuit of the people's "destiny."​◈  It binds all states and does not allow for any exceptions.​◈  It allows the choice in terms of sovereignty.​◈  It allows the choice in terms of international political status.​
> This is of particular importance on the issue of the Annexation of Judea and Samaria.  Unilateral annexation by the Israeli's takes the choice of sovereignty and the choice of political status away from the Judeans and the Samarians.  Both the Judeans and the Samarians have the Right to pursue their destiny.  That is why it is so important to understand these simple concepts and not get entangled in the criteria of • people of the place - versus • people of someplace else.  In the meaning of Self-Determination, as outlined in *Article 1*, it only mentions territory ('"place") in the context that the Right of Self-Determination applies equally to the people of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Why do they always use the term peoples?


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Sometimes, in these discussions, we over complicate concepts. The Right to Self-Determination is one of those concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the occasion of the independence of Israel under their Right of Determination,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to self determination is for the people of the place not for people from someplace else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly why the right to re-constitute sovereignty in Judea is vested with the Jewish nation,
> and not the migrating Arab tribes who can't even pronounce the name of the place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(CONTEMPORARY LAW)*
> 
> For over half a century confuse the concept of "Self-Determination" as it applies to most of our discussions.  Let's make sure we are all on the same page...
> 
> _*Article 1  •  *_*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)*​​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.​​2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.​​3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.​
> *(COMMENT)*
> ​◈  It allows the choice in pursuit of the people's "destiny."​◈  It binds all states and does not allow for any exceptions.​◈  It allows the choice in terms of sovereignty.​◈  It allows the choice in terms of international political status.​
> This is of particular importance on the issue of the Annexation of Judea and Samaria.  Unilateral annexation by the Israeli's takes the choice of sovereignty and the choice of political status away from the Judeans and the Samarians.  Both the Judeans and the Samarians have the Right to pursue their destiny.  That is why it is so important to understand these simple concepts and not get entangled in the criteria of • people of the place - versus • people of someplace else.  In the meaning of Self-Determination, as outlined in *Article 1*, it only mentions territory ('"place") in the context that the Right of Self-Determination applies equally to the people of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do they always use the term peoples?
Click to expand...


Given that the name Palestine has for centuries been a European Christian name, are Palestinians European Christians?


----------



## RoccoR

*RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  *
*⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:  *See: Pages 813 and 814 • The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rules • Copyright © 2016 Farlex International

(*Persons is also a plural form of person, but in modern English it is usually reserved for more formal, bureaucratic, or legal language, as in, “Any such persons found to guilty of shoplifting will be prosecuted.”)
Be aware that irregular plural nouns cannot be made plural again; that is, you cannot have childrens, or feets. However, people is an exception—it can be pluralized as peoples in some cases.

*


P F Tinmore said:



			Why do they always use the term peoples?
		
Click to expand...

(COMMENT)*

“*People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities*

When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word _people_.​_The people of China_no longer need to abide by the one-child policy.
​Emmanuel Macron was elected by _the people of France_ on May 7, 2017.​“We here highly resolve that government _of the people, for the people, and by the people_ will not perish from the earth.” (Abraham Lincoln)​
_Peoples_ is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.

*The Israeli and Palestinian long been at war.
*
The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.
*



Most Respectfully,
R*


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the occasion of the independence of Israel under their Right of Determination,
> 
> 
> 
> The right to self determination is for the people of the place not for people from someplace else.
Click to expand...


"People of the place" and "people from someplace else" are nonsense words with no objective or legal meaning, used by you only to obfuscate.


----------



## Shusha

RoccoR said:


> This is of particular importance on the issue of the Annexation of Judea and Samaria.  Unilateral annexation by the Israeli's takes the choice of sovereignty and the choice of political status away from the Judeans and the Samarians.  Both the Judeans and the Samarians have the Right to pursue their destiny.  That is why it is so important to understand these simple concepts and not get entangled in the criteria of • people of the place - versus • people of someplace else.  In the meaning of Self-Determination, as outlined in *Article 1*, it only mentions territory ('"place") in the context that the Right of Self-Determination applies equally to the people of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories.



I'm not sure this makes sense the way you want it to, Rocco.  How are you defining "Judean" or "Samarian"?  Self-identification?  Cultural parameters?  Ethnicity?  Residency?  Political affiliation?  

The concept of self-determination, in practice, is predicated on cultural/ethnic association with some leeway for self-identification.  I would suggest that there is no meaningful difference -- no distinction -- between Israelis, Judeans and Samarians.  They are all, collectively, the Jewish people and it is the Jewish people who have requested, been recognized, fought for and achieved sovereignty in part of their traditional territories.  (And sure, yep, that could change in the future should there develop a meaningful and practical distinction between "Israelis" and "Judeans", just as a meaningful and practical distinction grew between Syrians, Jordanians and Palestinians.)  It seems to me that the application of Israel's sovereignty over Judea and Samaria IS the choice of Judeans and Samarians in pursuing their destiny.  

On the other hand, if you are arguing that "Judean" and "Samaria" is defined by the territory in which people are resident is the criteria for self-determination, regardless of cultural association, or self-identification, you would appear to be agreeing with Tinmore's argument for the "people of the place".

Perhaps you can clarify?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate    
⁜→  Shusha, et al,

*BLUF*: The identification of any ethnic or cultural group - any political jurisdiction or nationality - or - any territorial association ONLY is of importance IF (and only IF) it becomes important to the populations in question.



Shusha said:


> I'm not sure this makes sense the way you want it to, Rocco.  How are you defining "Judean" or "Samarian"?  Self-identification?  Cultural parameters?  Ethnicity?  Residency?  Political affiliation?
> 
> The concept of self-determination, in practice, is predicated on cultural/ethnic association with some leeway for self-identification.
> 
> On the other hand, if you are arguing that "Judean" and "Samaria" is defined by the territory in which people are resident is the criteria for self-determination, regardless of cultural association, or self-identification, you would appear to be agreeing with Tinmore's argument for the "people of the place".
> 
> Perhaps you can clarify?


*(COMMENT)*

In the case of Israel annexation of "Judea" and "Samaria," you have to look at it from the perspective of the Israeli, and from the perspective of the Arab Palestinian.

◈  In one direction, the Israelis only care about the control and justification of the action relative to the territorial question.​​◈  In the opposite direction, the identification of the Judean, of the Samarian, or of the Palestinians is only important to the Arab Palestinian if they object to the annexation and how they perceive themselves on the issue.​
From the very beginning, the difference has been "mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people" [_*Faisal - Weizmann Agreement*_* -* (3 January 1919)].  In the beginning, that was all the distinction that needed to be made.  But like many of the discussions today, there are all kinds of distinction being made.  As far as some are concerned, the only real question that is of concern is:  Do the people that live within the territory under consideration for annexation have a meaningful objection? _*(RHETORICAL)  *_

◈  The nomenclature associated with the territory under consideration is unimportant, as long as all the parties concerned are speaking to the same territory.​​◈  The nomenclature associated with the two parties concerned is unimportant, as long as each knows the other.​
There is a third concern, and that is the concern the greater populations_ (the Arab Population as a whole)_ have:

◈  Relative to the transfer of territorial integrity.​​◈  Relative to the transfer of the constituency.​
*(Ω∑)* Again, the questions of: Self-identification, Cultural parameters, Ethnicity, Residency, Political affiliation, etc are only important from a given perspective. What the Israelis see as critical issues/objectives and what the Arab Palestinians see as critical issues/objectives are very different.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MartyNYC

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  Shusha, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The identification of any ethnic or cultural group - any political jurisdiction or nationality - or - any territorial association ONLY is of importance IF (and only IF) it becomes important to the populations in question.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure this makes sense the way you want it to, Rocco.  How are you defining "Judean" or "Samarian"?  Self-identification?  Cultural parameters?  Ethnicity?  Residency?  Political affiliation?
> 
> The concept of self-determination, in practice, is predicated on cultural/ethnic association with some leeway for self-identification.
> 
> On the other hand, if you are arguing that "Judean" and "Samaria" is defined by the territory in which people are resident is the criteria for self-determination, regardless of cultural association, or self-identification, you would appear to be agreeing with Tinmore's argument for the "people of the place".
> 
> Perhaps you can clarify?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the case of Israel annexation of "Judea" and "Samaria," you have to look at it from the perspective of the Israeli, and from the perspective of the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> ◈  In one direction, the Israelis only care about the control and justification of the action relative to the territorial question.​​◈  In the opposite direction, the identification of the Judean, of the Samarian, or of the Palestinians is only important to the Arab Palestinian if they object to the annexation and how they perceive themselves on the issue.​
> From the very beginning, the difference has been "mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people" [_*Faisal - Weizmann Agreement*_* -* (3 January 1919)].  In the beginning, that was all the distinction that needed to be made.  But like many of the discussions today, there are all kinds of distinction being made.  As far as some are concerned, the only real question that is of concern is:  Do the people that live within the territory under consideration for annexation have a meaningful objection? _*(RHETORICAL)  *_
> 
> ◈  The nomenclature associated with the territory under consideration is unimportant, as long as all the parties concerned are speaking to the same territory.​​◈  The nomenclature associated with the two parties concerned is unimportant, as long as each knows the other.​
> There is a third concern, and that is the concern the greater populations_ (the Arab Population as a whole)_ have:
> 
> ◈  Relative to the transfer of territorial integrity.​​◈  Relative to the transfer of the constituency.​
> *(Ω∑)* Again, the questions of: Self-identification, Cultural parameters, Ethnicity, Residency, Political affiliation, etc are only important from a given perspective. What the Israelis see as critical issues/objectives and what the Arab Palestinians see as critical issues/objectives are very different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Resolution, First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations (Jerusalem, 1919), Paris Peace Conference: “We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.”


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  *
> *⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  *See: Pages 813 and 814 • The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rules • Copyright © 2016 Farlex International
> 
> (*Persons is also a plural form of person, but in modern English it is usually reserved for more formal, bureaucratic, or legal language, as in, “Any such persons found to guilty of shoplifting will be prosecuted.”)
> Be aware that irregular plural nouns cannot be made plural again; that is, you cannot have childrens, or feets. However, people is an exception—it can be pluralized as peoples in some cases.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do they always use the term peoples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> “*People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities*
> 
> When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word _people_.​_The people of China_no longer need to abide by the one-child policy.
> ​Emmanuel Macron was elected by _the people of France_ on May 7, 2017.​“We here highly resolve that government _of the people, for the people, and by the people_ will not perish from the earth.” (Abraham Lincoln)​
> _Peoples_ is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.
> 
> *The Israeli and Palestinian long been at war.*
> 
> The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R*





RoccoR said:


> When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word _people_.





RoccoR said:


> Emmanuel Macron was elected by _the people of France_ on May 7, 2017.


Indeed. "the people of France" is an excellent example. They are the French because that is their national territory, as defined by international borders, and they are the citizens of France. They are "a people." They are the people of the place.

The same could be said of Britain, Mexico, Canada, Palestine, etc. because they all have the same characteristics. They are each "a people." Collectively, they are the peoples of the world.

BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  *
> *⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  *See: Pages 813 and 814 • The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rules • Copyright © 2016 Farlex International
> 
> (*Persons is also a plural form of person, but in modern English it is usually reserved for more formal, bureaucratic, or legal language, as in, “Any such persons found to guilty of shoplifting will be prosecuted.”)
> Be aware that irregular plural nouns cannot be made plural again; that is, you cannot have childrens, or feets. However, people is an exception—it can be pluralized as peoples in some cases.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do they always use the term peoples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> “*People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities*
> 
> When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word _people_.​_The people of China_no longer need to abide by the one-child policy.
> ​Emmanuel Macron was elected by _the people of France_ on May 7, 2017.​“We here highly resolve that government _of the people, for the people, and by the people_ will not perish from the earth.” (Abraham Lincoln)​
> _Peoples_ is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.
> 
> *The Israeli and Palestinian long been at war.*
> 
> The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word _people_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emmanuel Macron was elected by _the people of France_ on May 7, 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. "the people of France" is an excellent example. They are the French because that is their national territory, as defined by international borders, and they are the citizens of France. They are "a people." They are the people of the place.
> 
> The same could be said of Britain, Mexico, Canada, Palestine, etc. because they all have the same characteristics. They are each "a people." Collectively, they are the peoples of the world.
> 
> BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.
Click to expand...


Palestine was a European Christian term, from the Roman name Palaestina imposed on Jews. Britain adopted it as the name for the British Mandate where Jews were called palestinians. Arabs rejected these names as Western inventions. They viewed the country in its entirety as Syria. For Arabs, there was no place palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

*RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  *
*⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:  *This was already addressed in *Posting #736.* The concept expressed as "limited to their own territory" is NOT a principle or standard by which self-determination may be judged or decided under Article 1 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights** (CCPR)*.



P F Tinmore said:


> BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.


*(COMMENT)*

Your analogy is wrong.  If the French moved to England, then the French could claim the Right of Self-Determination.  The "Right" is carried by the people without regard to the territory.  In fact, "territory" is not even mentioned as a criterion within Article 1 of the Covenant.

*(CONTEXT)*

The context of the citation for which you were addressing *(my Posting #739)*, did not match the "BTW" Comment you inserted. I was answering your question on the point of grammar (people vs peoles) _from you Posting #737._.   My response was taken verbatim from _The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rule_s.

So, not were you technically wrong in your assignment of a "false" criteria on territory relative to the matter, but your exemplar was wrong as well.
*


Most Respectfully,
R*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  *
> *⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  *This was already addressed in *Posting #736.* The concept expressed as "limited to their own territory" is NOT a principle or standard by which self-determination may be judged or decided under Article 1 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights** (CCPR)*.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Your analogy is wrong.  If the French moved to England, then the French could claim the Right of Self-Determination.  The "Right" is carried by the people without regard to the territory.  In fact, "territory" is not even mentioned as a criterion within Article 1 of the Covenant.
> 
> *(CONTEXT)*
> 
> The context of the citation for which you were addressing *(my Posting #739)*, did not match the "BTW" Comment you inserted. I was answering your question on the point of grammar (people vs peoles) _from you Posting #737._.   My response was taken verbatim from _The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rule_s.
> 
> So, not were you technically wrong in your assignment of a "false" criteria on territory relative to the matter, but your exemplar was wrong as well.
> *
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R*
Click to expand...

HUH? You just can't think outside of Israel's box, can ypu?

If your premise was true, the standard list of human rights would be meaningless.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  *
> *⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  *See: Pages 813 and 814 • The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rules • Copyright © 2016 Farlex International
> 
> (*Persons is also a plural form of person, but in modern English it is usually reserved for more formal, bureaucratic, or legal language, as in, “Any such persons found to guilty of shoplifting will be prosecuted.”)
> Be aware that irregular plural nouns cannot be made plural again; that is, you cannot have childrens, or feets. However, people is an exception—it can be pluralized as peoples in some cases.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do they always use the term peoples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> “*People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities*
> 
> When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word _people_.​_The people of China_no longer need to abide by the one-child policy.
> ​Emmanuel Macron was elected by _the people of France_ on May 7, 2017.​“We here highly resolve that government _of the people, for the people, and by the people_ will not perish from the earth.” (Abraham Lincoln)​
> _Peoples_ is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.
> 
> *The Israeli and Palestinian long been at war.*
> 
> The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word _people_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emmanuel Macron was elected by _the people of France_ on May 7, 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. "the people of France" is an excellent example. They are the French because that is their national territory, as defined by international borders, and they are the citizens of France. They are "a people." They are the people of the place.
> 
> The same could be said of Britain, Mexico, Canada, Palestine, etc. because they all have the same characteristics. They are each "a people." Collectively, they are the peoples of the world.
> 
> BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.
Click to expand...


Where are the Jewish people from?  What is their place?


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> ...They are "a people." They are the people of the place.
> 
> The same could be said of Britain, Mexico, Canada, Palestine, etc. because they all have the same characteristics. They are each "a people." Collectively, they are the peoples of the world.
> 
> BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.



Canada has many different peoples.  Each of those peoples has a right to self-determination, do they not?


----------



## MartyNYC

RoccoR said:


> *RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  *
> *⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  *This was already addressed in *Posting #736.* The concept expressed as "limited to their own territory" is NOT a principle or standard by which self-determination may be judged or decided under Article 1 of the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights** (CCPR)*.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Your analogy is wrong.  If the French moved to England, then the French could claim the Right of Self-Determination.  The "Right" is carried by the people without regard to the territory.  In fact, "territory" is not even mentioned as a criterion within Article 1 of the Covenant.
> 
> *(CONTEXT)*
> 
> The context of the citation for which you were addressing *(my Posting #739)*, did not match the "BTW" Comment you inserted. I was answering your question on the point of grammar (people vs peoles) _from you Posting #737._.   My response was taken verbatim from _The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rule_s.
> 
> So, not were you technically wrong in your assignment of a "false" criteria on territory relative to the matter, but your exemplar was wrong as well.
> *
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R*
Click to expand...


There never was a country named palestine created by a people named palestinians.


----------



## rylah

Shusha said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is of particular importance on the issue of the Annexation of Judea and Samaria.  Unilateral annexation by the Israeli's takes the choice of sovereignty and the choice of political status away from the Judeans and the Samarians.  Both the Judeans and the Samarians have the Right to pursue their destiny.  That is why it is so important to understand these simple concepts and not get entangled in the criteria of • people of the place - versus • people of someplace else.  In the meaning of Self-Determination, as outlined in *Article 1*, it only mentions territory ('"place") in the context that the Right of Self-Determination applies equally to the people of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure this makes sense the way you want it to, Rocco.  How are you defining "Judean" or "Samarian"?  Self-identification?  Cultural parameters?  Ethnicity?  Residency?  Political affiliation?
> 
> The concept of self-determination, in practice, is predicated on cultural/ethnic association with some leeway for self-identification.  I would suggest that there is no meaningful difference -- no distinction -- between Israelis, Judeans and Samarians.  They are all, collectively, the Jewish people and it is the Jewish people who have requested, been recognized, fought for and achieved sovereignty in part of their traditional territories.  (And sure, yep, that could change in the future should there develop a meaningful and practical distinction between "Israelis" and "Judeans", just as a meaningful and practical distinction grew between Syrians, Jordanians and Palestinians.)  It seems to me that the application of Israel's sovereignty over Judea and Samaria IS the choice of Judeans and Samarians in pursuing their destiny.
> 
> On the other hand, if you are arguing that "Judean" and "Samaria" is defined by the territory in which people are resident is the criteria for self-determination, regardless of cultural association, or self-identification, you would appear to be agreeing with Tinmore's argument for the "people of the place".
> 
> Perhaps you can clarify?
Click to expand...


Shuli Rand actually made a series around this plot.
The scenario is possible, but it's an extreme one.


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is of particular importance on the issue of the Annexation of Judea and Samaria.  Unilateral annexation by the Israeli's takes the choice of sovereignty and the choice of political status away from the Judeans and the Samarians.  Both the Judeans and the Samarians have the Right to pursue their destiny.  That is why it is so important to understand these simple concepts and not get entangled in the criteria of • people of the place - versus • people of someplace else.  In the meaning of Self-Determination, as outlined in *Article 1*, it only mentions territory ('"place") in the context that the Right of Self-Determination applies equally to the people of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure this makes sense the way you want it to, Rocco.  How are you defining "Judean" or "Samarian"?  Self-identification?  Cultural parameters?  Ethnicity?  Residency?  Political affiliation?
> 
> The concept of self-determination, in practice, is predicated on cultural/ethnic association with some leeway for self-identification.  I would suggest that there is no meaningful difference -- no distinction -- between Israelis, Judeans and Samarians.  They are all, collectively, the Jewish people and it is the Jewish people who have requested, been recognized, fought for and achieved sovereignty in part of their traditional territories.  (And sure, yep, that could change in the future should there develop a meaningful and practical distinction between "Israelis" and "Judeans", just as a meaningful and practical distinction grew between Syrians, Jordanians and Palestinians.)  It seems to me that the application of Israel's sovereignty over Judea and Samaria IS the choice of Judeans and Samarians in pursuing their destiny.
> 
> On the other hand, if you are arguing that "Judean" and "Samaria" is defined by the territory in which people are resident is the criteria for self-determination, regardless of cultural association, or self-identification, you would appear to be agreeing with Tinmore's argument for the "people of the place".
> 
> Perhaps you can clarify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shuli Rand actually made a series around this plot.
> The scenario is possible, but it's an extreme one.
Click to expand...


Shusha  You're right.

Folks just want Israeli sovereignty,
and all these crazy scenarios are made to push it forward.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  *
> *⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  *See: Pages 813 and 814 • The Farlex Grammar Book: Complete English Grammar Rules • Copyright © 2016 Farlex International
> 
> (*Persons is also a plural form of person, but in modern English it is usually reserved for more formal, bureaucratic, or legal language, as in, “Any such persons found to guilty of shoplifting will be prosecuted.”)
> Be aware that irregular plural nouns cannot be made plural again; that is, you cannot have childrens, or feets. However, people is an exception—it can be pluralized as peoples in some cases.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do they always use the term peoples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (COMMENT)*
> 
> “*People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities*
> 
> When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word _people_.​_The people of China_no longer need to abide by the one-child policy.
> ​Emmanuel Macron was elected by _the people of France_ on May 7, 2017.​“We here highly resolve that government _of the people, for the people, and by the people_ will not perish from the earth.” (Abraham Lincoln)​
> _Peoples_ is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.
> 
> *The Israeli and Palestinian long been at war.*
> 
> The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word _people_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emmanuel Macron was elected by _the people of France_ on May 7, 2017.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. "the people of France" is an excellent example. They are the French because that is their national territory, as defined by international borders, and they are the citizens of France. They are "a people." They are the people of the place.
> 
> The same could be said of Britain, Mexico, Canada, Palestine, etc. because they all have the same characteristics. They are each "a people." Collectively, they are the peoples of the world.
> 
> BTW, self determination is limited to their own territory. The French, for example, have no right to self determination in Britain, They are the people from someplace else.
Click to expand...


Only Canada, Mexico, Britain and France are actual states.

What is common between these  parliamentary monarchies and a republic,
and that envisioned Arab nation state that never existed?


----------



## RoccoR

*RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  *
*⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:*   You should not confuse "Civil and Political" Rights_ (as in the_ _International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights__ - and the - "Civil and Religious Rights in __Paragraph 2 of the Mandate__)_ which have the force of law - with "Human Rights"_ [as in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which did not make it into law]_ that body of inspiration that "does not have its own force of obligations as a matter of international law.".



P F Tinmore said:


> HUH? You just can't think outside of Israel's box, can ypu?
> If your premise was true, the standard list of human rights would be meaningless.


*(COMMENT)*

If you do not believe that the National Council for the Jewish State had the right to establish the State of Israel through their Right of Self-Determination, so be it.  You can believe what you will.  BUT, everyone has the right of self-determination.  It is not limited to Arab Palestinians.  And the Arab Palestinian cannot claim they have the right to prevent the Jewish People from exercising that right.



Shusha said:


> Where are the Jewish people from?  What is their place?


*(COMMENT)*

In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights.  But that really isn't true (*→ *is it)? 

You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence.  But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal.  [Article 2(1)(e) • _Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties_ (1969 - EIF:1980)]

To be included in the definition of Jewish people *→* they would be part of a global ethnoreligious group belonging to and share a bond _(but not limited to)_, a Matrilineal descent, attaching a commonality with the biblical Hebrew.   However, today, Israel is the Jewish National Home. 

*


Most Respectfully,
R*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  *
> *⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:*   You should not confuse "Civil and Political" Rights_ (as in the_ _International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights__ - and the - "Civil and Religious Rights in __Paragraph 2 of the Mandate__)_ which have the force of law - with "Human Rights"_ [as in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which did not make it into law]_ that body of inspiration that "does not have its own force of obligations as a matter of international law.".
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH? You just can't think outside of Israel's box, can ypu?
> If your premise was true, the standard list of human rights would be meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you do not believe that the National Council for the Jewish State had the right to establish the State of Israel through their Right of Self-Determination, so be it.  You can believe what you will.  BUT, everyone has the right of self-determination.  It is not limited to Arab Palestinians.  And the Arab Palestinian cannot claim they have the right to prevent the Jewish People from exercising that right.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the Jewish people from?  What is their place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights.  But that really isn't true (*→ *is it)?
> 
> You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence.  But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal.  [Article 2(1)(e) • _Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties_ (1969 - EIF:1980)]
> 
> To be included in the definition of Jewish people *→* they would be part of a global ethnoreligious group belonging to and share a bond _(but not limited to)_, a Matrilineal descent, attaching a commonality with the biblical Hebrew.   However, today, Israel is the Jewish National Home.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R*
Click to expand...


There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.



EXCERPT • RoccoR said:


> In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights.  But that really isn't true (*→ *is it)?
> 
> You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence.  But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal.  [Article 2(1)(e) • _Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties_ (1969 - EIF:1980)]





P F Tinmore said:


> There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.


*(COMMENT)*

I think you might be confused.  What I did say, or that you could extrapolate was:

◈  Palestine was NOT a "negotiating  State”  which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of any Armistice or Treaty; with the exception of the Oslo Accords.​​◈  Palestine was NOT a "party” which has consented to be bound by any Armistice or Treaty and for which was either in force in the past or remains in force over the Territory.​*


Most Respectfully,*
*R*


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  *
> *⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:*   You should not confuse "Civil and Political" Rights_ (as in the_ _International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights__ - and the - "Civil and Religious Rights in __Paragraph 2 of the Mandate__)_ which have the force of law - with "Human Rights"_ [as in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which did not make it into law]_ that body of inspiration that "does not have its own force of obligations as a matter of international law.".
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH? You just can't think outside of Israel's box, can ypu?
> If your premise was true, the standard list of human rights would be meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you do not believe that the National Council for the Jewish State had the right to establish the State of Israel through their Right of Self-Determination, so be it.  You can believe what you will.  BUT, everyone has the right of self-determination.  It is not limited to Arab Palestinians.  And the Arab Palestinian cannot claim they have the right to prevent the Jewish People from exercising that right.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the Jewish people from?  What is their place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights.  But that really isn't true (*→ *is it)?
> 
> You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence.  But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal.  [Article 2(1)(e) • _Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties_ (1969 - EIF:1980)]
> 
> To be included in the definition of Jewish people *→* they would be part of a global ethnoreligious group belonging to and share a bond _(but not limited to)_, a Matrilineal descent, attaching a commonality with the biblical Hebrew.   However, today, Israel is the Jewish National Home.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.
Click to expand...



Arab commentator acknowledges: “When the State of Israel was established in 1948, there was no state called ‘palestine’”

Kuwaiti Writer Abdullah Al-Hadlaq: Israel Is a Legitimate State, Not an Occupier; There Was No Palestine; I Support Israel-Gulf-U.S. Alliance to Annihilate Hizbullah


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  *
> *⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:*   You should not confuse "Civil and Political" Rights_ (as in the_ _International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights__ - and the - "Civil and Religious Rights in __Paragraph 2 of the Mandate__)_ which have the force of law - with "Human Rights"_ [as in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which did not make it into law]_ that body of inspiration that "does not have its own force of obligations as a matter of international law.".
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH? You just can't think outside of Israel's box, can ypu?
> If your premise was true, the standard list of human rights would be meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you do not believe that the National Council for the Jewish State had the right to establish the State of Israel through their Right of Self-Determination, so be it.  You can believe what you will.  BUT, everyone has the right of self-determination.  It is not limited to Arab Palestinians.  And the Arab Palestinian cannot claim they have the right to prevent the Jewish People from exercising that right.
> 
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the Jewish people from?  What is their place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights.  But that really isn't true (*→ *is it)?
> 
> You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence.  But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal.  [Article 2(1)(e) • _Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties_ (1969 - EIF:1980)]
> 
> To be included in the definition of Jewish people *→* they would be part of a global ethnoreligious group belonging to and share a bond _(but not limited to)_, a Matrilineal descent, attaching a commonality with the biblical Hebrew.   However, today, Israel is the Jewish National Home.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.
Click to expand...


As renowned Middle East historian Bernard Lewis notes, palestine is a fictional European Christian name for Jews‘ homeland, which became Britain’s fictional name for the British Mandate that was terminated in 1948 with Israeli statehood. There never was a place palestine founded by any Middle Eastern people...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT • RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights.  But that really isn't true (*→ *is it)?
> 
> You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence.  But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal.  [Article 2(1)(e) • _Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties_ (1969 - EIF:1980)]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think you might be confused.  What I did say, or that you could extrapolate was:
> 
> ◈  Palestine was NOT a "negotiating  State”  which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of any Armistice or Treaty; with the exception of the Oslo Accords.​​◈  Palestine was NOT a "party” which has consented to be bound by any Armistice or Treaty and for which was either in force in the past or remains in force over the Territory.​*
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,*
> *R*
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.


For starters, a "state" is not relevant.

Then what is your reason for denying Palestinian rights?


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.
> 
> 
> 
> EXCERPT • RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a perfect world, all people would share a common list of Human Rights.  But that really isn't true (*→ *is it)?
> 
> You can believe what you will, and make any claim, or argue any position, as an attempt to justify Arab Palestinian violence.  But even the remainder of the Arab League has come to understand that "Israel" is a "state" which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the Peace Treaties which outline the contemporary internationally recognized boundaries they have with Isreal.  [Article 2(1)(e) • _Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties_ (1969 - EIF:1980)]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I think you might be confused.  What I did say, or that you could extrapolate was:
> 
> ◈  Palestine was NOT a "negotiating  State”  which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of any Armistice or Treaty; with the exception of the Oslo Accords.​​◈  Palestine was NOT a "party” which has consented to be bound by any Armistice or Treaty and for which was either in force in the past or remains in force over the Territory.​*
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,*
> *R*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For starters, a "state" is not relevant.
> 
> Then what is your reason for denying Palestinian rights?
Click to expand...


As eminent Middle East historian Franck Salameh notes, the name palestinian was a made-up European name that applied to Jews...


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* 
(Ω)   Human Rights belong to everyone equally.  _(Pertaining to people.)_​(Ω)    All peoples have the right of self-determination.   _(Pertaining to people.)_​(Ω)   All "States" are equal under the law.  _(Pertaining to Territory.)_​



RoccoR said:


> I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.





P F Tinmore said:


> For starters, a "state" is not relevant.
> Then what is your reason for denying Palestinian rights?


*(COMMENT)*

Well, that is not entirely true.  For instance, States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise.  This does not apply to Non-Self-Governing Territories (as an example).  Being a "state" does matter.  It depends on what is being claimed and by whom.

​
​


P F Tinmore said:


> There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.​​


​​I did not raise the issue of "statehood."  But since you mention it, the following questions arise:
​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the permanent population?​​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the defined territory for which they claim sovereignty? _(Just so there is no misunderstanding, can you supply a Map of the State?)_​​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the government of their "state?"  ​​◈  What Arab Palestinian government has the capacity in drawing up and adopting the text of a negotiated treaty?​
​*

*​*Most Respectfully,*​*R*​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:*
> (Ω)   Human Rights belong to everyone equally.  _(Pertaining to people.)_​(Ω)    All peoples have the right of self-determination.   _(Pertaining to people.)_​(Ω)   All "States" are equal under the law.  _(Pertaining to Territory.)_​
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, a "state" is not relevant.
> Then what is your reason for denying Palestinian rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not entirely true.  For instance, States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise.  This does not apply to Non-Self-Governing Territories (as an example).  Being a "state" does matter.  It depends on what is being claimed and by whom.
> 
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​I did not raise the issue of "statehood."  But since you mention it, the following questions arise:
> ​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the permanent population?​​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the defined territory for which they claim sovereignty? _(Just so there is no misunderstanding, can you supply a Map of the State?)_​​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the government of their "state?"  ​​◈  What Arab Palestinian government has the capacity in drawing up and adopting the text of a negotiated treaty?​
> ​*
> 
> *​*Most Respectfully,*​*R*​
Click to expand...

I have already posted all of that stuff. You are just trying to obfuscate.

Palestine was created as a state by post war treaties in 1924. Nobody has the authority to change that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was created as a state by post war treaties in 1924.



That is awesome!! Who was in the government of that state?
What currency did they use? What did their flag look like?


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:*
> (Ω)   Human Rights belong to everyone equally.  _(Pertaining to people.)_​(Ω)    All peoples have the right of self-determination.   _(Pertaining to people.)_​(Ω)   All "States" are equal under the law.  _(Pertaining to Territory.)_​
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, a "state" is not relevant.
> Then what is your reason for denying Palestinian rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not entirely true.  For instance, States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise.  This does not apply to Non-Self-Governing Territories (as an example).  Being a "state" does matter.  It depends on what is being claimed and by whom.
> 
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​I did not raise the issue of "statehood."  But since you mention it, the following questions arise:
> ​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the permanent population?​​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the defined territory for which they claim sovereignty? _(Just so there is no misunderstanding, can you supply a Map of the State?)_​​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the government of their "state?"  ​​◈  What Arab Palestinian government has the capacity in drawing up and adopting the text of a negotiated treaty?​
> ​*
> 
> *​*Most Respectfully,*​*R*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already posted all of that stuff. You are just trying to obfuscate.
> 
> Palestine was created as a state by post war treaties in 1924. Nobody has the authority to change that.
Click to expand...


Palestine was Britain’s fictional nickname for the British Mandate, created specifically to establish a Jewish National Home called for in the Balfour Declaration. British Mandatory Palestine ceased to exist in 1948 with Israeli statehood.


----------



## MartyNYC

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine was created as a state by post war treaties in 1924.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is awesome!! Who was in the government of that state?
> What currency did they use? What did their flag look like?
Click to expand...


There never was a state of palestine. Palestine was a European Christian name for centuries which Britain called the British Mandate, British Mandatory Palestine. British Mandate was created specifically for a Jewish National Home, which became Israel.


----------



## Shusha

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:*
> (Ω)   Human Rights belong to everyone equally.  _(Pertaining to people.)_​(Ω)    All peoples have the right of self-determination.   _(Pertaining to people.)_​(Ω)   All "States" are equal under the law.  _(Pertaining to Territory.)_​
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, a "state" is not relevant.
> Then what is your reason for denying Palestinian rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not entirely true.  For instance, States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise.  This does not apply to Non-Self-Governing Territories (as an example).  Being a "state" does matter.  It depends on what is being claimed and by whom.
> 
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​I did not raise the issue of "statehood."  But since you mention it, the following questions arise:
> ​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the permanent population?​​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the defined territory for which they claim sovereignty? _(Just so there is no misunderstanding, can you supply a Map of the State?)_​​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the government of their "state?"  ​​◈  What Arab Palestinian government has the capacity in drawing up and adopting the text of a negotiated treaty?​
> ​*
> 
> *​*Most Respectfully,*​*R*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already posted all of that stuff. You are just trying to obfuscate.
> 
> Palestine was created as a state by post war treaties in 1924. Nobody has the authority to change that.
Click to expand...


Not true.  States are changed all the time.  Old ones are dissolved, new ones are formed.  Its ridiculously common.  All it takes is a defined people, who form a government, exert effective control over a territory, and draw up and sign treaties with their neighbors.  Fun fact:  Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel were all new States created by the partitioning of an existing State.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:*
> (Ω)   Human Rights belong to everyone equally.  _(Pertaining to people.)_​(Ω)    All peoples have the right of self-determination.   _(Pertaining to people.)_​(Ω)   All "States" are equal under the law.  _(Pertaining to Territory.)_​
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I brushed over many points of importance in that Posting (supra); but, I don't think I mentioned or challenged the Idea of a Palestinian State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> For starters, a "state" is not relevant.
> Then what is your reason for denying Palestinian rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, that is not entirely true.  For instance, States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise.  This does not apply to Non-Self-Governing Territories (as an example).  Being a "state" does matter.  It depends on what is being claimed and by whom.
> 
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again with Israel's "there never was a Palestine" shtick.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​​I did not raise the issue of "statehood."  But since you mention it, the following questions arise:
> ​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the permanent population?​​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the defined territory for which they claim sovereignty? _(Just so there is no misunderstanding, can you supply a Map of the State?)_​​◈  What do the Arab Palestinians consider the government of their "state?"  ​​◈  What Arab Palestinian government has the capacity in drawing up and adopting the text of a negotiated treaty?​
> ​*
> 
> *​*Most Respectfully,*​*R*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have already posted all of that stuff. You are just trying to obfuscate.
> 
> Palestine was created as a state by post war treaties in 1924. Nobody has the authority to change that.
Click to expand...


Um, palestine became the name of the British Mandate, by authority of the League of Nations at the San Remo Conference in 1920. Mandates were not states.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* There was no creation of a post-war State called Palestine in the territory under the Mandate in 1924. 
​


P F Tinmore said:


> I have already posted all of that stuff. You are just trying to obfuscate.
> Palestine was created as a state by post war treaties in 1924. Nobody has the authority to change that.


*(COMMENT)*

Wow:  If anyone is trying to render an obscure, unclear, or unintelligible answer, it is certainly NOT me.

The Treaty of Lausanne (1924)(with the Turkish Republic) was a renegotiated Treaty of Sevres (1920) (with the Ottoman Empire)...

"The Palestine Order in Council (1920) set the limits over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, thereinafter - described as Palestine.  The treaty of Lausanne recognized that the Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the territory and provided support _(Article 30 dealt with the Nationality issues of subjects habitually resident in the territory)_ for the Palestine Citizenship Order.  

In a 1925 Judgement by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PICJ) equated the Government of Palestine as an institution of the British Government as the Mandate Authority. As such, there not being a State of Palestine, the British Government (acting as the Government of Palestine) was responsible for the debt incurred when the territory was under the Ottoman Empire.

There was NO obligation established with the subjects habitually resident in the territory.  The subjects habitually resident in the territory were NOT a party which took part in the drawing up or adopting the treaty; nor, were they a party considered to be bound by the treaty.

*


Most Respectfully,
R*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> In a 1925 Judgement by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PICJ) equated the Government of Palestine as an institution of the British Government as the Mandate Authority. As such, there not being a State of Palestine, the British Government (acting as the Government of Palestine) was responsible for the debt incurred when the territory was under the Ottoman Empire.


The Mandate was a temporarily assigned administration of Palestine. It did not acquire sovereignty or territory. It had a goal and end time stated in Article 22 of the LoN Covenant. The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine not Britain.

Britain, holding the Mandate for Palestine, was responsible for Palestine's foreign affairs.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a 1925 Judgement by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PICJ) equated the Government of Palestine as an institution of the British Government as the Mandate Authority. As such, there not being a State of Palestine, the British Government (acting as the Government of Palestine) was responsible for the debt incurred when the territory was under the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was a temporarily assigned administration of Palestine. It did not acquire sovereignty or territory. It had a goal and end time stated in Article 22 of the LoN Covenant. The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine not Britain.
> 
> Britain, holding the Mandate for Palestine, was responsible for Palestine's foreign affairs.
Click to expand...


Um, no. There was no entity palestine prior to Britain calling the British Mandate palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MartyNYC said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a 1925 Judgement by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PICJ) equated the Government of Palestine as an institution of the British Government as the Mandate Authority. As such, there not being a State of Palestine, the British Government (acting as the Government of Palestine) was responsible for the debt incurred when the territory was under the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was a temporarily assigned administration of Palestine. It did not acquire sovereignty or territory. It had a goal and end time stated in Article 22 of the LoN Covenant. The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine not Britain.
> 
> Britain, holding the Mandate for Palestine, was responsible for Palestine's foreign affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no. There was no entity palestine prior to Britain calling the British Mandate palestine.
Click to expand...

No what?


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a 1925 Judgement by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PICJ) equated the Government of Palestine as an institution of the British Government as the Mandate Authority. As such, there not being a State of Palestine, the British Government (acting as the Government of Palestine) was responsible for the debt incurred when the territory was under the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was a temporarily assigned administration of Palestine. It did not acquire sovereignty or territory. It had a goal and end time stated in Article 22 of the LoN Covenant. The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine not Britain.
> 
> Britain, holding the Mandate for Palestine, was responsible for Palestine's foreign affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no. There was no entity palestine prior to Britain calling the British Mandate palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No what?
Click to expand...


There was no palestine for 400 years of the Ottoman Empire preceding WW1. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain named the British Mandate “palestine,” an old European Christian name. Purpose of the British Mandate was implementation of the Balfour Declaration for reestablishment of the “Jewish National Home” highlighted in the preamble of the Mandate.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a 1925 Judgement by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PICJ) equated the Government of Palestine as an institution of the British Government as the Mandate Authority. As such, there not being a State of Palestine, the British Government (acting as the Government of Palestine) was responsible for the debt incurred when the territory was under the Ottoman Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mandate was a temporarily assigned administration of Palestine. It did not acquire sovereignty or territory. It had a goal and end time stated in Article 22 of the LoN Covenant. The Palestinians were citizens of Palestine not Britain.
> 
> Britain, holding the Mandate for Palestine, was responsible for Palestine's foreign affairs.
Click to expand...


Pay attention: There was no political entity named palestine prior to Britain naming the British Mandate by that name. Palestine had been a European Christian term. The only purpose of the British Mandate was creation of a Jewish National Home as specified in its preamble.

Jews were called palestinians in the British Mandate. Arabs rejected those names as Western inventions...


----------



## P F Tinmore

MartyNYC said:


> Pay attention: There was no political entity named palestine prior to Britain naming the British Mandate by that name.


Britain called it Palestine because that is what it was.


A place does not disappear just because it is under foreign rule. India was still India when it was ruled by the British. Tibet is still Tibet. Cashmere is still Cashmere. Palestine is still Palestine.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention: There was no political entity named palestine prior to Britain naming the British Mandate by that name.
> 
> 
> 
> Britain called it Palestine because that is what it was.
> 
> 
> A place does not disappear just because it is under foreign rule. India was still India when it was ruled by the British. Tibet is still Tibet. Cashmere is still Cashmere. Palestine is still Palestine.
Click to expand...


There was no palestine in the Ottoman Empire, just before the British Mandate ⤵️


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention: There was no political entity named palestine prior to Britain naming the British Mandate by that name.
> 
> 
> 
> Britain called it Palestine because that is what it was.
> 
> 
> A place does not disappear just because it is under foreign rule. India was still India when it was ruled by the British. Tibet is still Tibet. Cashmere is still Cashmere. Palestine is still Palestine.
Click to expand...


Palestine was a European Christian name, not Middle Eastern. Britain called the British Mandate by the name palestine ⤵️


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention: There was no political entity named palestine prior to Britain naming the British Mandate by that name.
> 
> 
> 
> Britain called it Palestine because that is what it was.
> 
> 
> A place does not disappear just because it is under foreign rule. India was still India when it was ruled by the British. Tibet is still Tibet. Cashmere is still Cashmere. Palestine is still Palestine.
Click to expand...


Maps are Western creations and palestine is a Western name. What do the ancient Middle Eastern texts say? ⤵️


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> MartyNYC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pay attention: There was no political entity named palestine prior to Britain naming the British Mandate by that name.
> 
> 
> 
> Britain called it Palestine because that is what it was.
> 
> 
> A place does not disappear just because it is under foreign rule. India was still India when it was ruled by the British. Tibet is still Tibet. Cashmere is still Cashmere. Palestine is still Palestine.
Click to expand...


Israel or Judea are the correct historical Middle Eastern names of the country. Not palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


>



Israel and Judea, not palestine. Palestine was a Roman name.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


>



Palestine never existed. It was a fictional European name for Jews’ homeland. Arabs even rejected its existence...


----------



## Sixties Fan

Some Black Leaders Supported Zionism Before Herzl Did (Daled Amos)
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

He was anxious to explain to them how he is not antisemitic at all, as reported in The Palestine Bulletin of August 5, 1930.

“The Moslems cannot admit that the Jews are the Chosen People. The chosen man must be the best man, as for example President Hoover in America, so the Chosen People must be the best people. This does not coincide with reality,” he told his guests.

But, he insisted, Muslims in Palestine did not dislike Jews because they are Jews, but only opposed Zionists. Apparently, Jews could never be the best people, but they are OK.

Immediately afterwards, again making sure that he was sayin what he assumed his audience wanted to hear, he described the Jews in Palestine as “a foreign people which persecute Christ and tried to crucify him.”

(full article online)









						The Mufti of Jerusalem said he only hated Zionists, not Christ-killing Jews
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

From Palestine to jail in Mauritius: When Britain deported 1,580 Shoah refugees
					

They fled the Nazis to Mandate Palestine in 1940, only to be deported and, over Churchill's objections, locked up for 5 years; August 12 marks 75 years since their release




					www.timesofisrael.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Peasants' Revolt was an 1834 rebellion against Egyptian conscription and taxation of Arabs in Palestine. Egyptian general Ibrahim Pasha attempted to take over all of Palestine, but at one point he went to Jaffa and the Arabs of Jerusalem started their revolt.

An account of what happened was published in  a Sydney, Australia newspaper:



> ​
> 
> As I made continual excursions among the Arabs, and they conversed with me without reserve, I discovered that they were very discontented with the Pacha's government, particularly with his taking their young men for soldiers. They informed me that a widely extended conspiracy was on the point of breaking forth into rebellion, and that I should do well to quit Palestine. I accordingly made preparations for my -departure ; but, in spite of all my diligence, I was too late. No sooner did the Pacha depart for Jaffa than the revolution commenced. …The Arabs from Samaria and Hebron marched on Jerusalem. The Pacha had left only 600 men in Jerusalem, and the assailants were more than 40;000. 'As, however, the walls were furnished with a few cannon, and the Arabs were armed with nothing but lances and muskets, we could have held  out forever, had  not the Arabs discovered a subterranean passage.
> 
> They entered at midnight, and: the soldiers, after a gallant defence, .were obliged to retire to the castle. All the Christians fled to the different convents and thus, saved their lives: For five or six days the city was given up to plunder, and never did I witness such a heart rending spectacle.
> The Jews, who had no place of safety to which they could retire, suffered very much; their houses were so,pillaged that they had not a bed to lie on, many were murdered, their wives and daughters violated &c.; in fine, barbarities were committed too shocking to relate.


Ibrahim Pasha returned to Jerusalem with 5000 soldiers and conquered the city again. He then went on to Hebron in August, where he attacked the Arab rebels hiding there – and the Jews. 

From an 1851 account of "The Revolt and Earthquake of Jerusalem in 1834."

(full article online)









						During the 1834 Peasants’ Revolt in Palestine, both sides attacked Jews
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.


So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.  

The most difficult part of replying to your posts is that you make no sense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.



The Palestinians did that to themselves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.
> 
> The most difficult part of replying to your posts is that you make no sense.
Click to expand...


I agree, the self-inflicted errors of the "Palestinians" are hilarious!!!


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,



RoccoR said:


> I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.





P F Tinmore said:


> So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.
> 
> The most difficult part of replying to your posts is that you make no sense.


*(COMMENT)*

And yet, the concept of a "Legal Entity" (under British Administration) was recognized by all the Allied Powers and the Permanent Court of Justice.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.
> 
> The most difficult part of replying to your posts is that you make no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> And yet, the concept of a "Legal Entity" (under British Administration) was recognized by all the Allied Powers and the Permanent Court of Justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Nice duck.

So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.

BTW, WTF is a legal entity?

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:  Yeaah, I think we talked about this before _(not sure)_.


			
				Book ONE • Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court
of Justice said:
			
		

> Part III. Proceedings in which State immunity cannot be invoked
> Article 10. Commercial transactions
> 
> 1. If a State engages in a commercial transaction with a foreign natural or juridical person and,​by virtue of the applicable rules of private international law, differences relating to the commercial​transaction fall within the jurisdiction of a court of another State, the State cannot invoke immunity​from that jurisdiction in a proceeding arising out of that commercial transaction.​​2. Paragraph 1 does not apply:​​(a) in the case of a commercial transaction between States; or​(b) if the parties to the commercial transaction have expressly agreed otherwise.​​*3. Where a State enterprise or other entity established by a State which has an independent*​*legal personality and is capable of:*​​*(a) suing or being sued; and*​*(b) acquiring, owning or possessing and disposing of property, including property which*​*that State has authorized it to operate or manage,*​*is involved in a proceeding which relates to a commercial transaction in which that entity is engaged,*​*the immunity from jurisdiction enjoyed by that State shall not be affected.*​
> Annex to the Convention
> *Understandings with respect to certain provisions of the Convention*
> 
> The present annex is for the purpose of setting out understandings relating to the provisions
> concerned.
> 
> With respect to article 10
> 
> The term “immunity” in article 10 is to be understood in the context of the present Convention​as a whole.​​Article 10, paragraph 3, does not prejudge the question of “piercing the corporate veil”, questions​relating to a situation where a State entity has deliberately misrepresented its financial position​or subsequently reduced its assets to avoid satisfying a claim, or other related issues.​
> With respect to article 19
> 
> The expression “entity” in subparagraph (c) means the State as an independent legal personality,​a constituent unit of a federal State, a subdivision of a State, an agency or instrumentality of a​State or other entity, which enjoys independent legal personality.​



SOURCE:  III. Subjects of international law Pg 126 and pg132​
​

			
				[/FONT]Book ONE • Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court
of Justice • General Assembly resolution 56/83 of 12 December 2001 said:
			
		

> Chapter II. Attribution of conduct to a State
> Article 4. Conduct of organs of a State
> 
> 1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international
> law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position
> it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central
> Government or of a territorial unit of the State.
> 
> 2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal
> law of the State.



SOURCE:  20. Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts pg 237​


P F Tinmore said:


> So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.
> 
> BTW, WTF is a legal entity?
> 
> Link?


*(COMMENT)*

"Legal Entities" have been around for a very long time.  In the Case of Palestine, the Allied Powers _(__utilizing the Authority agreed upon through the Surrender__)_ decided to grant the Mandate Authorities all the powers necessary for the British to fully administer the territory under the Mandate.

◈  full powers of legislation and of administration...​◈  responsible for enacting a nationality law...​◈  facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​◈  seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​◈  full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​
While spoken of in the Mandate as separate authorities and responsibilities, the British "High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials;" a consequence out of the lack of cooperation from the Arab Higher Committee.  There was no question that the entire international community understood and remained silent on (tacit approval) the total control over the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are (again) trying to apply Section II → Articles 30 thru 36 → Treaty of Lausanne as an implication of Statehood for a place called Palestine. The concept of preventing "stateless persons" → in that era → were being handled by Treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.
> 
> The most difficult part of replying to your posts is that you make no sense.
Click to expand...

You have this strange notion you repeat often that the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”.

 Nonsense is not made true no matter how many times you repeat the nonsense.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Yeaah, I think we talked about this before _(not sure)_.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Book ONE • Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court[/INDENT]
> [INDENT]of Justice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part III. Proceedings in which State immunity cannot be invoked​Article 10. Commercial transactions​​1. If a State engages in a commercial transaction with a foreign natural or juridical person and,​by virtue of the applicable rules of private international law, differences relating to the commercial​transaction fall within the jurisdiction of a court of another State, the State cannot invoke immunity​from that jurisdiction in a proceeding arising out of that commercial transaction.​​2. Paragraph 1 does not apply:​​(a) in the case of a commercial transaction between States; or​(b) if the parties to the commercial transaction have expressly agreed otherwise.​​*3. Where a State enterprise or other entity established by a State which has an independent*​*legal personality and is capable of:*​​*(a) suing or being sued; and*​*(b) acquiring, owning or possessing and disposing of property, including property which*​*that State has authorized it to operate or manage,*​*is involved in a proceeding which relates to a commercial transaction in which that entity is engaged,*​*the immunity from jurisdiction enjoyed by that State shall not be affected.*​
> ​Annex to the Convention​*Understandings with respect to certain provisions of the Convention*​​The present annex is for the purpose of setting out understandings relating to the provisions​concerned.​​With respect to article 10​​The term “immunity” in article 10 is to be understood in the context of the present Convention​as a whole.​​Article 10, paragraph 3, does not prejudge the question of “piercing the corporate veil”, questions​relating to a situation where a State entity has deliberately misrepresented its financial position​or subsequently reduced its assets to avoid satisfying a claim, or other related issues.​
> ​With respect to article 19​​The expression “entity” in subparagraph (c) means the State as an independent legal personality,​a constituent unit of a federal State, a subdivision of a State, an agency or instrumentality of a​State or other entity, which enjoys independent legal personality.​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> ​SOURCE:  III. Subjects of international law Pg 126 and pg132​​
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> [/FONT]Book ONE • Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court[/INDENT]
> [INDENT]of Justice • General Assembly resolution 56/83 of 12 December 2001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter II. Attribution of conduct to a State​Article 4. Conduct of organs of a State​​1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international​law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position​it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central​Government or of a territorial unit of the State.​​2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal​law of the State.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​SOURCE:  20. Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts pg 237​​
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.
> 
> BTW, WTF is a legal entity?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "Legal Entities" have been around for a very long time.  In the Case of Palestine, the Allied Powers _(__utilizing the Authority agreed upon through the Surrender__)_ decided to grant the Mandate Authorities all the powers necessary for the British to fully administer the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> ◈  full powers of legislation and of administration...​◈  responsible for enacting a nationality law...​◈  facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​◈  seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​◈  full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​
> While spoken of in the Mandate as separate authorities and responsibilities, the British "High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials;" a consequence out of the lack of cooperation from the Arab Higher Committee.  There was no question that the entire international community understood and remained silent on (tacit approval) the total control over the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?

And, what about my first statement?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Yeaah, I think we talked about this before _(not sure)_.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Book ONE • Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court[/INDENT]
> [INDENT]of Justice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part III. Proceedings in which State immunity cannot be invoked​Article 10. Commercial transactions​​1. If a State engages in a commercial transaction with a foreign natural or juridical person and,​by virtue of the applicable rules of private international law, differences relating to the commercial​transaction fall within the jurisdiction of a court of another State, the State cannot invoke immunity​from that jurisdiction in a proceeding arising out of that commercial transaction.​​2. Paragraph 1 does not apply:​​(a) in the case of a commercial transaction between States; or​(b) if the parties to the commercial transaction have expressly agreed otherwise.​​*3. Where a State enterprise or other entity established by a State which has an independent*​*legal personality and is capable of:*​​*(a) suing or being sued; and*​*(b) acquiring, owning or possessing and disposing of property, including property which*​*that State has authorized it to operate or manage,*​*is involved in a proceeding which relates to a commercial transaction in which that entity is engaged,*​*the immunity from jurisdiction enjoyed by that State shall not be affected.*​
> ​Annex to the Convention​*Understandings with respect to certain provisions of the Convention*​​The present annex is for the purpose of setting out understandings relating to the provisions​concerned.​​With respect to article 10​​The term “immunity” in article 10 is to be understood in the context of the present Convention​as a whole.​​Article 10, paragraph 3, does not prejudge the question of “piercing the corporate veil”, questions​relating to a situation where a State entity has deliberately misrepresented its financial position​or subsequently reduced its assets to avoid satisfying a claim, or other related issues.​
> ​With respect to article 19​​The expression “entity” in subparagraph (c) means the State as an independent legal personality,​a constituent unit of a federal State, a subdivision of a State, an agency or instrumentality of a​State or other entity, which enjoys independent legal personality.​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> ​SOURCE:  III. Subjects of international law Pg 126 and pg132​​
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> [/FONT]Book ONE • Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court[/INDENT]
> [INDENT]of Justice • General Assembly resolution 56/83 of 12 December 2001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter II. Attribution of conduct to a State​Article 4. Conduct of organs of a State​​1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international​law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position​it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central​Government or of a territorial unit of the State.​​2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal​law of the State.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​SOURCE:  20. Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts pg 237​​
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.
> 
> BTW, WTF is a legal entity?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "Legal Entities" have been around for a very long time.  In the Case of Palestine, the Allied Powers _(__utilizing the Authority agreed upon through the Surrender__)_ decided to grant the Mandate Authorities all the powers necessary for the British to fully administer the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> ◈  full powers of legislation and of administration...​◈  responsible for enacting a nationality law...​◈  facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​◈  seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​◈  full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​
> While spoken of in the Mandate as separate authorities and responsibilities, the British "High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials;" a consequence out of the lack of cooperation from the Arab Higher Committee.  There was no question that the entire international community understood and remained silent on (tacit approval) the total control over the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?
> 
> And, what about my first statement?
Click to expand...

Why is it that you can’t make the positive claim that “Palestine” is a State?

So how does all that make Palestine not a state? Well, because, there is no argument that makes “Palestine” a state.

For most, that’s a pretty simple exercise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF:  Yeaah, I think we talked about this before _(not sure)_.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Book ONE • Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court[/INDENT]
> [INDENT]of Justice said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part III. Proceedings in which State immunity cannot be invoked​Article 10. Commercial transactions​​1. If a State engages in a commercial transaction with a foreign natural or juridical person and,​by virtue of the applicable rules of private international law, differences relating to the commercial​transaction fall within the jurisdiction of a court of another State, the State cannot invoke immunity​from that jurisdiction in a proceeding arising out of that commercial transaction.​​2. Paragraph 1 does not apply:​​(a) in the case of a commercial transaction between States; or​(b) if the parties to the commercial transaction have expressly agreed otherwise.​​*3. Where a State enterprise or other entity established by a State which has an independent*​*legal personality and is capable of:*​​*(a) suing or being sued; and*​*(b) acquiring, owning or possessing and disposing of property, including property which*​*that State has authorized it to operate or manage,*​*is involved in a proceeding which relates to a commercial transaction in which that entity is engaged,*​*the immunity from jurisdiction enjoyed by that State shall not be affected.*​
> ​Annex to the Convention​*Understandings with respect to certain provisions of the Convention*​​The present annex is for the purpose of setting out understandings relating to the provisions​concerned.​​With respect to article 10​​The term “immunity” in article 10 is to be understood in the context of the present Convention​as a whole.​​Article 10, paragraph 3, does not prejudge the question of “piercing the corporate veil”, questions​relating to a situation where a State entity has deliberately misrepresented its financial position​or subsequently reduced its assets to avoid satisfying a claim, or other related issues.​
> ​With respect to article 19​​The expression “entity” in subparagraph (c) means the State as an independent legal personality,​a constituent unit of a federal State, a subdivision of a State, an agency or instrumentality of a​State or other entity, which enjoys independent legal personality.​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> ​SOURCE:  III. Subjects of international law Pg 126 and pg132​​
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> [/FONT]Book ONE • Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court[/INDENT]
> [INDENT]of Justice • General Assembly resolution 56/83 of 12 December 2001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter II. Attribution of conduct to a State​Article 4. Conduct of organs of a State​​1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international​law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position​it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central​Government or of a territorial unit of the State.​​2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal​law of the State.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​SOURCE:  20. Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts pg 237​​
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to prevent stateless persons they make Palestinians citizens of a place that is not a state.
> 
> BTW, WTF is a legal entity?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> "Legal Entities" have been around for a very long time.  In the Case of Palestine, the Allied Powers _(__utilizing the Authority agreed upon through the Surrender__)_ decided to grant the Mandate Authorities all the powers necessary for the British to fully administer the territory under the Mandate.
> 
> ◈  full powers of legislation and of administration...​◈  responsible for enacting a nationality law...​◈  facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​◈  seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​◈  full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​
> While spoken of in the Mandate as separate authorities and responsibilities, the British "High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials;" a consequence out of the lack of cooperation from the Arab Higher Committee.  There was no question that the entire international community understood and remained silent on (tacit approval) the total control over the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?
> 
> And, what about my first statement?
Click to expand...


*OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state? *

It wasn't a state before, how does all that _make_ Palestine a state?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tin more, et al,

*BLUF*: Well, Palestine was a legal "Entity." That is the bottom line. And it stayed a legal entity until the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League screwed it up in the 1948 International Armed Conflict (IAC).



P F Tinmore said:


> And, what about my first statement?


*(COMMENT)*

I don't always comment on - what I think are bait type statements _(__How do I spot a baited question on social media?__)_.

Remember what an "entity" must have before it is legal.

◈  full powers of legislation and of administration...​◈  responsible for enacting a nationality law...​◈  facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​◈  seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​◈  full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​
All of this is a description of what the Allied Powers imparted upon the British relative to the territory under the mandate.  It makes it an "Entity" as recognized by the International Judicial System.




P F Tinmore said:


> OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?


*(COMMENT)*

It is an "Entity" under the framework of International Law.

The British, in the Administration over the territory under the Mandate, established by a Government which has an independent legal personality and is capable of all the things I mentioned, AND establish an "Entity" which is "legal" under the international framework _(ie a Legall Entity)_.

Permanent Court of International Justice (PJIC) recognized the territory under the Mandate as part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government,  in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921. 

The PJIC did not see the territory under the Mandate as an independent and sovereign power unto themselves.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tin more, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Well, Palestine was a legal "Entity." That is the bottom line. And it stayed a legal entity until the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League screwed it up in the 1948 International Armed Conflict (IAC).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, what about my first statement?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't always comment on - what I think are bait type statements _(__How do I spot a baited question on social media?__)_.
> 
> Remember what an "entity" must have before it is legal.
> 
> ◈  full powers of legislation and of administration...​◈  responsible for enacting a nationality law...​◈  facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​◈  seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​◈  full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​
> All of this is a description of what the Allied Powers imparted upon the British relative to the territory under the mandate.  It makes it an "Entity" as recognized by the International Judicial System.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is an "Entity" under the framework of International Law.
> 
> The British, in the Administration over the territory under the Mandate, established by a Government which has an independent legal personality and is capable of all the things I mentioned, AND establish an "Entity" which is "legal" under the international framework _(ie a Legall Entity)_.
> 
> Permanent Court of International Justice (PJIC) recognized the territory under the Mandate as part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government,  in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921.
> 
> The PJIC did not see the territory under the Mandate as an independent and sovereign power unto themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

OK, but the Mandate left and the UN never picked up the ball. It was not under a foreign administration.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tin more, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Well, Palestine was a legal "Entity." That is the bottom line. And it stayed a legal entity until the Arab Palestinians and the Arab League screwed it up in the 1948 International Armed Conflict (IAC).
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, what about my first statement?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I don't always comment on - what I think are bait type statements _(__How do I spot a baited question on social media?__)_.
> 
> Remember what an "entity" must have before it is legal.
> 
> ◈  full powers of legislation and of administration...​◈  responsible for enacting a nationality law...​◈  facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship...​◈  seeing that the judicial system was established in Palestine...​◈  full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country, the public works, services, and utilities...​
> All of this is a description of what the Allied Powers imparted upon the British relative to the territory under the mandate.  It makes it an "Entity" as recognized by the International Judicial System.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so how does all that make Palestine not a state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> It is an "Entity" under the framework of International Law.
> 
> The British, in the Administration over the territory under the Mandate, established by a Government which has an independent legal personality and is capable of all the things I mentioned, AND establish an "Entity" which is "legal" under the international framework _(ie a Legall Entity)_.
> 
> Permanent Court of International Justice (PJIC) recognized the territory under the Mandate as part of the Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government,  in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921.
> 
> The PJIC did not see the territory under the Mandate as an independent and sovereign power unto themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but the Mandate left and the UN never picked up the ball. It was not under a foreign administration.
Click to expand...

Ok. And a portion of the area fell under the administration of the State of Israel.

Your hurt feelings can be placed ________<——- here.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: The Hostile Arab League Military Forces prevented the UN from taking control of the areas under the 1949 Armistice Agreements.



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, but the Mandate left and the UN never picked up the ball. It was not under a foreign administration.


*(COMMENT)*

The Mandate did not leave, it terminated, and the authority transfer to the *UN under Article 77a*.  However, the Arab League was not going to relinquish the territory they gained in the 1948 Israel War of Independence.  There was nothing left for the UN to place under Administration.






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The Hostile Arab League Military Forces prevented the UN from taking control of the areas under the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but the Mandate left and the UN never picked up the ball. It was not under a foreign administration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandate did not leave, it terminated, and the authority transfer to the *UN under Article 77a*.  However, the Arab League was not going to relinquish the territory they gained in the 1948 Israel War of Independence.  There was nothing left for the UN to place under Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The mandate terminated before the 1948 war.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The Hostile Arab League Military Forces prevented the UN from taking control of the areas under the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but the Mandate left and the UN never picked up the ball. It was not under a foreign administration.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Mandate did not leave, it terminated, and the authority transfer to the *UN under Article 77a*.  However, the Arab League was not going to relinquish the territory they gained in the 1948 Israel War of Independence.  There was nothing left for the UN to place under Administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mandate terminated before the 1948 war.
Click to expand...

Do you have a YouTube video?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Don't exaggerate your point. It only adds to the perception that your contribution is corrupted.



P F Tinmore said:


> The mandate terminated before the 1948 war.


*(COMMENT)*

King Abdullah of Jordan sent a cable that was released to the Press _(_*Press Release PAL/167 16 May 1948*_)_ less than 12hrs after the British withdrawal _(Mid-night 14/15 May)_ and the establishment of Israel as a Jewish State.  It was a staged coordinated attack _*(early morning hours of the 15 May)*_ that had been in the planning for some weeks. 



> The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine. The Egyptian Foreign Minister informed the Security Council that "Egyptian armed forces have started to enter Palestine to establish law and order" (_his cable to the Security Council, S/743, 15 May 1948_). The Governments of the Arab League States issued a statement on 15 May 1948, as their forces were advancing into Palestine.



The Mechanized assets of Lebanon. Syria, Jordan and Egypt were already stocked, fueled and supplied well before the announcement.  The Arab League justification used was "to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin" from the previous month (9 April '48).  Staging began in time to incorporate assets from Iraq into the first wave.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Don't exaggerate your point. It only adds to the perception that your contribution is corrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate terminated before the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> King Abdullah of Jordan sent a cable that was released to the Press _(_*Press Release PAL/167 16 May 1948*_)_ less than 12hrs after the British withdrawal _(Mid-night 14/15 May)_ and the establishment of Israel as a Jewish State.  It was a staged coordinated attack _*(early morning hours of the 15 May)*_ that had been in the planning for some weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine. The Egyptian Foreign Minister informed the Security Council that "Egyptian armed forces have started to enter Palestine to establish law and order" (_his cable to the Security Council, S/743, 15 May 1948_). The Governments of the Arab League States issued a statement on 15 May 1948, as their forces were advancing into Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mechanized assets of Lebanon. Syria, Jordan and Egypt were already stocked, fueled and supplied well before the announcement.  The Arab League justification used was "to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin" from the previous month (9 April '48).  Staging began in time to incorporate assets from Iraq into the first wave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

So, what did that have to do with my post?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Don't exaggerate your point. It only adds to the perception that your contribution is corrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate terminated before the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> King Abdullah of Jordan sent a cable that was released to the Press _(_*Press Release PAL/167 16 May 1948*_)_ less than 12hrs after the British withdrawal _(Mid-night 14/15 May)_ and the establishment of Israel as a Jewish State.  It was a staged coordinated attack _*(early morning hours of the 15 May)*_ that had been in the planning for some weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The State of Israel came into being on the evening of Friday, 14 May 1948. On the night of 14-15 May, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded Palestine. The Egyptian Foreign Minister informed the Security Council that "Egyptian armed forces have started to enter Palestine to establish law and order" (_his cable to the Security Council, S/743, 15 May 1948_). The Governments of the Arab League States issued a statement on 15 May 1948, as their forces were advancing into Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mechanized assets of Lebanon. Syria, Jordan and Egypt were already stocked, fueled and supplied well before the announcement.  The Arab League justification used was "to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin" from the previous month (9 April '48).  Staging began in time to incorporate assets from Iraq into the first wave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, what did that have to do with my post?
Click to expand...

Are you not paying attention?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: The First use of armed force by a State _(ie the Arab League)_ in contravention of the Charter_ (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity)_ shall constitute *prima facie* evidence of an act of aggression _(in this case - against Israel)_.

*NOTE:*
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
_The Charter says:  "shall refrain in their international relations from_ *the threat *_or use_ *of force*."



P F Tinmore said:


> So, what did that have to do with my post?


*(COMMENT)*

In the late 1940's _(and even to some degree today)_ the movement of forces _(Jordan/Iraq Front for instance)_ on the scale of an array consisting of 2 mechanized Infantry brigades and 2 Independent Regiments elements cannot be staged and poised for an attack without some notice.  And people noticed.  Similarly, registration fire for artillery _(QF 25 Pounder Short with a maximum range of 6 miles)_ is not going to go unnoticed _(including its prime mover)_.  And this towed artillery would have to be placed pretty far forward if it was going to of any use in covering the Regiments on the advance and crossing the Jordan River.  Remember that the weather in a ground advance plays a role as well.  The temperature in the Jordan Valley is 90º and on a fast rise.

Each of the Arab participants _(Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) _had their own unique problems, but each with through owe staging signature that would alert the Israelis.  The Egyptian 3d Division was mostly Motorized Infantry supported by a few tanks.  The advantages of the tank on the offense was lost because they cannot advance too far ahead of the infantry.  The coordinated attack required that all the Arab League Forces cross the line of departure at once _(all at the same time)_.  It would be difficult indeed to hide an entire Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division which had to be lined-up along the Rafah-Tel Aviv Road.

The coming international armed conflict (IAC) was pretty-much known to be happening all during the 1946-1948 non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (the Civil War).  This is why the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) places the first set of criteria on those Refugees in flight during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.

Make no mistake*!* The Arab League "demonstrated" their* "threat *to _use_* force*" very early on in the conflict.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The First use of armed force by a State _(ie the Arab League)_ in contravention of the Charter_ (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity)_ shall constitute *prima facie* evidence of an act of aggression _(in this case - against Israel)_.


So, what were Israels declared borders?

I'll wait.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The First use of armed force by a State _(ie the Arab League)_ in contravention of the Charter_ (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity)_ shall constitute *prima facie* evidence of an act of aggression _(in this case - against Israel)_.
> 
> *NOTE:*
> ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
> _The Charter says:  "shall refrain in their international relations from_ *the threat *_or use_ *of force*."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what did that have to do with my post?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the late 1940's _(and even to some degree today)_ the movement of forces _(Jordan/Iraq Front for instance)_ on the scale of an array consisting of 2 mechanized Infantry brigades and 2 Independent Regiments elements cannot be staged and poised for an attack without some notice.  And people noticed.  Similarly, registration fire for artillery _(QF 25 Pounder Short with a maximum range of 6 miles)_ is not going to go unnoticed _(including its prime mover)_.  And this towed artillery would have to be placed pretty far forward if it was going to of any use in covering the Regiments on the advance and crossing the Jordan River.  Remember that the weather in a ground advance plays a role as well.  The temperature in the Jordan Valley is 90º and on a fast rise.
> 
> Each of the Arab participants _(Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) _had their own unique problems, but each with through owe staging signature that would alert the Israelis.  The Egyptian 3d Division was mostly Motorized Infantry supported by a few tanks.  The advantages of the tank on the offense was lost because they cannot advance too far ahead of the infantry.  The coordinated attack required that all the Arab League Forces cross the line of departure at once _(all at the same time)_.  It would be difficult indeed to hide an entire Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division which had to be lined-up along the Rafah-Tel Aviv Road.
> 
> The coming international armed conflict (IAC) was pretty-much known to be happening all during the 1946-1948 non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (the Civil War).  This is why the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) places the first set of criteria on those Refugees in flight during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.
> 
> Make no mistake*!* The Arab League "demonstrated" their* "threat *to _use_* force*" very early on in the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The First use of armed force by a State _(ie the Arab League)_ in contravention of the Charter_ (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity)_ shall constitute *prima facie* evidence of an act of aggression _(in this case - against Israel)_.
> 
> *NOTE:*
> ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
> _The Charter says:  "shall refrain in their international relations from_ *the threat *_or use_ *of force*."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what did that have to do with my post?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the late 1940's _(and even to some degree today)_ the movement of forces _(Jordan/Iraq Front for instance)_ on the scale of an array consisting of 2 mechanized Infantry brigades and 2 Independent Regiments elements cannot be staged and poised for an attack without some notice.  And people noticed.  Similarly, registration fire for artillery _(QF 25 Pounder Short with a maximum range of 6 miles)_ is not going to go unnoticed _(including its prime mover)_.  And this towed artillery would have to be placed pretty far forward if it was going to of any use in covering the Regiments on the advance and crossing the Jordan River.  Remember that the weather in a ground advance plays a role as well.  The temperature in the Jordan Valley is 90º and on a fast rise.
> 
> Each of the Arab participants _(Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) _had their own unique problems, but each with through owe staging signature that would alert the Israelis.  The Egyptian 3d Division was mostly Motorized Infantry supported by a few tanks.  The advantages of the tank on the offense was lost because they cannot advance too far ahead of the infantry.  The coordinated attack required that all the Arab League Forces cross the line of departure at once _(all at the same time)_.  It would be difficult indeed to hide an entire Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division which had to be lined-up along the Rafah-Tel Aviv Road.
> 
> The coming international armed conflict (IAC) was pretty-much known to be happening all during the 1946-1948 non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (the Civil War).  This is why the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) places the first set of criteria on those Refugees in flight during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.
> 
> Make no mistake*!* The Arab League "demonstrated" their* "threat *to _use_* force*" very early on in the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.
Click to expand...


*The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.*

For once you're right.
Palestine had no legal standing before the war and no legal standing after the war.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The First use of armed force by a State _(ie the Arab League)_ in contravention of the Charter_ (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity)_ shall constitute *prima facie* evidence of an act of aggression _(in this case - against Israel)_.
> 
> *NOTE:*
> ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
> _The Charter says:  "shall refrain in their international relations from_ *the threat *_or use_ *of force*."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what did that have to do with my post?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the late 1940's _(and even to some degree today)_ the movement of forces _(Jordan/Iraq Front for instance)_ on the scale of an array consisting of 2 mechanized Infantry brigades and 2 Independent Regiments elements cannot be staged and poised for an attack without some notice.  And people noticed.  Similarly, registration fire for artillery _(QF 25 Pounder Short with a maximum range of 6 miles)_ is not going to go unnoticed _(including its prime mover)_.  And this towed artillery would have to be placed pretty far forward if it was going to of any use in covering the Regiments on the advance and crossing the Jordan River.  Remember that the weather in a ground advance plays a role as well.  The temperature in the Jordan Valley is 90º and on a fast rise.
> 
> Each of the Arab participants _(Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) _had their own unique problems, but each with through owe staging signature that would alert the Israelis.  The Egyptian 3d Division was mostly Motorized Infantry supported by a few tanks.  The advantages of the tank on the offense was lost because they cannot advance too far ahead of the infantry.  The coordinated attack required that all the Arab League Forces cross the line of departure at once _(all at the same time)_.  It would be difficult indeed to hide an entire Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division which had to be lined-up along the Rafah-Tel Aviv Road.
> 
> The coming international armed conflict (IAC) was pretty-much known to be happening all during the 1946-1948 non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (the Civil War).  This is why the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) places the first set of criteria on those Refugees in flight during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.
> 
> Make no mistake*!* The Arab League "demonstrated" their* "threat *to _use_* force*" very early on in the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.*
> 
> For once you're right.
> Palestine had no legal standing before the war and no legal standing after the war.
Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The First use of armed force by a State _(ie the Arab League)_ in contravention of the Charter_ (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity)_ shall constitute *prima facie* evidence of an act of aggression _(in this case - against Israel)_.
> 
> *NOTE:*
> ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
> _The Charter says:  "shall refrain in their international relations from_ *the threat *_or use_ *of force*."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what did that have to do with my post?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the late 1940's _(and even to some degree today)_ the movement of forces _(Jordan/Iraq Front for instance)_ on the scale of an array consisting of 2 mechanized Infantry brigades and 2 Independent Regiments elements cannot be staged and poised for an attack without some notice.  And people noticed.  Similarly, registration fire for artillery _(QF 25 Pounder Short with a maximum range of 6 miles)_ is not going to go unnoticed _(including its prime mover)_.  And this towed artillery would have to be placed pretty far forward if it was going to of any use in covering the Regiments on the advance and crossing the Jordan River.  Remember that the weather in a ground advance plays a role as well.  The temperature in the Jordan Valley is 90º and on a fast rise.
> 
> Each of the Arab participants _(Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) _had their own unique problems, but each with through owe staging signature that would alert the Israelis.  The Egyptian 3d Division was mostly Motorized Infantry supported by a few tanks.  The advantages of the tank on the offense was lost because they cannot advance too far ahead of the infantry.  The coordinated attack required that all the Arab League Forces cross the line of departure at once _(all at the same time)_.  It would be difficult indeed to hide an entire Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division which had to be lined-up along the Rafah-Tel Aviv Road.
> 
> The coming international armed conflict (IAC) was pretty-much known to be happening all during the 1946-1948 non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (the Civil War).  This is why the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) places the first set of criteria on those Refugees in flight during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.
> 
> Make no mistake*!* The Arab League "demonstrated" their* "threat *to _use_* force*" very early on in the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.*
> 
> For once you're right.
> Palestine had no legal standing before the war and no legal standing after the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...


Like Israel being larger after the war than before the war? DURR


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  Under the principles of international, even today, The International Boundaries the separated Israeli sovereignty from everything outside the sovereignty is fairly easy.  The International Boundaries between Israel is that which is established by Israel.  It is a demarcation that "*denotes the means by which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on.  

◈  "A  land boundary should be easy to identify and difficult to cross."

(See the cut'n'paste references below.)*



RoccoR said:


> The First use of armed force by a State _(ie the Arab League)_ in contravention of the Charter_ (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity)_ shall constitute *prima facie* evidence of an act of aggression _(in this case - against Israel)_.





P F Tinmore said:


> So, what were Israels declared borders?
> 
> I'll wait.


*(COMMENT)*

I'm sure I discussed this here just recently.  I know that you want it to be something else, but you can't have everything your way.  The delimited boundary that separated Canada from the CONUS and CONUS from Mexico are very similar to Isreal's demarcations.

*(REFERENCES)*
_boundary delimitation, demarcation See delimitation ._

​


			
				Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law Page 69 said:
			
		

> *boundary/ies* *The imaginary lines on the surface of the earth which separate the land territory*​*or maritime zones ( continental shelf and EEZ ) of one State from that of another.*​Ideally, as a matter of common sense but little more, *a land boundary should be easy*​*to identify and difficult to cross:* British Guiana Boundary Case ( 1899 ) 188 C.T.S. 76 ;​Alaska Boundary Arbitration ( 1903 ) 15 R.I.A.A. 481 .* In relation to land boundaries, there*​*is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to*​*the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law *( see territory, acquisition of ).​​


​
​


			
				Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law Page 146 said:
			
		

> *delimitation* ‘It is common practice to distinguish delimitation and demarcation of a​boundary. The former denotes description of the alignment in a treaty or other written​source, or by means of a line marked on a map or chart.* Demarcation denotes the means by*​*which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns*​*of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on.* The​principle of the distinction is clear enough, but the usage of the draftsman of the particular​international agreement or political spokesman may not be consistent. In fact the terms​are sometimes used to mean the same thing’: Brownlie, African Boundaries. A Legal and​Diplomatic Encyclopaedia ( 1979 ).​​


​Copyright © 2009
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: You're killing me.



P F Tinmore said:


> The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.


*(COMMENT)*

Palestine's legal standing on the termination of the Mandate was that of an "Entity."  The International Armed Conflict (IAC) was the means by which the territory was taken by the Arab League.  It destroyed the two-state _(Arab State and Jewish State)_ solution.  "Irrelevant_*!  *_I don't think so... You could not be more wrong if you had crapped in your pants.
*A/AC.21/UK/42 LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” 25 February 1948*





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The First use of armed force by a State _(ie the Arab League)_ in contravention of the Charter_ (Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity)_ shall constitute *prima facie* evidence of an act of aggression _(in this case - against Israel)_.
> 
> *NOTE:*
> ₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
> _The Charter says:  "shall refrain in their international relations from_ *the threat *_or use_ *of force*."
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what did that have to do with my post?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the late 1940's _(and even to some degree today)_ the movement of forces _(Jordan/Iraq Front for instance)_ on the scale of an array consisting of 2 mechanized Infantry brigades and 2 Independent Regiments elements cannot be staged and poised for an attack without some notice.  And people noticed.  Similarly, registration fire for artillery _(QF 25 Pounder Short with a maximum range of 6 miles)_ is not going to go unnoticed _(including its prime mover)_.  And this towed artillery would have to be placed pretty far forward if it was going to of any use in covering the Regiments on the advance and crossing the Jordan River.  Remember that the weather in a ground advance plays a role as well.  The temperature in the Jordan Valley is 90º and on a fast rise.
> 
> Each of the Arab participants _(Lebanon, Syria, Egypt) _had their own unique problems, but each with through owe staging signature that would alert the Israelis.  The Egyptian 3d Division was mostly Motorized Infantry supported by a few tanks.  The advantages of the tank on the offense was lost because they cannot advance too far ahead of the infantry.  The coordinated attack required that all the Arab League Forces cross the line of departure at once _(all at the same time)_.  It would be difficult indeed to hide an entire Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division which had to be lined-up along the Rafah-Tel Aviv Road.
> 
> The coming international armed conflict (IAC) was pretty-much known to be happening all during the 1946-1948 non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) (the Civil War).  This is why the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instruction (CERI) places the first set of criteria on those Refugees in flight during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948.
> 
> Make no mistake*!* The Arab League "demonstrated" their* "threat *to _use_* force*" very early on in the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.*
> 
> For once you're right.
> Palestine had no legal standing before the war and no legal standing after the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...


_Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point. © _


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You're killing me.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Palestine's legal standing on the termination of the Mandate was that of an "Entity."  The International Armed Conflict (IAC) was the means by which the territory was taken by the Arab League.  It destroyed the two-state _(Arab State and Jewish State)_ solution.  "Irrelevant_*!  *_I don't think so... You could not be more wrong if you had crapped in your pants.
> *A/AC.21/UK/42 LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” 25 February 1948*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Britain called Palestine a legal entity because it was to be administered by the UN. That didn't happen.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: It was an "Entity" through the entire period of effective control by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) and through the entire period while under the Civil Administration of the British as the Mandatory Power. The only reason the status as an "Entity" did not continue more than a few hours after the termination was because it was effectively blocked by the invasion of the Arab League the following morning.



P F Tinmore said:


> The 1948 war was irrelevant to Palestine's legal standing.





RoccoR said:


> Palestine's legal standing on the termination of the Mandate was that of an "Entity."  The International Armed Conflict (IAC) was the means by which the territory was taken by the Arab League.  It destroyed the two-state _(Arab State and Jewish State)_ solution.  "Irrelevant_*!  *_I don't think so... You could not be more wrong if you had crapped in your pants.
> *A/AC.21/UK/42 LEGAL MEANING OF THE “TERMINATION OF THE MANDATE” 25 February 1948*





P F Tinmore said:


> Britain called Palestine a legal entity because it was to be administered by the UN. That didn't happen.


*(COMMENT)*

The Mandate was already part of the UN Trusteeship System under the Charter since 1945.  Although the Mandate had not officially terminated, the British Mandatory was under UN oversight that was once the responsibility of the League of Nations.

It actually did transfer to the UN under Article 77a (April '45), and later (May '48) the *UN Emissary, Count Folke Bernadotte **(af Wisborg)**, Empowered as the UN Mediator in Palestine,* arrived and relieved the UN Palestine Commission.  Count Bernadotte established his Diplomatic Station in Jerusalem and had the responsibility for:

         ◈    Arrange for the operation of common services necessary to the safety and well-being of the population of Palestine;​​        ◈    Assure the protection of the Holy Places, religious buildings, and sites in Palestine;​​       ◈    Promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine;[/quote]​
Again, the problem was the UN Mediator was not able to immediately establish peace, the invasion of the Entity being in full swing.  The Arab League invasion was not brought under an Armistice until the Spring of 1949.  By the entirety of the Entity was under Military Occupation by one party or the other to the conflict.  

You cannot use "That didn't happen" as a justification in a prelude to the claim that somehow the Entity became a "state" due to Arab Intervention interfering with the continuation of the Trusteeship.  




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It was an "Entity" through the entire period of effective control by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) and through the entire period while under the Civil Administration of the British as the Mandatory Power.


So Palestine was a non self governing territory?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The only reason the status as an "Entity" did not continue more than a few hours after the termination was because it was effectively blocked by the invasion of the Arab League the following morning.


OK, but the Arab League did not attack Palestine. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. Palestine was not part of that war so I don't see how it could change Palestine's legal status as a state under colonialism/occupation. The UN Security Council called for an armistice so there were no winners or losers in that war.

If Palestine lost any land it had to be from a different event.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't know how you keep from connecting the dots.  

[/QUOTE]





P F Tinmore said:


> So Palestine was a non self governing territory?


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the Territory was defined as that being subject to the Mandate.  It was NOT a self-governing institution.  And the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, but the Arab League did not attack Palestine. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. Palestine was not part of that war so I don't see how it could change Palestine's legal status as a state under colonialism/occupation. The UN Security Council called for an armistice so there were no winners or losers in that war.
> 
> If Palestine lost any land it had to be from a different event.


*(COMMENT)*

Palestine was the "short title" defined in Article 1, Palestine Order in Council (1922).  It was the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies,* hereinafter described as Palestine*."

No one claimed "Palestine" lost territory.  The Independence of Israel took a partition and then the Arabs declined to take the remained.  Instead the Arab League invaded through the trusteeship to attack Israel.  On the cessation of hostilities, there were three types of territories remaining: →)  Israeli Sovereignty, →) Israeli extended territory, and  →)  Article 42 _(Hague Regulation)_ Territory Occupied_ (under the effective control)_ of parties to the Arab League.  There was no territory under the effective control of trusteeship. 

Once again, Palestine, formerly under the Mandate, was not a self-governing nation (country).  Israel was not inside Palestine; is was a portion of the Trusteeship.  It was a sovereignty established under the Right of Self-Determination which formed under the recommendation of the General Assembly and assisted by the UN Palestine Commission. The only Israeli Forces outside Israeli Sovereign Territory were those forces in hot pursuit of Arab League aggressors in retrograde movement.  The adoption of the various Armistice Agreements, with demarcations agreed by the parties to the conflict_ (generally along the forward edge of the battle area)_ and which outlined the zones of effective control.

*(CLARIFICATION)*

War is an obsolete term.  It implies a Win - (possible a draw) - Loss.   People like yourself attempt to use these obsolete terms and make a banquet out of it.  You are correct in a certain respect, the treaties thus far, agree on certain international boundaries, without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians.  The Jordan River is the boundary between Israel and Jordan.  A line, very rough approximation, between Rafah and Eilat, forms the Egyptian and Israeli international boundary.

Under the "without prejudice" clause and assisted by the Oslo Accords, the West Bank (Area "A,"  "B," "C"), the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem, were recognized.  Since the time of the Oslo Accords, many changes have occurred.  But to date, there is no such thing as a negotiated international boundary between Israel and the State of Palestine.  And the only territory that the Arab Palestinians can possibly conceive as being sovereign to them is the Gaza Strip and Area "A".

Palestine never had a "legal status as a state under colonialism/occupation."  Palestine was never under colonial occupation as tracked by the C-24.  And no territories to which the Mandate for Palestine formerly applied is a territory under colonial occupation (non-Self-Governing).

*(SEPARATE OPINION)*

I think that the mechanism by which the Arab Palestinians call government is involved in sheltering, training, financing or supplying arms to enable terrorists to attack the State of Israel and the Jewish National Home.  I believe that the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970) makes it clear, Arab Palestinians are prohibited from aiding terrorism in any way.

*(TACTICS)*

I recognize that there is such a thing as National Liberation Movements (NLM) using an irregular force to accomplish their goals can be lawful.  I do not believe that tactics employed by the Hostile Arab Palestinians meet the criteria under international law.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> And the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.


That is a lie.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Independence of Israel took a partition and then the Arabs declined to take the remained.


Not true. there was no partition. All of the territory was by military conquest and nothing since then has made it legitimate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I recognize that there is such a thing as National Liberation Movements (NLM) using an irregular force to accomplish their goals can be lawful. I do not believe that tactics employed by the Hostile Arab Palestinians meet the criteria under international law.


What would be lawful and what not?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Palestine never had a "legal status as a state under colonialism/occupation." Palestine was never under colonial occupation as tracked by the C-24. And no territories to which the Mandate for Palestine formerly applied is a territory under colonial occupation (non-Self-Governing).


Israel thumbs its nose at every UN resolution yet will hang its hat on this one.

 3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-detennination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference; 

18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self determination and independence of all peoples stilI under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;



			A/RES/37/43


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine never had a "legal status as a state under colonialism/occupation." Palestine was never under colonial occupation as tracked by the C-24. And no territories to which the Mandate for Palestine formerly applied is a territory under colonial occupation (non-Self-Governing).
> 
> 
> 
> Israel thumbs its nose at every UN resolution yet will hang its hat on this one.
> 
> 3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-detennination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;
> 
> 18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self determination and independence of all peoples stilI under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/37/43
Click to expand...

So, the UN issued an opinion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Independence of Israel took a partition and then the Arabs declined to take the remained.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. there was no partition. All of the territory was by military conquest and nothing since then has made it legitimate.
Click to expand...


You should hold your breath, Palestine will form faster.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

I guess you'll have to believe what you want.  But, Israel has been sovereign for three-quarters of a century.  The West Bank and Jerusalem have been under the Israeli Umbrella for a half-century.



P F Tinmore said:


> That is a lie.


*(COMMENTS)*

Believe what you will...



			
				The Political History of Palestine under British Administration said:
			
		

> 22.    Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.  The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”.  The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.  They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
> *SOURCE*:  A/AC.14/8  2 October 1947





			
				UNPC FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL said:
			
		

> “ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM.  FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”
> *SOURCE*:  A/AC.21/7   29 January 1948



It is a matter of record.

The Jewish Agency accepted participation at every step along the way.  What did Arab Palestine "persistence" ever get in terms of results???  When did the Arab Palestinian "persistence" advance the Palestinian Cause???  What gains have been made either politically, economically, industrially, commerically, or militarily???



P F Tinmore said:


> What would be lawful and what not?





P F Tinmore said:


> Not true. there was no partition. All of the territory was by military conquest and nothing since then has made it legitimate.


*(COMMENTS)*

Israel did not acquire any territory by military conquest that was prohibited by law.  The occupation of the territory was a direct consequence of an imminent threat of invasion by the Arab League forces.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel thumbs its nose at every UN resolution yet will hang its hat on this one.
> 
> 3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-detennination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;
> 
> 18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self determination and independence of all peoples stilI under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/37/43


*(COMMENTS)*

This is a feel-good non-binding Resolution.  It doesn't make a decree, Covanent, or binding arrangement.  These "Rights" are NOT unique to "Palestinians."  The Israelis have these same "Rights."






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> This is a feel-good non-binding Resolution. It doesn't make a decree, Covanent, or binding arrangement. These "Rights" are NOT unique to "Palestinians." The Israelis have these same "Rights."


Link to similar resolution for Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity.


As my post states.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a feel-good non-binding Resolution. It doesn't make a decree, Covanent, or binding arrangement. These "Rights" are NOT unique to "Palestinians." The Israelis have these same "Rights."
> 
> 
> 
> Link to similar resolution for Israel.
Click to expand...

Is the UN the political body that grants “Rights”?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a feel-good non-binding Resolution. It doesn't make a decree, Covanent, or binding arrangement. These "Rights" are NOT unique to "Palestinians." The Israelis have these same "Rights."
> 
> 
> 
> Link to similar resolution for Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is the UN the political body that grants “Rights”?
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a feel-good non-binding Resolution. It doesn't make a decree, Covanent, or binding arrangement. These "Rights" are NOT unique to "Palestinians." The Israelis have these same "Rights."
> 
> 
> 
> Link to similar resolution for Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is the UN the political body that grants “Rights”?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

So, your request for a “similar resolution for Israel” served no purpose, right?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

P F Tinmore is correct.  The UN is a vehicle to promulgate and document Customary and other various forms of international law.  The UN is also the parent of the International Judicial System.  And of course, the Security Council is a body that rules on usual practices associated with a particular international problems.  



Hollie said:


> Is the UN the political body that grants “Rights”?





P F Tinmore said:


> No.


*(COMMENTS)*

As an example, the UN established the Covenant that consolidates all the International Civil and Political Rights.  These Covenants are enforceable only between the nations that signed-on to them.  Similarly, the International Criminal Court (ICC) codified both the _Rome Statues_ and the _Elements of the Offense_ for each crime under its jurisdiction.

Does the organization grant rights or make laws, no.  But those members can institute rights and law using the UN as the vehicle and prime mover.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> P F Tinmore is correct.  The UN is a vehicle to promulgate and document Customary and other various forms of international law.  The UN is also the parent of the International Judicial System.  And of course, the Security Council is a body that rules on usual practices associated with a particular international problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the UN the political body that grants “Rights”?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENTS)*
> 
> As an example, the UN established the Covenant that consolidates all the International Civil and Political Rights.  These Covenants are enforceable only between the nations that signed-on to them.  Similarly, the International Criminal Court (ICC) codified both the _Rome Statues_ and the _Elements of the Offense_ for each crime under its jurisdiction.
> 
> Does the organization grant rights or make laws, no.  But those members can institute rights and law using the UN as the vehicle and prime mover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Indeed, The UN cannot create or deny universal rights. It cannot create or deny statehood. Recognizing a state is a political not a legal move. It cannot transfer territory or alter international borders.

The UN cannot create international law. It merely states where already existing international law should apply.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> P F Tinmore is correct.  The UN is a vehicle to promulgate and document Customary and other various forms of international law.  The UN is also the parent of the International Judicial System.  And of course, the Security Council is a body that rules on usual practices associated with a particular international problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the UN the political body that grants “Rights”?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENTS)*
> 
> As an example, the UN established the Covenant that consolidates all the International Civil and Political Rights.  These Covenants are enforceable only between the nations that signed-on to them.  Similarly, the International Criminal Court (ICC) codified both the _Rome Statues_ and the _Elements of the Offense_ for each crime under its jurisdiction.
> 
> Does the organization grant rights or make laws, no.  But those members can institute rights and law using the UN as the vehicle and prime mover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, The UN cannot create or deny universal rights. It cannot create or deny statehood. Recognizing a state is a political not a legal move. It cannot transfer territory or alter international borders.
> 
> The UN cannot create international law. It merely states where already existing international law should apply.
Click to expand...


Indeed, the UN can issue opinions.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Jewish soldiers in the British Army were instrumental in helping more than 1,000 Jews to escape from postwar Europe on a ship that got through a Royal Navy blockade of Palestine.

Details of the exodus of these Holocaust survivors and former partisans into northern Italy, assisted by the army’s Jewish Brigade, and their voyage on the corvette _Wedgwood_, have been pieced together for the first time, shining a light on postwar Jewish resilience.









						How Britain’s Jewish troops came to the rescue of Holocaust survivors trying to reach Palestine
					

Jewish soldiers in the British Army were instrumental in helping more than 1,000 Jews to escape from postwar Europe on a ship that got through a Royal Navy blockade of Palestine.Details of the exodus of these Holocaust survivors and former partisans into northern Italy, assisted by the army’s Jewish




					www.thetimes.co.uk


----------



## independent minded

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Movie Exodus is very good.



I enjoyed the movie _Exodus_, but it was a tad or so on the schmaltzy side.  Leon Uris's book, _Exodus_, on which this move was based, was better.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


>



What happened in 1948?
Muslims got their asses kicked.


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Full Length Talk: From Balfour to Boris Johnson, Britain's Role in the Oppression of Palestinians.*


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  However you _(or anyone else_) slings the mud, or tries to make it look like the Arab Palestinians were the target of a conspiracy to further and further victimize them, → it has become → rather overtaken by events _(politically speaking)_.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Full Length Talk: From Balfour to Boris Johnson, Britain's Role in the Oppression of Palestinians.*


*(COMMENT)*

Nothing the Allied Powers did before the implementation of the Civil Administration, and nothing the British did during their time as the Mandatory Power, can effect a change in the sovereign holdings of Israel today.  

It is unlikely that Israel will reward the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) _(Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters)_ criminals all, with any settlement that is significantly advantageous to the HoAP - given that the HoAP will not provide any reparations and restitution for violations to Article 68 of the IV Geneva Convention, and criminal acts taken against the people and the State of Israel since the inception of the surviving major Palestinian terrorist groups in the mid-1960s.

If the Arab Palestinians put as much effort into Peace as the have into Conflict, they would have their own State, much more stable, developed, and larger then at present. They would have been much better-off if they had made an effort for peace.  There would be no question as to the sovereignty of their State.

No matter how much the HoAP pushes the logical fallacy of attempting to draw support on the basis of emotion, it simply will not sustain itself; as the HoAP are beginning to find-out today.

Just ask any of the HoAP, how well their political leadership has worked-out for its people and the attainment of sovereignty.  





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> given that the HoAP will not provide any reparations and restitution for violations to Article 68 of the IV Geneva Convention, and criminal acts taken against the people and the State of Israel since the inception


You're joking, right? 


RoccoR said:


> It is unlikely that Israel will reward the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) _(Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters)_ criminals all,


Oh geese, another name calling thread.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> given that the HoAP will not provide any reparations and restitution for violations to Article 68 of the IV Geneva Convention, and criminal acts taken against the people and the State of Israel since the inception
> 
> 
> 
> You're joking, right?
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is unlikely that Israel will reward the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) _(Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters)_ criminals all,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh geese, another name calling thread.
Click to expand...


Oh duck, another drop ten and.... drop another ten.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* This is just another example of just how blind the Arab Palestinians are when they look in the mirror.



RoccoR said:


> given that the HoAP will not provide any reparations and restitution for violations to Article 68 of the IV Geneva Convention, and criminal acts taken against the people and the State of Israel since the inception





P F Tinmore said:


> You're joking, right?


*(COMMENT)*

Forgetting the Ilan Pappe types - those are people - still hung-up on what happened in the distant past, that want to force unpopular political sets of solutions onto the problem.  For people like Ilan Pappe there is ground truth hidden behind the fog of prpaganda.  There are solutions that if forced onto the situation, will be far more damaging and destructive to the Arab Palestinian cause then anything they considered.  They are not worried about people or cultures.  Over 90% of the Arab Palestinians have never lived in Israel and have little or no ties with Israel.  Most of the Arab Palestinians have burned the bridges in front of them that might have crossed into a new and better way of life.

As far as far as Reparations and Restitution goes:


			
				Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts said:
			
		

> *Article 35 Restitution *
> 
> A State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to make restitution, that is, to re-establish the situation which existed before the wrongful act was committed, provided and to the extent that restitution: (a) is not materially impossible; (b) does not involve a burden out of all proportion to the benefit deriving from restitution instead of compensation.



If it does turnout that the territories under dispute are ruled (say by the ICC) to be a "state," that could cause the Arab Palestinians more difficulty then they have ever imagined.

*reparation*    ‘It is a principle of international law that the breach of an engagement involves
an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form. Reparation therefore is the indispensable
complement of a failure to apply a convention and there is no necessity for this to
be stated in the convention itself.

*restitution    *The fundamental principle governing the duty to make reparation for an
internationally wrongful act was expressed by the P.C.I.J. in the Chorzów Factory
(Indemnity) (Merits) Case (1927) P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 17 at 47: ‘reparation must, as far as
possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which
would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed’. Thus, it appears
that restitutio in integrum is the primary form of reparation, pecuniary reparation only
applying where restitution in not possible.



RoccoR said:


> It is unlikely that Israel will reward the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) _(Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters)_ criminals all,





P F Tinmore said:


> Oh geese, another name calling thread.


*(COMMENT)*

Each terrorist act, in and by itself is a crime.

"Name calling" is only "name calling" if the accusation is unfounded.  Otherwise, it is a descriptive noun.
​



​

This may have been overtaken by WWII and the subsequent 19(+) Counterterrorism Conventions, the definition still rings true.  And it fits the Arab Palestinians perfectly.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* This is just another example of just how blind the Arab Palestinians are when they look in the mirror.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> given that the HoAP will not provide any reparations and restitution for violations to Article 68 of the IV Geneva Convention, and criminal acts taken against the people and the State of Israel since the inception
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're joking, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Forgetting the Ilan Pappe types - those are people - still hung-up on what happened in the distant past, that want to force unpopular political sets of solutions onto the problem.  For people like Ilan Pappe there is ground truth hidden behind the fog of prpaganda.  There are solutions that if forced onto the situation, will be far more damaging and destructive to the Arab Palestinian cause then anything they considered.  They are not worried about people or cultures.  Over 90% of the Arab Palestinians have never lived in Israel and have little or no ties with Israel.  Most of the Arab Palestinians have burned the bridges in front of them that might have crossed into a new and better way of life.
> 
> As far as far as Reparations and Restitution goes:
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Article 35 Restitution *​​A State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to make restitution, that is, to re-establish the situation which existed before the wrongful act was committed, provided and to the extent that restitution: (a) is not materially impossible; (b) does not involve a burden out of all proportion to the benefit deriving from restitution instead of compensation.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> If it does turnout that the territories under dispute are ruled (say by the ICC) to be a "state," that could cause the Arab Palestinians more difficulty then they have ever imagined.
> 
> *reparation*    ‘It is a principle of international law that the breach of an engagement involves
> an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form. Reparation therefore is the indispensable
> complement of a failure to apply a convention and there is no necessity for this to
> be stated in the convention itself.
> 
> *restitution    *The fundamental principle governing the duty to make reparation for an
> internationally wrongful act was expressed by the P.C.I.J. in the Chorzów Factory
> (Indemnity) (Merits) Case (1927) P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 17 at 47: ‘reparation must, as far as
> possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which
> would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed’. Thus, it appears
> that restitutio in integrum is the primary form of reparation, pecuniary reparation only
> applying where restitution in not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is unlikely that Israel will reward the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) _(Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters)_ criminals all,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh geese, another name calling thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Each terrorist act, in and by itself is a crime.
> 
> "Name calling" is only "name calling" if the accusation is unfounded.  Otherwise, it is a descriptive noun.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 395997​
> 
> This may have been overtaken by WWII and the subsequent 19(+) Counterterrorism Conventions, the definition still rings true.  And it fits the Arab Palestinians perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I don't know how to respond to this. Your contradictions are bouncing around like a football.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Each terrorist act, in and by itself is a crime.
> 
> "Name calling" is only "name calling" if the accusation is unfounded. Otherwise, it is a descriptive noun.
> ​


OK, but Palestinians actions are defensive.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  There is never an excuse for terrorism. 

◈  *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”* Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared at the opening of a high-level meeting of the Security Council today, capped by a presidential statement expressing that body’s deep concern over the terrorist threat and its determination to combat it by all means in all its forms and manifestations, in line with the United Nations Charter and international law.   (*Security Council  SC/10882*)​



RoccoR said:


> Each terrorist act, in and by itself is a crime.
> "Name calling" is only "name calling" if the accusation is unfounded. Otherwise, it is a descriptive noun.





P F Tinmore said:


> OK, but Palestinians actions are defensive.


*(COMMENT)*

This is an* admission of guilt*.  →  "OK, but *Palestinians actions are* defensive."   →   *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*

✪  Every time someone in the Gaza Strip sends an incendiary balloon over the border and into Israel, that is a criminal act.
✪  Every time someone sends an indiscriminate rocket of mortar over the border and into Israel, that is a criminal act.
✪  Every time an Arab Palestinian _(including Senior Leaders)_ calls on the Palestinian people to execute violence,  that is a criminal act.

 *₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪* ​
*1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings*
Creates a regime of universal jurisdiction over the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or 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.​​"Explosive or other lethal device" means:  ​​(a) An explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed,or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage; or  ​​(b) A  weapon or device that is designed,  or has the capability,  to cause death,  serious bodily injury or substantial material damage through the release,  dissemination, or impact of toxic chemicals, biological agents or toxins or similar substances or radiation or radioactive material.​

Calls  upon  all  States  to  adopt  such  measures  as  may  be  necessary  and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to: (a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts; (b) Prevent such conduct; (c) Deny  safe  haven  to  any  persons  with  respect  to  whom  there  is  credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct; [*S/RES/1624 (2005)*]

Calls upon all States to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and   broaden   understanding   among   civilizations,   in   an   effort   to   prevent   the indiscriminate targeting of different religions and cultures, and to take all measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to counter incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerance  and  to  prevent  the  subversion  of  educational,  cultural,  and  religious institutions by terrorists and their supporters; [*S/RES/1624 (2005)*]






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each terrorist act, in and by itself is a crime.
> 
> "Name calling" is only "name calling" if the accusation is unfounded. Otherwise, it is a descriptive noun.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> OK, but Palestinians actions are defensive.
Click to expand...

They clearly are not defensive. Attacks on Israelis are not defensive.

Do you realize that offensive and defensive are spelled differently?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> This is an* admission of guilt*. → "OK, but *Palestinians actions are* defensive." → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*


So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> (a) An explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed,or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage; or


Like one ton bombs, Tomahawk missiles, and White Phosphorous.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> There is never an excuse for terrorism.


The Palestinians do not attack outside their own borders and only attack illegal settlers.

So, where is the terrorism?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is never an excuse for terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not attack outside their own borders and only attack illegal settlers.
> 
> So, where is the terrorism?
Click to expand...


That’s clearly false.

Identify the location of borders held by either of the Islamic terrorist enclaves; West Bank or Gaza.

Apparently you know nothing of the history of Pal Islamic terrorist attacks, or, you choose to ignore that history.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an* admission of guilt*. → "OK, but *Palestinians actions are* defensive." → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
Click to expand...


Israeli targeting of locations used to conduct acts of war is not terrorism.

It was predictable you don’t understand some pretty basic concepts.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an* admission of guilt*. → "OK, but *Palestinians actions are* defensive." → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeli targeting of locations used to conduct acts of war is not terrorism.
> 
> It was predictable you don’t understand some pretty basic concepts.
Click to expand...

Tinmore understands; he's just an Jew hater.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF: * In any retaliatory strike by Israel for criminal acts committed by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), and there is a needless Arab Palestinian death, then that death is the fault of the Arab Palestinians. Deaths arising from criminal acts committed by the HoAP, is a liability on the HoAP.



RoccoR said:


> This is an* admission of guilt*. → "OK, but *Palestinians actions are* defensive." → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*





P F Tinmore said:


> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.


*(COMMENT)*

In the case of HoAP, and citizen sympathizers/collaborators with the HoAP, a huge proportion of the deaths are directly caused by:

◈  It is the duty of the HoAP to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.  Each rocket fired from a densely populated area is a criminal offense.​◈  It is the duty of the HoAP to remove Arab Palestinian citizens under their control from the vicinity of military objectives, each death occurs is an additional criminal offense.​◈  Each time the HoAP violates the territorial integrity _(in the air, on the ground, and below ground level)_ of the State of Israel to commit further criminal actions are dual offense.  Any death that results is the fault of the Arab Palestinians.​◈  Each time a Command and Control element attempts to shield itself from Israeli nuetralization is committing a criminal act.   Any death that results is the fault of the Arab Palestinians.​​For far too long have the HoAP crooks, criminals and low lifes, that try to act like resposnible leaders, --- used the " bombing family homes" as a from of vitimization to gain sympathy.  They HoAP and Leadership need to stepup to the plate and accept responsibility for their action.

There is a very serious need to quit being a sissy and hiding behind the skirts of the civilian population (Rule #97).





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an* admission of guilt*. → "OK, but *Palestinians actions are* defensive." → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israeli targeting of locations used to conduct acts of war is not terrorism.
> 
> It was predictable you don’t understand some pretty basic concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tinmore understands; he's just an Jew hater.
Click to expand...

What's with the Jew hater thing? Did you run out of antisemite cards?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * In any retaliatory strike by Israel for criminal acts committed by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), and there is a needless Arab Palestinian death, then that death is the fault of the Arab Palestinians. Deaths arising from criminal acts committed by the HoAP, is a liability on the HoAP.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an* admission of guilt*. → "OK, but *Palestinians actions are* defensive." → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the case of HoAP, and citizen sympathizers/collaborators with the HoAP, a huge proportion of the deaths are directly caused by:
> 
> ◈  It is the duty of the HoAP to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.  Each rocket fired from a densely populated area is a criminal offense.​◈  It is the duty of the HoAP to remove Arab Palestinian citizens under their control from the vicinity of military objectives, each death occurs is an additional criminal offense.​◈  Each time the HoAP violates the territorial integrity _(in the air, on the ground, and below ground level)_ of the State of Israel to commit further criminal actions are dual offense.  Any death that results is the fault of the Arab Palestinians.​◈  Each time a Command and Control element attempts to shield itself from Israeli nuetralization is committing a criminal act.   Any death that results is the fault of the Arab Palestinians.​​For far too long have the HoAP crooks, criminals and low lifes, that try to act like resposnible leaders, --- used the " bombing family homes" as a from of vitimization to gain sympathy.  They HoAP and Leadership need to stepup to the plate and accept responsibility for their action.
> 
> There is a very serious need to quit being a sissy and hiding behind the skirts of the civilian population (Rule #97).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

WOW, so many Israeli talking points. Do you have their book?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF: * In any retaliatory strike by Israel for criminal acts committed by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), and there is a needless Arab Palestinian death, then that death is the fault of the Arab Palestinians. Deaths arising from criminal acts committed by the HoAP, is a liability on the HoAP.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an* admission of guilt*. → "OK, but *Palestinians actions are* defensive." → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In the case of HoAP, and citizen sympathizers/collaborators with the HoAP, a huge proportion of the deaths are directly caused by:
> 
> ◈  It is the duty of the HoAP to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.  Each rocket fired from a densely populated area is a criminal offense.​◈  It is the duty of the HoAP to remove Arab Palestinian citizens under their control from the vicinity of military objectives, each death occurs is an additional criminal offense.​◈  Each time the HoAP violates the territorial integrity _(in the air, on the ground, and below ground level)_ of the State of Israel to commit further criminal actions are dual offense.  Any death that results is the fault of the Arab Palestinians.​◈  Each time a Command and Control element attempts to shield itself from Israeli nuetralization is committing a criminal act.   Any death that results is the fault of the Arab Palestinians.​​For far too long have the HoAP crooks, criminals and low lifes, that try to act like resposnible leaders, --- used the " bombing family homes" as a from of vitimization to gain sympathy.  They HoAP and Leadership need to stepup to the plate and accept responsibility for their action.
> 
> There is a very serious need to quit being a sissy and hiding behind the skirts of the civilian population (Rule #97).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, so many Israeli talking points. Do you have their book?
Click to expand...


WOW. Just more of your deflections and silly slogans.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


>



"Palestine"....failing for over 7 decades.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an* admission of guilt*. → "OK, but *Palestinians actions are* defensive." → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
Click to expand...


No it is not.

Jihadi or any other cowards,
firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.

Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
you refused to give an answer.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is never an excuse for terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians do not attack outside their own borders and only attack illegal settlers.
> 
> So, where is the terrorism?
Click to expand...


Like when they murder athletes in Munich,
hijack a civilian plane in Sudan, massacre Christians in Lebanon and murder a US senator?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF:     #845                                     
⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:  *Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color _(something that everyone can see)_ - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length.  And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem.  _(495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green)  _But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency?  But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal.  You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.



RoccoR said:


> → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*





P F Tinmore said:


> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.


*(COMMENT)*

NO!  I've heard this before.  And it doesn't work.  In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome.  HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives."  When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target _(against Rule #23 Customary Law)_ - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation _(against Rule #97 Customary Law)_.

It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation.  I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.




rylah said:


> Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.


*(COMMENT)*

This is absolutely correct.  (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.")  Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.




rylah said:


> Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
> you refused to give an answer.


*(COMMENT)*

On the mark.  






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBREF:     #845
> ⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  *Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color _(something that everyone can see)_ - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length.  And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem.  _(495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green)  _But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency?  But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal.  You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> NO!  I've heard this before.  And it doesn't work.  In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome.  HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives."  When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target _(against Rule #23 Customary Law)_ - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation _(against Rule #97 Customary Law)_.
> 
> It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation.  I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely correct.  (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.")  Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
> you refused to give an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.

Your bullshit doesn't add up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBREF:     #845
> ⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  *Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color _(something that everyone can see)_ - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length.  And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem.  _(495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green)  _But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency?  But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal.  You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> NO!  I've heard this before.  And it doesn't work.  In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome.  HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives."  When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target _(against Rule #23 Customary Law)_ - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation _(against Rule #97 Customary Law)_.
> 
> It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation.  I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely correct.  (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.")  Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
> you refused to give an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.
> 
> Your bullshit doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

Fuck off Muslim terrorist apologist.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF:     #845                                     
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  Unfortunately for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), using civilians for cover and concealment is the crime. Such decisions to engage are made by the Israelis.  The decisions are not subject to HoAP oversight.  It does not have to add up to the HoAP, just to the Israelis.  You cannot use civilians as a Human Shield against engagement. _(Rules #23, #24, and #97)_



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.
> 
> Your bullshit doesn't add up.


*(COMMENT)*

When the HoAP intentionally uses civilians as cover and concealment, the general rule revolves around the immediate advantage under two aspects of consideration:

   ◈  The nature, location, purpose or use which makes an effective contribution to military action;​​   ◈  The total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization which in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage;​
Your complaint that civilians were killed or wounded while the hidden location of key or High-Value HoAP Targets in densely populated areas were engaged is clearly an admission that the civilian population was specifically being used as Cover and Concealment - or - otherwise in a Human Shield role.  Air bombardment is legitimate only when directed against a military objective; where it is adjudged at the time → the total or partial destruction, would constitute an obvious military advantage;

Now obviously, bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively against the following objectives: military forces [Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I)], military works, military establishments or depots, manufacturing plants constituting important and well-known centers for the production of arms, ammunition or characterized military supplies, lines of communication or transport which are used for military purposes.  This would include the location of High-Value Targets in the immediate vicinity of the operations.  The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations, and buildings is legitimate, provided there is a reasonable presumption that the objective is important enough to justify the bombardment.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBREF:     #845
> ⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  *Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color _(something that everyone can see)_ - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length.  And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem.  _(495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green)  _But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency?  But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal.  You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> NO!  I've heard this before.  And it doesn't work.  In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome.  HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives."  When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target _(against Rule #23 Customary Law)_ - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation _(against Rule #97 Customary Law)_.
> 
> It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation.  I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely correct.  (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.")  Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
> you refused to give an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.

Your bullshit doesn't add up.


RoccoR said:


> You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.


Indeed, it is a name calling thing against anyone you don't like.

The war on terror is a fascist canard.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBREF:     #845
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:*  Unfortunately for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), using civilians for cover and concealment is the crime. Such decisions to engage are made by the Israelis.  The decisions are not subject to HoAP oversight.  It does not have to add up to the HoAP, just to the Israelis.  You cannot use civilians as a Human Shield against engagement. _(Rules #23, #24, and #97)_
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.
> 
> Your bullshit doesn't add up.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When the HoAP intentionally uses civilians as cover and concealment, the general rule revolves around the immediate advantage under two aspects of consideration:
> 
> ◈  The nature, location, purpose or use which makes an effective contribution to military action;​​   ◈  The total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization which in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage;​
> Your complaint that civilians were killed or wounded while the hidden location of key or High-Value HoAP Targets in densely populated areas were engaged is clearly an admission that the civilian population was specifically being used as Cover and Concealment - or - otherwise in a Human Shield role.  Air bombardment is legitimate only when directed against a military objective; where it is adjudged at the time → the total or partial destruction, would constitute an obvious military advantage;
> 
> Now obviously, bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively against the following objectives: military forces [Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I)], military works, military establishments or depots, manufacturing plants constituting important and well-known centers for the production of arms, ammunition or characterized military supplies, lines of communication or transport which are used for military purposes.  This would include the location of High-Value Targets in the immediate vicinity of the operations.  The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations, and buildings is legitimate, provided there is a reasonable presumption that the objective is important enough to justify the bombardment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations, and buildings is legitimate, provided there is a reasonable presumption that the objective is important enough to justify the bombardment.


Your Israel apologism is going off the deep end.

You are right on script.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBREF:     #845
> ⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  *Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color _(something that everyone can see)_ - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length.  And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem.  _(495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green)  _But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency?  But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal.  You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> NO!  I've heard this before.  And it doesn't work.  In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome.  HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives."  When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target _(against Rule #23 Customary Law)_ - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation _(against Rule #97 Customary Law)_.
> 
> It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation.  I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely correct.  (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.")  Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
> you refused to give an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.
> 
> Your bullshit doesn't add up.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it is a name calling thing against anyone you don't like.
> 
> The war on terror is a fascist canard.
Click to expand...


So when militants use civilian homes for military installation to launch attacks,
who's responsible for the casualties?

*Fascism* is how Jihadi cowards run their places - total oppression of political opposition,
snitching on each other for suspected "collaborators with Jews",
and public executions of gays on main city square.

*Terrorism* is how Jihadi cowards fight their wars - attacking from civilian centers,
hospitals, mosques, and strapping kids in suicide vests to blow up restaurants.

None of that is self defense,
in fact the intention of the Jihadi cowards is the opposite -
to draw as much population into the center of their activity and increase the casualties.

Some pretentiously call that "self defense",
I simply call that - *cowardice*.

Real men fight openly,
instead of hiding under the skirts of their wives,
and crawling in tunnels underground to slash a sleeping baby's throat.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBREF:     #845
> ⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  *Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color _(something that everyone can see)_ - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length.  And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem.  _(495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green)  _But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency?  But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal.  You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> NO!  I've heard this before.  And it doesn't work.  In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome.  HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives."  When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target _(against Rule #23 Customary Law)_ - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation _(against Rule #97 Customary Law)_.
> 
> It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation.  I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely correct.  (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.")  Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
> you refused to give an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.
> 
> Your bullshit doesn't add up.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it is a name calling thing against anyone you don't like.
> 
> The war on terror is a fascist canard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when militants use civilian homes for military installation to launch attacks,
> who's responsible for the casualties?
> 
> *Fascism* is how Jihadi cowards run their places - total oppression of political opposition,
> snitching on each other for suspected "collaborators with Jews",
> and public executions of gays on main city square.
> 
> *Terrorism* is how Jihadi cowards fight their wars - attacking from civilian centers,
> hospitals, mosques, and strapping kids in suicide vests to blow up restaurants.
> 
> None of that is self defense,
> in fact the intention of the Jihadi cowards is the opposite -
> to draw as much population into the center of their activity and increase the casualties.
> 
> Some pretentiously call that "self defense",
> I simply call that - *cowardice*.
> 
> Real men fight openly,
> instead of hiding under the skirts of their wives,
> and crawling in tunnels underground to slash a sleeping baby's throat.
Click to expand...

 You missed the point of my posts.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBREF:     #845
> ⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  *Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color _(something that everyone can see)_ - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length.  And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem.  _(495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green)  _But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency?  But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal.  You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> NO!  I've heard this before.  And it doesn't work.  In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome.  HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives."  When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target _(against Rule #23 Customary Law)_ - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation _(against Rule #97 Customary Law)_.
> 
> It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation.  I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely correct.  (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.")  Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
> you refused to give an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.
> 
> Your bullshit doesn't add up.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it is a name calling thing against anyone you don't like.
> 
> The war on terror is a fascist canard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when militants use civilian homes for military installation to launch attacks,
> who's responsible for the casualties?
> 
> *Fascism* is how Jihadi cowards run their places - total oppression of political opposition,
> snitching on each other for suspected "collaborators with Jews",
> and public executions of gays on main city square.
> 
> *Terrorism* is how Jihadi cowards fight their wars - attacking from civilian centers,
> hospitals, mosques, and strapping kids in suicide vests to blow up restaurants.
> 
> None of that is self defense,
> in fact the intention of the Jihadi cowards is the opposite -
> to draw as much population into the center of their activity and increase the casualties.
> 
> Some pretentiously call that "self defense",
> I simply call that - *cowardice*.
> 
> Real men fight openly,
> instead of hiding under the skirts of their wives,
> and crawling in tunnels underground to slash a sleeping baby's throat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed the point of my posts.
Click to expand...


I addressed them all,
you failed to address any.

Because there're really no just excuses for Jihadi terrorism.
Sociopath racketeers, holding their own people hostage,
just to blame someone else for the casualties.

And that's why you can't address that,
because to kill them is justice, and they carry all the responsibility for the casualties.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBREF:     #845
> ⁜→  rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:  *Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color _(something that everyone can see)_ - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length.  And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem.  _(495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green)  _But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency?  But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal.  You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> → *“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> NO!  I've heard this before.  And it doesn't work.  In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome.  HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives."  When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target _(against Rule #23 Customary Law)_ - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation _(against Rule #97 Customary Law)_.
> 
> It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation.  I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is absolutely correct.  (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.")  Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
> you refused to give an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> On the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.
> 
> Your bullshit doesn't add up.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, it is a name calling thing against anyone you don't like.
> 
> The war on terror is a fascist canard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So when militants use civilian homes for military installation to launch attacks,
> who's responsible for the casualties?
> 
> *Fascism* is how Jihadi cowards run their places - total oppression of political opposition,
> snitching on each other for suspected "collaborators with Jews",
> and public executions of gays on main city square.
> 
> *Terrorism* is how Jihadi cowards fight their wars - attacking from civilian centers,
> hospitals, mosques, and strapping kids in suicide vests to blow up restaurants.
> 
> None of that is self defense,
> in fact the intention of the Jihadi cowards is the opposite -
> to draw as much population into the center of their activity and increase the casualties.
> 
> Some pretentiously call that "self defense",
> I simply call that - *cowardice*.
> 
> Real men fight openly,
> instead of hiding under the skirts of their wives,
> and crawling in tunnels underground to slash a sleeping baby's throat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You missed the point of my posts.
Click to expand...

You missed presenting a cogent argument.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBREF:     #845
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:*  Unfortunately for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), using civilians for cover and concealment is the crime. Such decisions to engage are made by the Israelis.  The decisions are not subject to HoAP oversight.  It does not have to add up to the HoAP, just to the Israelis.  You cannot use civilians as a Human Shield against engagement. _(Rules #23, #24, and #97)_
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.
> 
> Your bullshit doesn't add up.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When the HoAP intentionally uses civilians as cover and concealment, the general rule revolves around the immediate advantage under two aspects of consideration:
> 
> ◈  The nature, location, purpose or use which makes an effective contribution to military action;​​   ◈  The total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization which in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage;​
> Your complaint that civilians were killed or wounded while the hidden location of key or High-Value HoAP Targets in densely populated areas were engaged is clearly an admission that the civilian population was specifically being used as Cover and Concealment - or - otherwise in a Human Shield role.  Air bombardment is legitimate only when directed against a military objective; where it is adjudged at the time → the total or partial destruction, would constitute an obvious military advantage;
> 
> Now obviously, bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively against the following objectives: military forces [Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I)], military works, military establishments or depots, manufacturing plants constituting important and well-known centers for the production of arms, ammunition or characterized military supplies, lines of communication or transport which are used for military purposes.  This would include the location of High-Value Targets in the immediate vicinity of the operations.  The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations, and buildings is legitimate, provided there is a reasonable presumption that the objective is important enough to justify the bombardment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

So this is what you support?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate                                                       ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:*  I sand by my statement in _Posting #864_ supra.



RoccoR said:


> Now obviously, bombardment is legitimate only when directed against the following objectives.





P F Tinmore said:


> So this is what you support?


*(COMMENT)*

This is a mosaic of edits recording strung together to make a compilation.  In this misleading recording, you see parts of a strikes and the local heartbreaking after-action recovery.  What you do not see the reasons for the attacks, the actual targets, or the pre-bombordment warnings.

Having said that, anyone who has been under a rocket attack _(a bombardment)_ knows that there is a lot of chaos and post-combat confusion and → yes, sorrow.

But this propaganda video is an appeal to the emotion of the viewer.  It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate                                                       ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:*  I sand by my statement in _Posting #864_ supra.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now obviously, bombardment is legitimate only when directed against the following objectives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is what you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is a mosaic of edits recording strung together to make a compilation.  In this misleading recording, you see parts of a strikes and the local heartbreaking after-action recovery.  What you do not see the reasons for the attacks, the actual targets, or the pre-bombordment warnings.
> 
> Having said that, anyone who has been under a rocket attack _(a bombardment)_ knows that there is a lot of chaos and post-combat confusion and → yes, sorrow.
> 
> But this propaganda video is an appeal to the emotion of the viewer.  It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.


Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* Yes, this is a sleight of hand used in propaganda manipulation and misinformation.



RoccoR said:


> It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.





P F Tinmore said:


> Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?


*(COMMENT)*

This is one of those sarcastic backhanded remarks that suggest the Jewish People of Israel came from Europe and attacked the Arab Palestinians.  As if some strange amphibious assault took place and crushed the Arab Palestinian people.  

This type of comment is used to misdirect or sidetrack the flow of the discussion from terrorism to misuse of force to now the immigration of Jewish people to the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.  The Arab Palestinians want the readership to think that this territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was the sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine.  (NOT)

For eight centuries before the Great War (WWI), which ended in 1918:

 The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire until the Armistice Convention of 1918.  In 1918 the territory came under the effective control of the Allied Powers and through The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until the conclusion of the San Remo Conference (April 1920) which decided to place the territory under Civil Administration.  In June 1920, the British Government established a Civil Administration over the territory and remained in place until 1946 when Jordan established its Independence; and then later, in 1948, when the British withdrew from the entirety of the territory, west of the Jordan River.  In May 1948, the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government established the State of Israel along the borders outlined in Part II of the Recommendation along the boundaries noted Partition Plan -* Annex A** → *and *Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly**,* dated 29 November 1947.

A conflict immediately broke-out wherein the Arab League Forces rolled-into the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, by force taking control of the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  Still, at this point, the Arabs of Palestine had no sovereign territory.  The cessation of hostilities was secured by means of a series of Armistice Agreements which would remain in force until a more permanent peace arrangement could be executed.  In 1979, the Peace Treaty was established with Egypt and by 1994, a permanent peace was arranged with Jordan.  These two treaties covered the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  In 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all political ties with the West Bank, leaving it in the hands of the State of Israel.  In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

*(∑**Ω**)*

I just have to say that volumes and volumes have clarified this thumbnail clipping of this history. But, the point here is that at NO TIME did the Arabs of Palestine have any sovereign control over any territory until the Oslo Accords established Area "A" (1995) _(full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority)_ and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Yes, this is a sleight of hand used in propaganda manipulation and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is one of those sarcastic backhanded remarks that suggest the Jewish People of Israel came from Europe and attacked the Arab Palestinians.  As if some strange amphibious assault took place and crushed the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> This type of comment is used to misdirect or sidetrack the flow of the discussion from terrorism to misuse of force to now the immigration of Jewish people to the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.  The Arab Palestinians want the readership to think that this territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was the sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine.  (NOT)
> 
> For eight centuries before the Great War (WWI), which ended in 1918:
> 
> The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire until the Armistice Convention of 1918.  In 1918 the territory came under the effective control of the Allied Powers and through The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until the conclusion of the San Remo Conference (April 1920) which decided to place the territory under Civil Administration.  In June 1920, the British Government established a Civil Administration over the territory and remained in place until 1946 when Jordan established its Independence; and then later, in 1948, when the British withdrew from the entirety of the territory, west of the Jordan River.  In May 1948, the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government established the State of Israel along the borders outlined in Part II of the Recommendation along the boundaries noted Partition Plan -* Annex A** → *and *Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly**,* dated 29 November 1947.
> 
> A conflict immediately broke-out wherein the Arab League Forces rolled-into the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, by force taking control of the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  Still, at this point, the Arabs of Palestine had no sovereign territory.  The cessation of hostilities was secured by means of a series of Armistice Agreements which would remain in force until a more permanent peace arrangement could be executed.  In 1979, the Peace Treaty was established with Egypt and by 1994, a permanent peace was arranged with Jordan.  These two treaties covered the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  In 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all political ties with the West Bank, leaving it in the hands of the State of Israel.  In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> *(∑**Ω**)*
> 
> I just have to say that volumes and volumes have clarified this thumbnail clipping of this history. But, the point here is that at NO TIME did the Arabs of Palestine have any sovereign control over any territory until the Oslo Accords established Area "A" (1995) _(full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority)_ and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Short version.

The Zionists are the aggressors.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* Yes, this claim is trying to make the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) look like the victims to arouse sympathy in their favor.



P F Tinmore said:


> Short version.
> 
> The Zionists are the aggressors.


*(COMMENT)*

Although the handwriting was on the wall, the formal decision to encourage immigration was made by the Allied Powers was made at the San Remo Convention (April 1920).  That decision included the Mandate that the British Government, the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. 

​


			
				Allied Powers said:
			
		

> 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.​*SOURCE*:  Article 6 • *Mandate for Palestine* (1922)​​


​
This is NOT the same thing as an Act of Aggression.

​


			
				United Nations said:
			
		

> 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.
> *SOURCE*:  *A/RES/29/3314  Definition of Aggression*  14 December 1974



The fallacy here is that the HoAP is trying to use and apply the late-20th Century Political determinism to critique the Principal Allied Powers on the decisions made in the early-20th Century.  It just does not work.  To critique the Allied Powers of the Great War - or for that matter - the Allied Powers of World War II, you have to apply the Rule of Law that was made workable in those times.

TODAY, the “act of aggression”  means the use of armed force by a  State → against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State. That certainly does not describe the immigration of Jews to Palestine (territory under Mandate)

_*(∑Ω)*_

*IF* you apply the Rule of Law as it was understood by the Allied Power in connection with the actions and decisions made by the Allied Powers, *THEN* you must agree, these world powers were the Titans that determined the Rule of Law.

IF you apply the understanding of an "Act of Aggression" as the Allied Powers understood it to be in the time of both the Great War and World War II, THEN you will begin to understand that the Jewish Immigration neither used an armed force against any sovereignty, - nor - did the Jewish Immigration pose a threat territorial integrity or political independence of any state.   Immigration was encouraged by the Allied Powers, the receivers of the "Rights and Title" to the territory surrendered by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Yes, this claim is trying to make the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) look like the victims to arouse sympathy in their favor.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Short version.
> 
> The Zionists are the aggressors.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Although the handwriting was on the wall, the formal decision to encourage immigration was made by the Allied Powers was made at the San Remo Convention (April 1920).  That decision included the Mandate that the British Government, the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Allied Powers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.​*SOURCE*:  Article 6 • *Mandate for Palestine* (1922)​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> This is NOT the same thing as an Act of Aggression.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> *SOURCE*:  *A/RES/29/3314  Definition of Aggression*  14 December 1974
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> The fallacy here is that the HoAP is trying to use and apply the late-20th Century Political determinism to critique the Principal Allied Powers on the decisions made in the early-20th Century.  It just does not work.  To critique the Allied Powers of the Great War - or for that matter - the Allied Powers of World War II, you have to ally the Rule of Law that was made workable in those times.
> 
> Just before the turn of the Century (1998), now nearly a quarter-Century ago, the theory and concept of the International Criminal Court (ICC) were to insure by  "emphasizing that the International Criminal Court established under Rule of Law shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions." TODAY, the “act of aggression”  means the use of armed force by a  State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity  or political independence of another State.
> 
> _*(∑Ω)*_
> 
> *IF* you apply the Rule of Law as it was understood by the Allied Power in connection with the actions and decisions made by the Allied Powers, *THEN* you must agree, these world powers were the Titans that determined the Rule of Law.
> 
> IF you apply the understanding of an "Act of Aggression" as the Allied Powers understood it to be in the time of both the Great War and World War II, THEN you will begin to understand that the Jewish Immigration neither used an armed force against any sovereignty, - nor - did the Jewish Immigration pose a threat territorial integrity or political independence of any state.   Immigration was encouraged by the Allied Powers, the receivers of the "Rights and Title" to the territory surrendered by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

I know who was in cahoots with the Zionists with the plan to kick out the natives and set up shop.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* Well_*! *_ Don't keep us in suspense_*!*_ 



P F Tinmore said:


> I know who was in cahoots with the Zionists with the plan to kick out the natives and set up shop.


*(QUESTION)*

WHO_*?*_






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Yes, this is a sleight of hand used in propaganda manipulation and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is one of those sarcastic backhanded remarks that suggest the Jewish People of Israel came from Europe and attacked the Arab Palestinians.  As if some strange amphibious assault took place and crushed the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> This type of comment is used to misdirect or sidetrack the flow of the discussion from terrorism to misuse of force to now the immigration of Jewish people to the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.  The Arab Palestinians want the readership to think that this territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was the sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine.  (NOT)
> 
> For eight centuries before the Great War (WWI), which ended in 1918:
> 
> The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire until the Armistice Convention of 1918.  In 1918 the territory came under the effective control of the Allied Powers and through The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until the conclusion of the San Remo Conference (April 1920) which decided to place the territory under Civil Administration.  In June 1920, the British Government established a Civil Administration over the territory and remained in place until 1946 when Jordan established its Independence; and then later, in 1948, when the British withdrew from the entirety of the territory, west of the Jordan River.  In May 1948, the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government established the State of Israel along the borders outlined in Part II of the Recommendation along the boundaries noted Partition Plan -* Annex A** → *and *Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly**,* dated 29 November 1947.
> 
> A conflict immediately broke-out wherein the Arab League Forces rolled-into the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, by force taking control of the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  Still, at this point, the Arabs of Palestine had no sovereign territory.  The cessation of hostilities was secured by means of a series of Armistice Agreements which would remain in force until a more permanent peace arrangement could be executed.  In 1979, the Peace Treaty was established with Egypt and by 1994, a permanent peace was arranged with Jordan.  These two treaties covered the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  In 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all political ties with the West Bank, leaving it in the hands of the State of Israel.  In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> *(∑**Ω**)*
> 
> I just have to say that volumes and volumes have clarified this thumbnail clipping of this history. But, the point here is that at NO TIME did the Arabs of Palestine have any sovereign control over any territory until the Oslo Accords established Area "A" (1995) _(full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority)_ and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Short version.
> 
> The Zionists are the aggressors.
Click to expand...

Another bit of falsehood / misinformation you are completely comfortable  spewing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Yes, this is a sleight of hand used in propaganda manipulation and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is one of those sarcastic backhanded remarks that suggest the Jewish People of Israel came from Europe and attacked the Arab Palestinians.  As if some strange amphibious assault took place and crushed the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> This type of comment is used to misdirect or sidetrack the flow of the discussion from terrorism to misuse of force to now the immigration of Jewish people to the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.  The Arab Palestinians want the readership to think that this territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was the sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine.  (NOT)
> 
> For eight centuries before the Great War (WWI), which ended in 1918:
> 
> The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire until the Armistice Convention of 1918.  In 1918 the territory came under the effective control of the Allied Powers and through The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until the conclusion of the San Remo Conference (April 1920) which decided to place the territory under Civil Administration.  In June 1920, the British Government established a Civil Administration over the territory and remained in place until 1946 when Jordan established its Independence; and then later, in 1948, when the British withdrew from the entirety of the territory, west of the Jordan River.  In May 1948, the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government established the State of Israel along the borders outlined in Part II of the Recommendation along the boundaries noted Partition Plan -* Annex A** → *and *Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly**,* dated 29 November 1947.
> 
> A conflict immediately broke-out wherein the Arab League Forces rolled-into the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, by force taking control of the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  Still, at this point, the Arabs of Palestine had no sovereign territory.  The cessation of hostilities was secured by means of a series of Armistice Agreements which would remain in force until a more permanent peace arrangement could be executed.  In 1979, the Peace Treaty was established with Egypt and by 1994, a permanent peace was arranged with Jordan.  These two treaties covered the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  In 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all political ties with the West Bank, leaving it in the hands of the State of Israel.  In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> *(∑**Ω**)*
> 
> I just have to say that volumes and volumes have clarified this thumbnail clipping of this history. But, the point here is that at NO TIME did the Arabs of Palestine have any sovereign control over any territory until the Oslo Accords established Area "A" (1995) _(full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority)_ and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Short version.
> 
> The Zionists are the aggressors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another bit of falsehood / misinformation you are completely comfortable  spewing.
Click to expand...

Any proof of that?

Of course not.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF:* This is another enlightened response from the pro-Palestinian Camp trying to reinforce the idea behind the analogy of → "going to Europe to attack the Zionists" has some merit. That the inverse → "Jews going to Palestine and attacking Arabs" is somehow true.



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> Short version.
> The Zionists are the aggressors.





Hollie said:


> Another bit of falsehood/misinformation you are completely comfortable spewing.





P F Tinmore said:


> Any proof of that?
> Of course not.


*(COMMENT)*

The idea here is for the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to promote the concept that armed Jewish immigrants, made some sort of amphibious assualt and storming the beaches against the habitual residents of the territory, in a bid for territorial capture and control, sometime after the the Armistice of Mudros 1918.  *THEN*, asking for proof that this alternate reality did not occur. 



			
				BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1 said:
			
		

> *EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:* At the hundredth anniversary of the *Battle of Tel Hai* (which occurred on March 1, 1920), it is instructive to recall the heated debate that preceded it among the Yishuv leadership concerning the question of abandoning the site. This debate sheds light on the decline of the Zionist left in general and the results of the latest Israeli elections in particular. *
> SOURCE:  *The 100th Anniversary of the Battle of Tel Hai… and the Election Results



The fact is that the Jewish immigrants were encouraged _(by agreement in 1920 and authorized by Mandate in 1922)_ to come and establish a Jewish National Home, by the title holders to the territory.  The territory _(at that time)_ was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Yes, this claim is trying to make the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) look like the victims to arouse sympathy in their favor.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Short version.
> 
> The Zionists are the aggressors.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Although the handwriting was on the wall, the formal decision to encourage immigration was made by the Allied Powers was made at the San Remo Convention (April 1920).  That decision included the Mandate that the British Government, the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Allied Powers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.​*SOURCE*:  Article 6 • *Mandate for Palestine* (1922)​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> This is NOT the same thing as an Act of Aggression.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> *SOURCE*:  *A/RES/29/3314  Definition of Aggression*  14 December 1974
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> The fallacy here is that the HoAP is trying to use and apply the late-20th Century Political determinism to critique the Principal Allied Powers on the decisions made in the early-20th Century.  It just does not work.  To critique the Allied Powers of the Great War - or for that matter - the Allied Powers of World War II, you have to ally the Rule of Law that was made workable in those times.
> 
> Just before the turn of the Century (1998), now nearly a quarter-Century ago, the theory and concept of the International Criminal Court (ICC) were to insure by  "emphasizing that the International Criminal Court established under Rule of Law shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions." TODAY, the “act of aggression”  means the use of armed force by a  State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity  or political independence of another State.
> 
> _*(∑Ω)*_
> 
> *IF* you apply the Rule of Law as it was understood by the Allied Power in connection with the actions and decisions made by the Allied Powers, *THEN* you must agree, these world powers were the Titans that determined the Rule of Law.
> 
> IF you apply the understanding of an "Act of Aggression" as the Allied Powers understood it to be in the time of both the Great War and World War II, THEN you will begin to understand that the Jewish Immigration neither used an armed force against any sovereignty, - nor - did the Jewish Immigration pose a threat territorial integrity or political independence of any state.   Immigration was encouraged by the Allied Powers, the receivers of the "Rights and Title" to the territory surrendered by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know who was in cahoots with the Zionists with the plan to kick out the natives and set up shop.
Click to expand...

You have a conspiracy theory?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Yes, this is a sleight of hand used in propaganda manipulation and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is one of those sarcastic backhanded remarks that suggest the Jewish People of Israel came from Europe and attacked the Arab Palestinians.  As if some strange amphibious assault took place and crushed the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> This type of comment is used to misdirect or sidetrack the flow of the discussion from terrorism to misuse of force to now the immigration of Jewish people to the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.  The Arab Palestinians want the readership to think that this territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was the sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine.  (NOT)
> 
> For eight centuries before the Great War (WWI), which ended in 1918:
> 
> The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire until the Armistice Convention of 1918.  In 1918 the territory came under the effective control of the Allied Powers and through The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until the conclusion of the San Remo Conference (April 1920) which decided to place the territory under Civil Administration.  In June 1920, the British Government established a Civil Administration over the territory and remained in place until 1946 when Jordan established its Independence; and then later, in 1948, when the British withdrew from the entirety of the territory, west of the Jordan River.  In May 1948, the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government established the State of Israel along the borders outlined in Part II of the Recommendation along the boundaries noted Partition Plan -* Annex A** → *and *Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly**,* dated 29 November 1947.
> 
> A conflict immediately broke-out wherein the Arab League Forces rolled-into the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, by force taking control of the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  Still, at this point, the Arabs of Palestine had no sovereign territory.  The cessation of hostilities was secured by means of a series of Armistice Agreements which would remain in force until a more permanent peace arrangement could be executed.  In 1979, the Peace Treaty was established with Egypt and by 1994, a permanent peace was arranged with Jordan.  These two treaties covered the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  In 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all political ties with the West Bank, leaving it in the hands of the State of Israel.  In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> *(∑**Ω**)*
> 
> I just have to say that volumes and volumes have clarified this thumbnail clipping of this history. But, the point here is that at NO TIME did the Arabs of Palestine have any sovereign control over any territory until the Oslo Accords established Area "A" (1995) _(full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority)_ and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Short version.
> 
> The Zionists are the aggressors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another bit of falsehood / misinformation you are completely comfortable  spewing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any proof of that?
> 
> Of course not.
Click to expand...

You supply ample proof of your conspiracy theories.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The territory _(at that time)_ was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.


Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The idea here is for the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to promote the concept that armed Jewish immigrants, made some sort of amphibious assualt and storming the beaches against the habitual residents of the territory, in a bid for territorial capture and control, sometime after the the Armistice of Mudros 1918. *THEN*, asking for proof that this alternate reality did not occur.


The truth is that the Zionists invaded under the cover of the British military.

Here was born the struggle over the maintenance of the land, with each node of settlement contributing to the control of the spatial expanse and ultimately the setting of the border. 









						The 100th Anniversary of the Battle of Tel Hai… and the Election Results
					

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,470, March 5, 2020EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Tel Hai (which occurred on March 1, 1920), it is instructive to recall the h




					besacenter.org
				



Thanks for the link. Of course this preceded the Mandate period.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory _(at that time)_ was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
Click to expand...

You literally spam thread after thread with this nonsense as this has been addressed multiple times for you, even in this thread.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea here is for the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to promote the concept that armed Jewish immigrants, made some sort of amphibious assualt and storming the beaches against the habitual residents of the territory, in a bid for territorial capture and control, sometime after the the Armistice of Mudros 1918. *THEN*, asking for proof that this alternate reality did not occur.
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that the Zionists invaded under the cover of the British military.
> 
> Here was born the struggle over the maintenance of the land, with each node of settlement contributing to the control of the spatial expanse and ultimately the setting of the border.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 100th Anniversary of the Battle of Tel Hai… and the Election Results
> 
> 
> BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,470, March 5, 2020EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Tel Hai (which occurred on March 1, 1920), it is instructive to recall the h
> 
> 
> 
> 
> besacenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link. Of course this preceded the Mandate period.
Click to expand...


Not true. There was no invasion. Identify the ‘invasion” you’re rattling on about.

link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate  
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  You simply do not know what you are talking about.



RoccoR said:


> The territory _(at that time)_ was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.





P F Tinmore said:


> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.


*(COMMENT)*

I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred."  What needs to be transferred?


			
				Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne 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.



Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920:   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.


			
				General Provisions • Article 132 Treaty of Sevres said:
			
		

> 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.



This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd.  The Allied Powers decides and it was done.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF:* Yes, this is a sleight of hand used in propaganda manipulation and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is one of those sarcastic backhanded remarks that suggest the Jewish People of Israel came from Europe and attacked the Arab Palestinians.  As if some strange amphibious assault took place and crushed the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> This type of comment is used to misdirect or sidetrack the flow of the discussion from terrorism to misuse of force to now the immigration of Jewish people to the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.  The Arab Palestinians want the readership to think that this territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was the sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine.  (NOT)
> 
> For eight centuries before the Great War (WWI), which ended in 1918:
> 
> The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire until the Armistice Convention of 1918.  In 1918 the territory came under the effective control of the Allied Powers and through The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until the conclusion of the San Remo Conference (April 1920) which decided to place the territory under Civil Administration.  In June 1920, the British Government established a Civil Administration over the territory and remained in place until 1946 when Jordan established its Independence; and then later, in 1948, when the British withdrew from the entirety of the territory, west of the Jordan River.  In May 1948, the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government established the State of Israel along the borders outlined in Part II of the Recommendation along the boundaries noted Partition Plan -* Annex A** → *and *Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly**,* dated 29 November 1947.
> 
> A conflict immediately broke-out wherein the Arab League Forces rolled-into the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, by force taking control of the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  Still, at this point, the Arabs of Palestine had no sovereign territory.  The cessation of hostilities was secured by means of a series of Armistice Agreements which would remain in force until a more permanent peace arrangement could be executed.  In 1979, the Peace Treaty was established with Egypt and by 1994, a permanent peace was arranged with Jordan.  These two treaties covered the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.  In 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all political ties with the West Bank, leaving it in the hands of the State of Israel.  In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
> 
> *(∑**Ω**)*
> 
> I just have to say that volumes and volumes have clarified this thumbnail clipping of this history. But, the point here is that at NO TIME did the Arabs of Palestine have any sovereign control over any territory until the Oslo Accords established Area "A" (1995) _(full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority)_ and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Short version.
> 
> The Zionists are the aggressors.
Click to expand...


Arab agression predates Zionism.

So how can Zionists be the agressors
when they organized in response to Arab pogroms?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  You simply do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory _(at that time)_ was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred."  What needs to be transferred?
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne 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...
> 
> ​
> Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920:   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.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> General Provisions • Article 132 Treaty of Sevres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd.  The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.


Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  You simply do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory _(at that time)_ was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred."  What needs to be transferred?
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne 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...
> 
> ​
> Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920:   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.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> General Provisions • Article 132 Treaty of Sevres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd.  The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
Click to expand...


By that time the territory was already designated for the Jewish nation,
with the San Remo treaty - 2 years prior to that.

Try something new.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  You simply do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory _(at that time)_ was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred."  What needs to be transferred?
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne 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...
> 
> ​
> Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920:   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.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> General Provisions • Article 132 Treaty of Sevres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd.  The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By that time the territory was already designated for the Jewish nation,
> with the San Remo treaty - 2 years prior to that.
> 
> Try something less obvious.
Click to expand...

San Remo was not a land treaty.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  You simply do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory _(at that time)_ was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred."  What needs to be transferred?
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne 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...
> 
> ​
> Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920:   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.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> General Provisions • Article 132 Treaty of Sevres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd.  The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By that time the territory was already designated for the Jewish nation,
> with the San Remo treaty - 2 years prior to that.
> 
> Try something less obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> San Remo was not a land treaty.
Click to expand...


Did it have to be?
And if you claim the treaty of Lausanne is a land treaty,
then it's the extention of the San Remo Resolution.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  You simply do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory _(at that time)_ was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred."  What needs to be transferred?
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne 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...
> 
> ​
> Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920:   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.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> General Provisions • Article 132 Treaty of Sevres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd.  The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
Click to expand...


What states?  You consistently run away from addressing this. 


Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  Again:  You simply do not know what you are talking about.



RoccoR said:


> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.





P F Tinmore said:


> Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.


*(COMMENT)*

Article 30 is about the assignment of Nationality.  And that is the name of the section.

That was fulfilled several times.  Today, the subject of Nationality and Refugees is covered by the convention.  It need not be mentioned in treaties anymore.

The people of the West Bank were Ottoman Citizens, then received citizenship by Mandate Administration, then Jordanian citizenship, and now fuzzy Palestinian citizenship.

Finally, the Treaty makes no mention of Palestine as a state.  It was covered under Syria.  The Allied Powers _(specifically France and Great Britain)_ agreed on the partitioning of Syrian territory. _(We've covered this before. __ See Posting #647__)_

​
Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become.  Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.


*Bingo!*

The territory became Palestine. The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine. Not the citizens of the Mandate. Not the citizens of Britain.

Citizenship is the relation between the people and the state.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The territory became Palestine.



And then it became Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  You simply do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory _(at that time)_ was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred."  What needs to be transferred?
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne 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...
> 
> ​
> Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920:   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.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> General Provisions • Article 132 Treaty of Sevres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd.  The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By that time the territory was already designated for the Jewish nation,
> with the San Remo treaty - 2 years prior to that.
> 
> Try something less obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> San Remo was not a land treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it have to be?
> And if you claim the treaty of Lausanne is a land treaty,
> then it's the extention of the San Remo Resolution.
Click to expand...

The Treaty of Lausanne was a land treaty. San Remo was not.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory became Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then it became Israel.
Click to expand...

By what treaty?

Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory became Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then it became Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what treaty?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


Treaty? Why would Israel need a treaty?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory became Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then it became Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what treaty?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treaty? Why would Israel need a treaty?
Click to expand...

That is the only way to legally transfer territory.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  You simply do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory _(at that time)_ was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred."  What needs to be transferred?
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne 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...
> 
> ​
> Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920:   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.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> General Provisions • Article 132 Treaty of Sevres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd.  The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By that time the territory was already designated for the Jewish nation,
> with the San Remo treaty - 2 years prior to that.
> 
> Try something less obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> San Remo was not a land treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it have to be?
> And if you claim the treaty of Lausanne is a land treaty,
> then it's the extention of the San Remo Resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was a land treaty. San Remo was not.
Click to expand...

The Treaty of Lausanne never created your invented ''country of Pal'istan''.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> The territory became Palestine. The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine. Not the citizens of the Mandate. Not the citizens of Britain.
> 
> Citizenship is the relation between the people and the state.
Click to expand...

No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory became Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then it became Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what treaty?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treaty? Why would Israel need a treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the only way to legally transfer territory.
Click to expand...


Transfer from where?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> The territory became Palestine. The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine. Not the citizens of the Mandate. Not the citizens of Britain.
> 
> Citizenship is the relation between the people and the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.
Click to expand...

Link?

Of course not. You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory became Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then it became Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what treaty?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treaty? Why would Israel need a treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the only way to legally transfer territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Transfer from where?
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> The territory became Palestine. The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine. Not the citizens of the Mandate. Not the citizens of Britain.
> 
> Citizenship is the relation between the people and the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Of course not. You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
Click to expand...

I see you're angry and emotive but insisting others prove something didn't happen is rather pointless. 

So let's play the _Tinmore_ _Shuffle_, shall we?

Yes. I have a link. Prove I don't. 


So, it is really quite simple and something that has been gone over for you in excruciating detail. Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne is your imagined ''state of Pally'land'' identified. Nowhere in that Treaty is there any reference to, mention of or even allusion to the Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan. 

I'm afraid your wants and needs don't supercede reality.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: You almost got this right (oh, so close).



RoccoR said:


> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.





P F Tinmore said:


> *Bingo!*
> 
> The territory became Palestine. The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine. Not the citizens of the Mandate. Not the citizens of Britain.
> 
> Citizenship is the relation between the people and the state.


*(COMMENT)*

OK → Keeping things simple.  I make the following critique:
*₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪*
✦  In many places in the world, there is a distinction between nationality (_le’om_) and citizenship (_ezrahut_).  In the case of Article 30, the Treaty speaks exclusively about "nationality" and NOT citizenship.  This informational site called *KEY DIFFERENCES* has a great explanation on the difference between "citizenship" and "nationality."  The point is that → they are NOT the same thing; and here you have mixed them up.  _("Citizenship" is not addressed anywhere in the Treaty of Lausanne.)_

✦  When the issues of Nationality and Citizenship were being discussed in the 1920s, "Palestine" was defined by the *Palestine Order in Council*:
​
The Territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied = *Palestine* = the British Civil Administration = Government of Palestine
The Territories to which the Mandate for Palestine is the formal definition for the short title.​
"Palestine" was the "short title" to the Territories to which the* Mandate for Palestine* applied. This was the Civil Administration the British establishment as the "Government of Palestine." The point is that → you have mixed them up. We are talking about the "Legal Entity" of Palestine and NOT the State of Palestine.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> The territory became Palestine. The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine. Not the citizens of the Mandate. Not the citizens of Britain.
> 
> Citizenship is the relation between the people and the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Of course not. You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're angry and emotive but insisting others prove something didn't happen is rather pointless.
> 
> So let's play the _Tinmore_ _Shuffle_, shall we?
> 
> Yes. I have a link. Prove I don't.
> 
> 
> So, it is really quite simple and something that has been gone over for you in excruciating detail. Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne is your imagined ''state of Pally'land'' identified. Nowhere in that Treaty is there any reference to, mention of or even allusion to the Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan.
> 
> I'm afraid your wants and needs don't supercede reality.
Click to expand...

If you can't prove what you say it is bullshit.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You almost got this right (oh, so close).
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> The territory became Palestine. The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine. Not the citizens of the Mandate. Not the citizens of Britain.
> 
> Citizenship is the relation between the people and the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> OK → Keeping things simple.  I make the following critique:
> *₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪*
> ✦  In many places in the world, there is a distinction between nationality (_le’om_) and citizenship (_ezrahut_).  In the case of Article 30, the Treaty speaks exclusively about "nationality" and NOT citizenship.  This informational site called *KEY DIFFERENCES* has a great explanation on the difference between "citizenship" and "nationality."  The point is that → they are NOT the same thing; and here you have mixed them up.  _("Citizenship" is not addressed anywhere in the Treaty of Lausanne.)_
> 
> ✦  When the issues of Nationality and Citizenship were being discussed in the 1920s, "Palestine" was defined by the *Palestine Order in Council*:
> 
> 
> 
> The Territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied = *Palestine* = the British Civil Administration = Government of Palestine
> The Territories to which the Mandate for Palestine is the formal definition for the short title.​
> "Palestine" was the "short title" to the Territories to which the* Mandate for Palestine* applied. This was the Civil Administration the British establishment as the "Government of Palestine." The point is that → you have mixed them up. We are talking about the "Legal Entity" of Palestine and NOT the State of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.


*HUH?*

The Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and Palestinian citizenship. It goes with the territory which is Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: I think you have a misunderstanding.
​

			
				Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties said:
			
		

> (a) “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; ​SOURCE:  Vienna Convention on Treaty Law​​


​


P F Tinmore said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne was a land treaty. San Remo was not. San Remo was not a land treaty.


*(COMMENT)*

The San Remo Convention is a type of Treaty between certain members of the Allied Powers.  There is no such thing as a "Land Treaty."



P F Tinmore said:


> The territory became Palestine.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> And then it became Israel.





P F Tinmore said:


> By what treaty?
> Link?


*(COMMENT)*

The process was the "Right of Self-Determination."

The Treaty (of sorts) was Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States December 26, 1933; "The  political  existence  of  the  state  is  independent  of  recognition  by  the  other  states."    





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Treaty (of sorts) was Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States December 26, 1933; "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."


Indeed!





__





						United Nations Maintenance Page
					






					unispal.un.org


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> The territory became Palestine. The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine. Not the citizens of the Mandate. Not the citizens of Britain.
> 
> Citizenship is the relation between the people and the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Of course not. You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're angry and emotive but insisting others prove something didn't happen is rather pointless.
> 
> So let's play the _Tinmore_ _Shuffle_, shall we?
> 
> Yes. I have a link. Prove I don't.
> 
> 
> So, it is really quite simple and something that has been gone over for you in excruciating detail. Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne is your imagined ''state of Pally'land'' identified. Nowhere in that Treaty is there any reference to, mention of or even allusion to the Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan.
> 
> I'm afraid your wants and needs don't supercede reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't prove what you say it is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Indeed!

That's a valid point.

So then, provide the *exact* citation within the Treaty of Lausanne where a 'country of Pally'land' is described, identified or designated.

Thanks.

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The process was the "Right of Self-Determination."


The "Right of Self-Determination." applies to people inside their own territory. It does not change territory.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty (of sorts) was Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States December 26, 1933; "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations Maintenance Page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
Click to expand...

Indeed!

A 'progress report'

What 'country' is owned by the Arabs-Moslems?

Link?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Again → (oh, so close).



RoccoR said:


> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.





P F Tinmore said:


> *HUH?*
> 
> The Palestinians have Palestinian nationality and Palestinian citizenship. It goes with the territory which is Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

The Citizenship confered by the Palestine Citizenship Order desolved along with the authority for the Order when the Mandate Terminated.  The territory formerly subject to the Mandate for Palestine (Less Israel and less Jordan and less the Gaza Strip) was Annexed by Jordan and the the people became citizens of Jordan.

Citizenship is issued by the State Authority.  And the State Authority can change.  However, your place of birth (establishing Nationality) will never change.  Your Nationality will always be whatever it was at the time you were born.  See →  Difference Between Nationality and Citizenship (with Comparison Chart) You cannot be a national of more than one country one country. But you can have daul-citizenship or more, depending on the individual country's law.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The process was the "Right of Self-Determination."
> 
> 
> 
> The "Right of Self-Determination." applies to people inside their own territory. It does not change territory.
Click to expand...

Indeed!

What 'country'?

Your unilateral invention of a 'country of Pal'istan' is a rather weak argument for the enabling of the 'country of Pal'istan'.

 indeed! 

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> The territory became Palestine. The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine. Not the citizens of the Mandate. Not the citizens of Britain.
> 
> Citizenship is the relation between the people and the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Of course not. You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're angry and emotive but insisting others prove something didn't happen is rather pointless.
> 
> So let's play the _Tinmore_ _Shuffle_, shall we?
> 
> Yes. I have a link. Prove I don't.
> 
> 
> So, it is really quite simple and something that has been gone over for you in excruciating detail. Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne is your imagined ''state of Pally'land'' identified. Nowhere in that Treaty is there any reference to, mention of or even allusion to the Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan.
> 
> I'm afraid your wants and needs don't supercede reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't prove what you say it is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> That's a valid point.
> 
> So then, provide the *exact* citation within the Treaty of Lausanne where a 'country of Pally'land' is described, identified or designated.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

WOW, are you confused!

You need to keep up.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Again, you get quarter credit. You spelled your name right.



RoccoR said:


> The Treaty (of sorts) was Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States December 26, 1933; "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."





P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations Maintenance Page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org


*(COMMENT)*

I suppose the All Palestine Government (APG) could have claimed the Gaza Strip as their country, but nothing more.  But the remainder of the territory was under some other control.  So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.

And I suppose that even a claim on the Gaza Strip can be argued since the APG was subordinate to the Egyptian Military Governor even prior to the bogus announcement of the provisional government.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Citizenship confered by the Palestine Citizenship Order desolved along with the authority for the Order when the Mandate Terminated.


Who said that?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Again, you get quarter credit. You spelled your name right.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty (of sorts) was Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States December 26, 1933; "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations Maintenance Page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I suppose the All Palestine Government (APG) could have claimed the Gaza Strip as their country, but nothing more.  But the remainder of the territory was under some other control.  So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.
> 
> And I suppose that even a claim on the Gaza Strip can be argued since the APG was subordinate to the Egyptian Military Governor even prior to the bogus announcement of the provisional government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> But the remainder of the territory was under some other control. So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.


Not really. The Palestinians claimed territory inside their own international borders. Those borders remained unchanged after the 1948 war. Palestine was under occupation but that does not change borders or sovereignty.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> The territory became Palestine. The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine. Not the citizens of the Mandate. Not the citizens of Britain.
> 
> Citizenship is the relation between the people and the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Of course not. You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're angry and emotive but insisting others prove something didn't happen is rather pointless.
> 
> So let's play the _Tinmore_ _Shuffle_, shall we?
> 
> Yes. I have a link. Prove I don't.
> 
> 
> So, it is really quite simple and something that has been gone over for you in excruciating detail. Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne is your imagined ''state of Pally'land'' identified. Nowhere in that Treaty is there any reference to, mention of or even allusion to the Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan.
> 
> I'm afraid your wants and needs don't supercede reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't prove what you say it is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> That's a valid point.
> 
> So then. With no citation within the Treaty of Lausanne where a 'country of Pally'land' is described, identified or designated, no one has any reason to accept such a 'country' was ever invented by that Treaty.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, are you confused!
> 
> You need to keep up.
Click to expand...

Indeed. You chose not to make any attempt to support your claims.

provide the *exact* citation within the Treaty of Lausanne where a 'country of Pally'land' is described, identified or designated.


P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 30 just says that the Nationality goes with the territory, whatever the territory may become. Hense the Palestine Citizenship Order.
> 
> 
> 
> *Bingo!*
> 
> The territory became Palestine. The Palestinians became citizens of Palestine. Not the citizens of the Mandate. Not the citizens of Britain.
> 
> Citizenship is the relation between the people and the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The Arabs-Moslems never became citizens of your invented "Pal'istan''.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Of course not. You are just blowing smoke out of your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're angry and emotive but insisting others prove something didn't happen is rather pointless.
> 
> So let's play the _Tinmore_ _Shuffle_, shall we?
> 
> Yes. I have a link. Prove I don't.
> 
> 
> So, it is really quite simple and something that has been gone over for you in excruciating detail. Nowhere in the Treaty of Lausanne is your imagined ''state of Pally'land'' identified. Nowhere in that Treaty is there any reference to, mention of or even allusion to the Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan.
> 
> I'm afraid your wants and needs don't supercede reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can't prove what you say it is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> That's a valid point.
> 
> So then, provide the *exact* citation within the Treaty of Lausanne where a 'country of Pally'land' is described, identified or designated.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, are you confused!
> 
> You need to keep up.
Click to expand...

So then. With no citation within the Treaty of Lausanne where a 'country of Pally'land' is described, identified or designated, no one has any reason to accept such a 'country' was ever invented by that Treaty.

In terms of confusion and keeping up, what am I confused or not keeping up with?

Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Again, you get quarter credit. You spelled your name right.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty (of sorts) was Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States December 26, 1933; "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations Maintenance Page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I suppose the All Palestine Government (APG) could have claimed the Gaza Strip as their country, but nothing more.  But the remainder of the territory was under some other control.  So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.
> 
> And I suppose that even a claim on the Gaza Strip can be argued since the APG was subordinate to the Egyptian Military Governor even prior to the bogus announcement of the provisional government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the remainder of the territory was under some other control. So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. The Palestinians claimed territory inside their own international borders. Those borders remained unchanged after the 1948 war. Palestine was under occupation but that does not change borders or sovereignty.
Click to expand...


Indeed, the Arabs-Moslems you claim are Pal'istanians in your invented 'country of Pal'istan' never exercised sovereignty over any land area.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Again, you get quarter credit. You spelled your name right.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Treaty (of sorts) was Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States December 26, 1933; "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations Maintenance Page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I suppose the All Palestine Government (APG) could have claimed the Gaza Strip as their country, but nothing more.  But the remainder of the territory was under some other control.  So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.
> 
> And I suppose that even a claim on the Gaza Strip can be argued since the APG was subordinate to the Egyptian Military Governor even prior to the bogus announcement of the provisional government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the remainder of the territory was under some other control. So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really. The Palestinians claimed territory inside their own international borders. Those borders remained unchanged after the 1948 war. Palestine was under occupation but that does not change borders or sovereignty.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Please elaborate on your statement ''The Palestinians claimed territory inside their own international borders.''

What territory was claimed? 

Why would the Pals need to 'claim territory' inside their own international borders if those borders already defined your invented 'country of Pal'istan'?

I sense that your argument is ill-defined. If, as you assert, the Treaty of Lausanne created the 'country of Pal'istan', what claiming of land was required?

Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory became Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then it became Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what treaty?
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treaty? Why would Israel need a treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the only way to legally transfer territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Transfer from where?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Don't run away....post a video!!!!


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  You simply do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The territory _(at that time)_ was under the League of Nations Mandate with the Rights and Title surrendered by Treaty into the hands of the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The territories were transferred to the new states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I simply do not know what requirement that needs "Transferred."  What needs to be transferred?
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 Treaty of Lausanne 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...
> 
> ​
> Pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920:   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.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> General Provisions • Article 132 Treaty of Sevres said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd.  The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> This insistence that some requirement existed for a "transfer" overrides the Treaty is absurd. The Allied Powers decides and it was done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing overrides the treaty. The territories were designed to be new states. The allied powers decided not to annex the territories. The territories needed to be transferred away from Turkey to the new states. This transfer was referenced in Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By that time the territory was already designated for the Jewish nation,
> with the San Remo treaty - 2 years prior to that.
> 
> Try something less obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> San Remo was not a land treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it have to be?
> And if you claim the treaty of Lausanne is a land treaty,
> then it's the extention of the San Remo Resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne was a land treaty. San Remo was not.
Click to expand...

Does it have to?

The Treaty of Lausanne, if you want to call it a 'land treaty', was in relation to terriroty,
allocated for the re-consittution of the Jewish nation, in the San Remo Resolution.


----------



## rylah

*Whose Land Episode 5 - The San Remo Resolution*

Episode 5 considers the San Remo Resolution.  Legal rights were granted to both the Jewish people and the Arab people at the San Remo Conference in April 1920.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> *Whose Land Episode 5 - The San Remo Resolution*
> 
> Episode 5 considers the San Remo Resolution.  Legal rights were granted to both the Jewish people and the Arab people at the San Remo Conference in April 1920.


Where in San Remo does it mention Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive Jewish rights.

Quote the Passages.


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: You know of course, this question is asking for something that does not exist. You are asking a political question and not that actual ground truth. In the San Remo Agreement (1920) the name "Israel" was not yet used.



P F Tinmore said:


> Where in San Remo does it mention Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive Jewish rights.
> 
> Quote the Passages.


*(COMMENT)*

The San Remo Agreement refers to the Balfour Agreement and begins calling the entity as the “national home for the Jewish people” (AKA: The Jewish National Home) later to be called the Jewish State by the UN Special Committee for Palestine, and later Israel in the Announced establishment of the new state.

What I don't get here is the underlying dispute you are trying to champion. 
◈  What (specifically) does the name have to do with anything?  (It could be called Mars, and it would not adversely change the political outcome.)​•  The territory would be partitioned (“within such boundaries, as may be fixed by the Mandatory”).​•  With the uncooperative Arab Palestinians, they would still be a non-self-governing institution.​◈  What is changed by the name?​
State your objection clearly.
 




Most Respectfully,
R
​l


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Whose Land Episode 5 - The San Remo Resolution*
> 
> Episode 5 considers the San Remo Resolution.  Legal rights were granted to both the Jewish people and the Arab people at the San Remo Conference in April 1920.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in San Remo does it mention Israel, Jewish state, or exclusive Jewish rights.
> 
> Quote the Passages.
Click to expand...


_"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 8, 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."_





__





						San Remo Conference Resolution - Retyped Text - English (1920)
					

San Remo Conference Resolution - Retyped Text - English (1920). San Remo Conference (1920), "San Remo Conference Resolution", UNISPAL, available at http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/DB662E3B80797A9685257A130073F02E, retrieved 21/06/2014.




					ecf.org.il
				




Israel = Jewish people.
Jewish state = national home, following recognition of Israel's historic to re-constitution. 
Exclusive Jewish rights = national rights mentioned exclusively in reference to Jewish people.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



How is Arab settler colonialism 
better than American settler collonialism?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> What I don't get here is the underlying dispute you are trying to champion.
> ◈ What (specifically) does the name have to do with anything? (It could be called Mars, and it would not adversely change the political outcome.)


Israeli shills claim that there is no Palestine because it was not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne

So why the double standard?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't get here is the underlying dispute you are trying to champion.
> ◈ What (specifically) does the name have to do with anything? (It could be called Mars, and it would not adversely change the political outcome.)
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli shills claim that there is no Palestine because it was not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne
> 
> So why the double standard?
Click to expand...


I claim there is no Palestine.....because there is no Palestine.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't get here is the underlying dispute you are trying to champion.
> ◈ What (specifically) does the name have to do with anything? (It could be called Mars, and it would not adversely change the political outcome.)
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli shills claim that there is no Palestine because it was not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne
> 
> So why the double standard?
Click to expand...

You realize of course that your statement is false and misleading. Obviously you do but you don’t care about honesty and integrity.  

It is you who insists that something you call the “country of Pal’istan” was created by the Treaty of Lausanne. As the Treaty in no way invents any such country, it is not unfair to characterize your comment as false and misleading.

This has been addressed for you countless times yet you continue to press an obvious falsehood.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: You ask a question that has contested answers. But at the end of the day, the Arab Palestinians have to live with their choices. There is no "double standard."

*BTW*: I don't understand what the meaning of "Israeli Shills."



RoccoR said:


> What I don't get here is the underlying dispute you are trying to champion.
> ◈ What (specifically) does the name have to do with anything? (It could be called Mars, and it would not adversely change the political outcome.)





P F Tinmore said:


> Israeli shills claim that there is no Palestine because it was not mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne
> 
> So why the double standard?


*(COMMENT)*

The Treaty does not mention either the State of Palestine or the State of Isreal.  Why? *(RHETORICAL)* Because at that time - neither "State" had a specific territorial partition yet. "Palestine" was a name chosen by the Allied Powers, but with no exact borders defined, to be the territory under the administration of a Mandate. The Borders were (except for the Franco-British Convention Boundary 1920.), at the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, to be determined. 

Israel established its border demarcations in 1948 by actual ground markers and by means of a map as recommended by the UNSCOP (Annex A • A/RES/181 II).  

The Allied Arab Contingent and Arab Nationalists established a separate government East of the Jordan River to the border of Iraq.  This government was still part of the Mandate for Palestine but untangled from most of the Mandate requirements.  The separate government was considered an Emirate in the name of the Emir (later King) Abdullah.

◈  The Arab Palestinians rejected the partition known by the Recommendation as the "Arab State."​​◈  Jordan was granted full independence and released from the Mandate in 1946.​​◈  Israel was granted Independence and released from the Mandate and UN Trustee System in 1948.  The Arab League attacked Israel and Israel successfully defended its territorial sovereignty.  What was NOT under Israeli control in 1949, became the Occupied Arab League Territory in 1949.  This Occupied Arab League territory included the West Bank and Gaza Strip.​
There was no "double standard."  Israel cooperated and maintained its sovereign control.  And members of the Arab League secured their holds, and the uncooperative Arab Palestinians successfully got what they got.  

Today, the Entity known as the "State of Palestine" (alla 1988) is controlled by a quasi-Government in Ramallah → which has sovereign control over "Area A"...




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ Jordan was granted full independence and released from the Mandate in 1946.◈ Israel was granted Independence and released from the Mandate and UN Trustee System in 1948.


Full independence was finally achieved after World War II by a treaty concluded in London on March 22, 1946, and ʿAbdullāh subsequently proclaimed himself king. 









						Jordan | History, Population, Flag, Map, King, & Facts
					

Jordan,  Arab country of Southwest Asia, in the rocky desert of the northern Arabian Peninsula. Jordan is a young state that occupies an ancient land, one that bears the traces of many civilizations. Separated from ancient Palestine by the Jordan River, the region played a prominent role in...



					www.britannica.com
				




Where is Israel's treaty releasing it from the Mandate?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Yeah, we went over this once before.



RoccoR said:


> ◈ Jordan was granted full independence and released from the Mandate in 1946.◈ Israel was granted Independence and released from the Mandate and UN Trustee System in 1948.





P F Tinmore said:


> Full independence was finally achieved after World War II by a treaty concluded in London on March 22, 1946, and ʿAbdullāh subsequently proclaimed himself king.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan | History, Population, Flag, Map, King, & Facts
> 
> 
> Jordan,  Arab country of Southwest Asia, in the rocky desert of the northern Arabian Peninsula. Jordan is a young state that occupies an ancient land, one that bears the traces of many civilizations. Separated from ancient Palestine by the Jordan River, the region played a prominent role in...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel's treaty releasing it from the Mandate?


*(COMMENT)*

There is no requirement for a treaty.  The US does not have a treaty that releases it from the colonial power.

Like the US, Israel declared independence, and successfully defended its defined territory.

The Arab Palestinians: did not meet the criteria to be a state.  There is a question as to if it ever met the criteria of a permanent population or a defined territory.  The admission to the dispossession of territory also means the population fluctuates.  

It will be interesting to see if the Arab League maintains the Ramallah Government as a member.  It will be just as interesting to see what (if anything) the courts say.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ Jordan was granted full independence and released from the Mandate in 1946.◈ Israel was granted Independence and released from the Mandate and UN Trustee System in 1948.


Full independence was finally achieved after World War II by a treaty concluded in London on March 22, 1946, and ʿAbdullāh subsequently proclaimed himself king.









						Jordan | History, Population, Flag, Map, King, & Facts
					

Jordan,  Arab country of Southwest Asia, in the rocky desert of the northern Arabian Peninsula. Jordan is a young state that occupies an ancient land, one that bears the traces of many civilizations. Separated from ancient Palestine by the Jordan River, the region played a prominent role in...



					www.britannica.com
				




Where is Israel's treaty releasing it from the Mandate?


RoccoR said:


> *BTW*: I don't understand what the meaning of "Israeli Shills."





RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Yeah, we went over this once before.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ◈ Jordan was granted full independence and released from the Mandate in 1946.◈ Israel was granted Independence and released from the Mandate and UN Trustee System in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Full independence was finally achieved after World War II by a treaty concluded in London on March 22, 1946, and ʿAbdullāh subsequently proclaimed himself king.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan | History, Population, Flag, Map, King, & Facts
> 
> 
> Jordan,  Arab country of Southwest Asia, in the rocky desert of the northern Arabian Peninsula. Jordan is a young state that occupies an ancient land, one that bears the traces of many civilizations. Separated from ancient Palestine by the Jordan River, the region played a prominent role in...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is Israel's treaty releasing it from the Mandate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no requirement for a treaty.  The US does not have a treaty that releases it from the colonial power.
> 
> Like the US, Israel declared independence, and successfully defended its defined territory.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians: did not meet the criteria to be a state.  There is a question as to if it ever met the criteria of a permanent population or a defined territory.  The admission to the dispossession of territory also means the population fluctuates.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if the Arab League maintains the Ramallah Government as a member.  It will be just as interesting to see what (if anything) the courts say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

That Palestine exists or not is a matter of political opinion. The Palestinians and their supporters are changing that opinion.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: This statement is a mistake of fact if not completely deceitful.



RoccoR said:


> But the remainder of the territory was under some other control. So, there was a conflict between the APG territorial claim and reality.





P F Tinmore said:


> Not really. The Palestinians claimed territory inside their own international borders. Those borders remained unchanged after the 1948 war. Palestine was under occupation but that does not change borders or sovereignty.


*(COMMENT)*

The border, as defined by the Allied Powers, to the territory under the Mandate is not Palestinian despite the name.   "Palestine" (territory under Mandate) has nothing to do with sovereignty associated with the Arab Palestinian people.  It is the designation the Allied Powers gave to the British Civil Administration.  The name Palestine was effectively put to use in the conference "wishing to settle completely the problems raised by the attribution to Great Britain of the mandates for Palestine and Mesopotamia and by the attribution to France of the mandate over Syria and the Lebanon, all three conferred by the Supreme Council at San Remo (of 25 April 1920)."  We have covered this before when we discussed the Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920.

Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and  - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).  They have nothing what so ever to do with Sovereignty - AND - they were NOT as you say: " territory inside their own international borders."  By saying "They" - I assume you mean the Arab Palestinians were not deprived or disenfranchised from statehood or sovereignty.   

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to get the Arab Palestinians involved in the establishment of the necessary self-governing institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.  The Arab Palestinians declined, which represented an early wrung in the ladder of independence, sovereignty, and statehood - which they discarded.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).


You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.

The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).
> 
> 
> 
> You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.
> 
> The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.
Click to expand...


*You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty. *

Just like Palestine, eh?

*The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.*

The treaties signed after the 1948 war were signed by Israelis for Israel.
Nary a Palestinian signature in sight.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).
> 
> 
> 
> You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.
> 
> The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty. *
> 
> Just like Palestine, eh?
> 
> *The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.*
> 
> The treaties signed after the 1948 war were signed by Israelis for Israel.
> Nary a Palestinian signature in sight.
Click to expand...

And that matters how?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).
> 
> 
> 
> You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.
> 
> The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty. *
> 
> Just like Palestine, eh?
> 
> *The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.*
> 
> The treaties signed after the 1948 war were signed by Israelis for Israel.
> Nary a Palestinian signature in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that matters how?
Click to expand...


Refutes your lie, again.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Nothing I can say is going to change your mind.



RoccoR said:


> Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).





P F Tinmore said:


> You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.
> 
> The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.


*(COMMENT)*
REF:   Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920.

You can believe some ambiguous reference to Palestine's borders, but the international community knows the intention of the boundaries associated with the mandates.                              





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Nothing I can say is going to change your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.
> 
> The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> REF:   Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920.
> 
> You can believe some ambiguous reference to Palestine's borders, but the international community knows the intention of the boundaries associated with the mandates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements called Palestine Palestine and called Palestine's international borders Palestine's international borders. This was the year after the Mandate left Palestine. The agreements did not mention the Mandate. It had already left.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Believe what you will.



P F Tinmore said:


> The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements called Palestine Palestine and called Palestine's international borders Palestine's international borders. This was the year after the Mandate left Palestine. The agreements did not mention the Mandate. It had already left.


*(COMMENT)*

Each Armistice Agreement terminated_ (no longer remains in force)_ after a Peace Treaty _(or the equivalent)_ is established.  So, whatever you believe about the Armistice to establish _(which by the way is only the Forward Edge of the Battle Area)_, it has been overtaken by events.  To use historical locations is not the same as an endorsement of the validity in any other respect.

For the purposes of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the current (2020) applicable Treaties are:

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (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-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •​1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan 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 co-ordinates specified therein.​2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure, and recognized international boundary between Israel and Jordan, 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.​​​Trying to use a 1949 Armistice Agreement as evidence of the existence of the State of Palestine is novel, but incorrect.

I'm not even sure that the use of the Armistice Lines, for other than historical purposes, is even valid.  The Armistice Lines are a product of the Armistice Agreement.  Once the Armistice is replaced by the Treaty - the Armistice dissolves, and so go the Armistice Lines.  The Treaty establishes the new "international boundary."

Neither the Armistice or the follow-on Treaty between the same two parties _(Israel and either Jordan or Egypt)_ have nothing to do with any obligation to a third party _(the Arab Palestinians)_ concerning any promise of sovereignty or territorial statehood.  The only exception to this is that the Treaties are established without prejudice to the territorial status of the territory that came under Israeli control in 1967.

The status has changed. since the 1967 Six-Day War.  The Israelis unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of _de facto_ Arab Palestinian regime. Similarly, in late July 1988, the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank Arab Palestinians and abandoning it to the _de jure _regime holding effective control; the Arab Palestinians having no government to take control.
 





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Trying to use a 1949 Armistice Agreement as evidence of the existence of the State of Palestine is novel, but incorrect.


Was the UN lying, or do you believe Iasraeli bullshit over documented facts?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to use a 1949 Armistice Agreement as evidence of the existence of the State of Palestine is novel, but incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> Was the UN lying, or do you believe Iasraeli bullshit over documented facts?
Click to expand...

You presented no documented facts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The 1949 UN Armistice Agreements called Palestine Palestine and called Palestine's international borders Palestine's international borders.



The agreements that you claimed didn't mention Israel? DURR


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Where is Israel's treaty releasing it from the Mandate?



There was no need for such a treaty, 
and it's questionable wether it was legal.

The mandatory power terminted the mandate on May 15 1948.
Mandates were set to end with the independence of the Mandated territory.  

Israel was already de-facto 'standing alone' a fully functional government,
as envisioned in the terms of the Mandate, minus policing that was still British,
about 3 years prior to that. 

International law that defined this territory for independence,
already in 1920 vested national sovereignty exclusively with Israel.

Why king Abdullah would need such a treaty is rather questionable.
However British officers stayed to mange Abdullah's new kingdom,
and lead the Jordanian army against Israel all the way to 1949.

Was Jordan really that independent in 1946, doesn't seem so,
why would Abdullah even need such a treaty if he was the legal sovereign?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> That Palestine exists or not is a matter of political opinion. The Palestinians and their supporters are changing that opinion.



Flat Earthers say the same...
and yet it's round.


----------



## verker

The Palestine has backing of Swedish Social Democrats in query.

Israel are swing states in occupation in the Middle East.

However the Jews called allied to Americans.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those treaty arranged borders and demarcations have to do with the Administration of the Mandates and the relationships between the three Mandates - and - the two Principle Allied Powers (France and Great Britain).
> 
> 
> 
> You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.
> 
> The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.
Click to expand...

The Mandate never left. You're confused as to what the Mandate actually was, an administrative body.

Resolution 181 was never implemented. 

Israeli independence and sovereignty were settled after the 1948 war.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: The Mandates were agreements between the Allied Powers. The boundries were between the Mandates associateed between the Allied Powers.



P F Tinmore said:


> You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.
> 
> The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.


*(COMMENT)*

The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine are outlined in Article 1 Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920.

The boundaries discussed in the Armistice Arrangement were separating the associated armed forces and NOT countries.

Don't confuse those boundaries as evidence of the establishment of any nation or state.  When the British Mandate Terminated, the Mandate was assumed by the UN Trustees System (Article 77 UN Charter).

However, in the Armistice Agreements of 1949, there was no longer any territory to place in the trustee system.  The entirety of the Mandate for Palestine less that granted Independence East of the Jordan River, was encapsulated in one of the four Armistice Agreements.

The West Bank, as an example, was territory occupied by the Jordanians (not Israel).  The Gaza Strip was territory occupied by the Egyptians (not Israel).





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The Mandates were agreements between the Allied Powers. The boundries were between the Mandates associateed between the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ducking out on the fact that the Mandates had no land, no territory, no borders, and no sovereignty.
> 
> The Armistice agreements referenced Palestine's international borders. They were still there after the Mandate left, after Resolution 181, and after the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine are outlined in Article 1 Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920.
> 
> The boundaries discussed in the Armistice Arrangement were separating the associated armed forces and NOT countries.
> 
> Don't confuse those boundaries as evidence of the establishment of any nation or state.  When the British Mandate Terminated, the Mandate was assumed by the UN Trustees System (Article 77 UN Charter).
> 
> However, in the Armistice Agreements of 1949, there was no longer any territory to place in the trustee system.  The entirety of the Mandate for Palestine less that granted Independence East of the Jordan River, was encapsulated in one of the four Armistice Agreements.
> 
> The West Bank, as an example, was territory occupied by the Jordanians (not Israel).  The Gaza Strip was territory occupied by the Egyptians (not Israel).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> The boundaries discussed in the Armistice Arrangement were separating the associated armed forces and NOT countries.





RoccoR said:


> However, in the Armistice Agreements of 1949, there was no longer any territory to place in the trustee system.


So then, why was there no territory left if the armistice lines only separated foreign forces?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The West Bank, as an example, was territory occupied by the Jordanians (not Israel). The Gaza Strip was territory occupied by the Egyptians (not Israel).


Israel states that it does not occupy Palestine because there was no previous sovereignty. So then, what previous sovereignty did Egypt and Jordan occupy?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  Under - Strict Interpretation - the Hague Regulation defines occupation simply as:



			
				Article 42 • Hague Regulation (1907 said:
			
		

> Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
> The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
> SOURCE:  Article 42 HR ICRC



There is no periphery issue of prior soveirenty.  You have to document your claim a little distinctly.



RoccoR said:


> The West Bank, as an example, was territory occupied by the Jordanians (not Israel). The Gaza Strip was territory occupied by the Egyptians (not Israel).





P F Tinmore said:


> So then, why was there no territory left if the armistice lines only separated foreign forces?


*(COMMENT)*

That is not my call.  The Armistice was the tool selected by the parties to establish a ceasefire.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel states that it does not occupy Palestine because there was no previous sovereignty. So then, what previous sovereignty did Egypt and Jordan occupy?


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure of the context or time period the Israeli claim is made.  But when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, that was a case of no sovereign control, except for when the Israelis immediately filled that vacuum in the West Bank.  I discusses this unique instance in the last Paragraph in Posting #947





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> But when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, that was a case of no sovereign control, except for when the Israelis immediately filled that vacuum in the West Bank.


You didn't answer the question. (No surprise.) What sovereign territory did Egypt and Jordan occupy. And when an occupation releases the occupied should the territory be maintained by the original sovereigns?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, that was a case of no sovereign control, except for when the Israelis immediately filled that vacuum in the West Bank.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question. (No surprise.) What sovereign territory did Egypt and Jordan occupy. And when an occupation releases the occupied should the territory be maintained by the original sovereigns?
Click to expand...

The Arabs-Moslems you call Pals never held sovereignty, so there's that.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: The question was answered, you just did not comprehend the answer.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, that was a case of no sovereign control, except for when the Israelis immediately filled that vacuum in the West Bank.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question. (No surprise.) What sovereign territory did Egypt and Jordan occupy. And when an occupation releases the occupied should the territory be maintained by the original sovereigns?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT) **(put another way)*

Neither Egypt nor Jordan occupied territory sovereign to any other country.  They both occupied Territory that was transferred and under the protection of the International Trustee System.

Sovereignty has no play or role in the definition of "occupation."  Egypt's and Jordan's occupation was the use of force in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (Chapters I & XII).






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: The question was answered, you just did not comprehend the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> But when the Jordanians cut all ties with the West Bank, that was a case of no sovereign control, except for when the Israelis immediately filled that vacuum in the West Bank.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't answer the question. (No surprise.) What sovereign territory did Egypt and Jordan occupy. And when an occupation releases the occupied should the territory be maintained by the original sovereigns?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT) **(put another way)*
> 
> Neither Egypt nor Jordan occupied territory sovereign to any other country.  They both occupied Territory that was transferred and under the protection of the International Trustee System.
> 
> Sovereignty has no play or role in the definition of "occupation."  Egypt's and Jordan's occupation was the use of force in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (Chapters I & XII).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

So then, why does Israel claim that the occupied Palestinian territory is disputed?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: To assume that the conflict is all about the sovereignty over land is to admit, the actual deep-rooted problems are truly understood. Remember, the opposite of "disputed territory" is "undisputed territory."  Even the Arab Palestinians have trouble articulating what the central issues are. But clearly, to say the territory is "undisputed" is representative of the conflict, either actually or politically.

*NOTE:  I don't speek on behalf of the Israeli Government.*​
How does this question make sense in realtioship to what I said in Posting #962?



P F Tinmore said:


> So then, why does Israel claim that the occupied Palestinian territory is disputed?


*(COMMENT)*

When you ask this question, you ask it as if the Israeli Government has made a formal claim to territory before a judicial body having jurisdiction; or to some domestic body having Title and Rights.  I don't know that such a claim has ever been made by the Israeli Government.  Although it is more probably true that the Israeli Government had defended itself against various amplified allegations made by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) claims played out in the media for entertainment.

•  Who *(what body)* makes the formal complaint against Israel on the matter of territory? Is there such a formal complaint on file?​​•  What exactly is the complaint?  And what remedy does this undefined body seek?​​•  To what judicial body do the Arab Palestinians *(again the undefined body)* file the complaint?  When was the formal complaint filed?​
The question suggests that the Occupied Palestinian Territory is NOT considered disputed territory.  Who makes that claim?

Give me some idea about the claim.  Who made it, what specifically is claimed, when was the claim made, and to whom.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: To assume that the conflict is all about the sovereignty over land is to admit, the actual deep-rooted problems are truly understood. Remember, the opposite of "disputed territory" is "undisputed territory."  Even the Arab Palestinians have trouble articulating what the central issues are. But clearly, to say the territory is "undisputed" is representative of the conflict, either actually or politically.
> 
> *NOTE:  I don't speek on behalf of the Israeli Government.*​
> How does this question make sense in realtioship to what I said in Posting #962?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why does Israel claim that the occupied Palestinian territory is disputed?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When you ask this question, you ask it as if the Israeli Government has made a formal claim to territory before a judicial body having jurisdiction; or to some domestic body having Title and Rights.  I don't know that such a claim has ever been made by the Israeli Government.  Although it is more probably true that the Israeli Government had defended itself against various amplified allegations made by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) claims played out in the media for entertainment.
> 
> •  Who *(what body)* makes the formal complaint against Israel on the matter of territory? Is there such a formal complaint on file?​​•  What exactly is the complaint?  And what remedy does this undefined body seek?​​•  To what judicial body do the Arab Palestinians *(again the undefined body)* file the complaint?  When was the formal complaint filed?​
> The question suggests that the Occupied Palestinian Territory is NOT considered disputed territory.  Who makes that claim?
> 
> Give me some idea about the claim.  Who made it, what specifically is claimed, when was the claim made, and to whom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

The Palestinians (not the bantustan government) say that Israel is 1948 occupied Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza are 1967 occupied Palestine.

I have seen nothing showing this to be incorrect. Whenever I ask, I get word salad. Everybody starts dancing.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: To assume that the conflict is all about the sovereignty over land is to admit, the actual deep-rooted problems are truly understood. Remember, the opposite of "disputed territory" is "undisputed territory."  Even the Arab Palestinians have trouble articulating what the central issues are. But clearly, to say the territory is "undisputed" is representative of the conflict, either actually or politically.
> 
> *NOTE:  I don't speek on behalf of the Israeli Government.*​
> How does this question make sense in realtioship to what I said in Posting #962?
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, why does Israel claim that the occupied Palestinian territory is disputed?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When you ask this question, you ask it as if the Israeli Government has made a formal claim to territory before a judicial body having jurisdiction; or to some domestic body having Title and Rights.  I don't know that such a claim has ever been made by the Israeli Government.  Although it is more probably true that the Israeli Government had defended itself against various amplified allegations made by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) claims played out in the media for entertainment.
> 
> •  Who *(what body)* makes the formal complaint against Israel on the matter of territory? Is there such a formal complaint on file?​​•  What exactly is the complaint?  And what remedy does this undefined body seek?​​•  To what judicial body do the Arab Palestinians *(again the undefined body)* file the complaint?  When was the formal complaint filed?​
> The question suggests that the Occupied Palestinian Territory is NOT considered disputed territory.  Who makes that claim?
> 
> Give me some idea about the claim.  Who made it, what specifically is claimed, when was the claim made, and to whom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Palestinians (not the bantustan government) say that Israel is 1948 occupied Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza are 1967 occupied Palestine.
> 
> I have seen nothing showing this to be incorrect. Whenever I ask, I get word salad. Everybody starts dancing.
Click to expand...

The Arabs-Moslems ''saying something'' is hardly a convincing argument.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians (not the bantustan government) say that Israel is 1948 occupied Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza are 1967 occupied Palestine.
> 
> I have seen nothing showing this to be incorrect. Whenever I ask, I get word salad. Everybody starts dancing.


*(COMMENT)*

I asked over a half-dozen questions.  You could not answer a single one.  Why is that?  Well, part of it, is rooted in the "dispute" that you cannot explain who the "Palestinians _(not the bantustan government)_" are...  

The Arab League said that the PLO is the sole representative... _(today that would be the President of the Palestinian National Authority)_; Mahmoud Abbas.  However, you say "not the bantustan government.

When the Arab League said (1974) that "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated;" who were they identifying?

What territory was liberated and when?

When the UN granted non-member observer status (2012), the term "Palestine" merely replaced the term PLO.  

The problem poor people like me have, is that the Arab Palestinians cannot agree as to what a "Palestinian" is.  And just as confusing is the lack of agreement as to what territory has been liberated.

YOU are saying that there at two areas of occupation:  That of 1948 and that of 1967.   So YOUR first complaint is with the UN recommending self-government and independence.  YOUR second complaint is that the Jewish people were not allowed to implement self-determination.

Word salad - ha ah ha ha, YOU ask questions that YOU cannot answer.  

Suppose I were to say that YOU actually represent the anti-Palestinian State.  That the Arab Palestinians of today does not believe the same thing YOU believe.  Who speaks for the Arab Palestinian?  The agressors of Gaza, the disrupter of the West Bank, or the confused of Jerusalem?

Go back to may posting.  Answer the questions...





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians (not the bantustan government) say that Israel is 1948 occupied Palestine. The West Bank and Gaza are 1967 occupied Palestine.
> 
> I have seen nothing showing this to be incorrect. Whenever I ask, I get word salad. Everybody starts dancing.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I asked over a half-dozen questions.  You could not answer a single one.  Why is that?  Well, part of it, is rooted in the "dispute" that you cannot explain who the "Palestinians _(not the bantustan government)_" are...
> 
> The Arab League said that the PLO is the sole representative... _(today that would be the President of the Palestinian National Authority)_; Mahmoud Abbas.  However, you say "not the bantustan government.
> 
> When the Arab League said (1974) that "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated;" who were they identifying?
> 
> What territory was liberated and when?
> 
> When the UN granted non-member observer status (2012), the term "Palestine" merely replaced the term PLO.
> 
> The problem poor people like me have, is that the Arab Palestinians cannot agree as to what a "Palestinian" is.  And just as confusing is the lack of agreement as to what territory has been liberated.
> 
> YOU are saying that there at two areas of occupation:  That of 1948 and that of 1967.   So YOUR first complaint is with the UN recommending self-government and independence.  YOUR second complaint is that the Jewish people were not allowed to implement self-determination.
> 
> Word salad - ha ah ha ha, YOU ask questions that YOU cannot answer.
> 
> Suppose I were to say that YOU actually represent the anti-Palestinian State.  That the Arab Palestinians of today does not believe the same thing YOU believe.  Who speaks for the Arab Palestinian?  The agressors of Gaza, the disrupter of the West Bank, or the confused of Jerusalem?
> 
> Go back to may posting.  Answer the questions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Could you pull out the questions that are applicable to my post?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,


*When* the Arab League said (1974) that "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated;"* who *were they identifying?

*Wha*t territory was liberated and *when*?

Suppose I were to say that YOU actually represent the anti-Palestinian State.  That the Arab Palestinians of today does not believe the same thing YOU believe.  *Who* speaks for the Arab Palestinian? 

*Who* speaks for the Arab Palestinian?  The aggressors of Gaza, the disrupter of the West Bank, or the confused of Jerusalem?






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> *When* the Arab League said (1974) that "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated;"* who *were they identifying?
> 
> *Wha*t territory was liberated and *when*?
> 
> Suppose I were to say that YOU actually represent the anti-Palestinian State.  That the Arab Palestinians of today does not believe the same thing YOU believe.  *Who* speaks for the Arab Palestinian?
> 
> *Who* speaks for the Arab Palestinian?  The aggressors of Gaza, the disrupter of the West Bank, or the confused of Jerusalem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


The Palestinians are tired of other people speaking for them. They are now speaking for themselves and the conversation has changed considerably.

Now back to my post.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> *When* the Arab League said (1974) that "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated;"* who *were they identifying?
> 
> *Wha*t territory was liberated and *when*?
> 
> Suppose I were to say that YOU actually represent the anti-Palestinian State.  That the Arab Palestinians of today does not believe the same thing YOU believe.  *Who* speaks for the Arab Palestinian?
> 
> *Who* speaks for the Arab Palestinian?  The aggressors of Gaza, the disrupter of the West Bank, or the confused of Jerusalem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are tired of other people speaking for them. They are now speaking for themselves and the conversation has changed considerably.
> 
> Now back to my post.
Click to expand...

Such melodrama. Do you have a YouTube video explaining what that means?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  
So you say.  So, under international law, who makes the claim?  (_Once more, I don't speak for the Israelis._)​I cannot answer the question if you don't tell me the context of the claim YOU make.​
​P F Tinmore said:​◈  So then, why does Israel claim that the occupied Palestinian territory is disputed?​



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians are tired of other people speaking for them. They are now speaking for themselves and the conversation has changed considerably.
> 
> Now back to my post.


*(COMMENT)*

I cannot answer the question because you cannot demonstrate when the claim was made or the context.

*(GUESS)*

In general, since Israel has not taken any territory from the Palestinians, the dispute is over rights, title, and self-determination over the territory the undefined Arab Palestinians claim is their sovereign territory.

The "Claim" vs "Counter-Claim" or the dispute.  

*(CONTRAST)*

What does undisputed  Arab Palestinian Territory look like?  Is there such a thing?

You cannot identify what is NOT in dispute _(__undisputed 'vs' disputed territory__)_.                          




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:
> So you say.  So, under international law, who makes the claim?  (_Once more, I don't speak for the Israelis._)​I cannot answer the question if you don't tell me the context of the claim YOU make.​
> ​P F Tinmore said:​◈  So then, why does Israel claim that the occupied Palestinian territory is disputed?​
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are tired of other people speaking for them. They are now speaking for themselves and the conversation has changed considerably.
> 
> Now back to my post.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I cannot answer the question because you cannot demonstrate when the claim was made or the context.
> 
> *(GUESS)*
> 
> In general, since Israel has not taken any territory from the Palestinians, the dispute is over rights, title, and self-determination over the territory the undefined Arab Palestinians claim is their sovereign territory.
> 
> The "Claim" vs "Counter-Claim" or the dispute.
> 
> *(CONTRAST)*
> 
> What does undisputed  Arab Palestinian Territory look like?  Is there such a thing?
> 
> You cannot identify what is NOT in dispute _(__undisputed 'vs' disputed territory__)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Israel has its goons crawling all over the place but claims it is not occupied so it can duck out of the responsibilities of an occupying power.

You can't just say he said, she said and call it a day. One is right and the other wrong.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> (_Once more, I don't speak for the Israelis._)


You sure could have fooled me.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:
> So you say.  So, under international law, who makes the claim?  (_Once more, I don't speak for the Israelis._)​I cannot answer the question if you don't tell me the context of the claim YOU make.​
> ​P F Tinmore said:​◈  So then, why does Israel claim that the occupied Palestinian territory is disputed?​
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are tired of other people speaking for them. They are now speaking for themselves and the conversation has changed considerably.
> 
> Now back to my post.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I cannot answer the question because you cannot demonstrate when the claim was made or the context.
> 
> *(GUESS)*
> 
> In general, since Israel has not taken any territory from the Palestinians, the dispute is over rights, title, and self-determination over the territory the undefined Arab Palestinians claim is their sovereign territory.
> 
> The "Claim" vs "Counter-Claim" or the dispute.
> 
> *(CONTRAST)*
> 
> What does undisputed  Arab Palestinian Territory look like?  Is there such a thing?
> 
> You cannot identify what is NOT in dispute _(__undisputed 'vs' disputed territory__)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel has its goons crawling all over the place but claims it is not occupied so it can duck out of the responsibilities of an occupying power.
> 
> You can't just say he said, she said and call it a day. One is right and the other wrong.
Click to expand...

You have made no case that Israel is an occupying power.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:
> So you say.  So, under international law, who makes the claim?  (_Once more, I don't speak for the Israelis._)​I cannot answer the question if you don't tell me the context of the claim YOU make.​
> ​P F Tinmore said:​◈  So then, why does Israel claim that the occupied Palestinian territory is disputed?​
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are tired of other people speaking for them. They are now speaking for themselves and the conversation has changed considerably.
> 
> Now back to my post.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I cannot answer the question because you cannot demonstrate when the claim was made or the context.
> 
> *(GUESS)*
> 
> In general, since Israel has not taken any territory from the Palestinians, the dispute is over rights, title, and self-determination over the territory the undefined Arab Palestinians claim is their sovereign territory.
> 
> The "Claim" vs "Counter-Claim" or the dispute.
> 
> *(CONTRAST)*
> 
> What does undisputed  Arab Palestinian Territory look like?  Is there such a thing?
> 
> You cannot identify what is NOT in dispute _(__undisputed 'vs' disputed territory__)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel has its goons crawling all over the place but claims it is not occupied so it can duck out of the responsibilities of an occupying power.
> 
> You can't just say he said, she said and call it a day. One is right and the other wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have made no case that Israel is an occupying power.
Click to expand...

28.The ICJ, in its ruling of 9 July 2004, concurred with this view: The territories situated between the Green Line and the former eastern boundary of Palestine  under  the  Mandate  were  occupied  by  Israel  in  1967  during  the  armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore  occupied  territories  in  which  Israel  had  the  status of  occupying  Power. Subsequent  events  in  these  territories,  as  described  in  paragraphs  75  to  77  above [paragraph  77  referring  to  the  Oslo  Accords],  have  done  nothing  to  alter  this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.2 



			https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2020_02277.PDF


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:
> So you say.  So, under international law, who makes the claim?  (_Once more, I don't speak for the Israelis._)​I cannot answer the question if you don't tell me the context of the claim YOU make.​
> ​P F Tinmore said:​◈  So then, why does Israel claim that the occupied Palestinian territory is disputed?​
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Palestinians are tired of other people speaking for them. They are now speaking for themselves and the conversation has changed considerably.
> 
> Now back to my post.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I cannot answer the question because you cannot demonstrate when the claim was made or the context.
> 
> *(GUESS)*
> 
> In general, since Israel has not taken any territory from the Palestinians, the dispute is over rights, title, and self-determination over the territory the undefined Arab Palestinians claim is their sovereign territory.
> 
> The "Claim" vs "Counter-Claim" or the dispute.
> 
> *(CONTRAST)*
> 
> What does undisputed  Arab Palestinian Territory look like?  Is there such a thing?
> 
> You cannot identify what is NOT in dispute _(__undisputed 'vs' disputed territory__)_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel has its goons crawling all over the place but claims it is not occupied so it can duck out of the responsibilities of an occupying power.
> 
> You can't just say he said, she said and call it a day. One is right and the other wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have made no case that Israel is an occupying power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 28.The ICJ, in its ruling of 9 July 2004, concurred with this view: The territories situated between the Green Line and the former eastern boundary of Palestine  under  the  Mandate  were  occupied  by  Israel  in  1967  during  the  armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore  occupied  territories  in  which  Israel  had  the  status of  occupying  Power. Subsequent  events  in  these  territories,  as  described  in  paragraphs  75  to  77  above [paragraph  77  referring  to  the  Oslo  Accords],  have  done  nothing  to  alter  this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.2
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2020_02277.PDF
Click to expand...

That's nice but irrelevant. What jurisdiction does the ICJ have?

Coincidentally, you noted here: (Who are the Israelis?) that Oslo expired.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: These are several fruits being mix here that confuse the issue(s).

◈  "Disputed Territory" 'vs' "Occupied Territory"
✦  Article 1 Protocol i GCIV provides that armed conflicts​in which peoples are fighting against colonial​domination, alien occupation or racist regimes​are to be considered international conflicts.​​✦  Article 33 UN Charter​1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which​is likely to endanger the maintenance of international​peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by​negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration,​judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or​arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.​2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary,​call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.​​✦  Article 42 Hague Convention 1907​Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed​under the authority of the hostile army.​The occupation extends only to the territory where such​authority has been established and can be exercised.​
◈  Responsibilities of the Occupying Power 
✦  Articles 55​✦  Article 60​✦  Article 69 of Protocol I​​◈  Prohibited Actions Article 49 GCIV
"Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means ​forced displacement of the persons concerned by ​expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in ​which they are lawfully present, without grounds ​permitted under international law; ​​


P F Tinmore said:


> Israel has its goons crawling all over the place but claims it is not occupied so it can duck out of the responsibilities of an occupying power.
> 
> You can't just say he said, she said and call it a day. One is right and the other wrong.





Hollie said:


> You have made no case that Israel is an occupying power.


*(COMMENT on the REALITY)*

HOW IT BECAME DISPUTED

The question posed by P F Tinmore is not a simple answer.  It is entangled in the complexities that have arisen since more than a decade before the Jordanian Sovereign Territory (JST) of the West Bank became effectively controlled by the Israelis.  For the period of time that the JST was under the effective control of the Israelis (1967-1988) the JST was essentially "occupied" under the conditions set in Article 42 HR_ (supra)_.  The effective control was not marred by hostilities; under a mutual undeclared ceases fire.   BUT, when the Jordanians totally abandon and openly renounced any title and obligation to the territory, it became an orphaned territory under the principle of _terra nullius_ and in the absence of any Arab Palestinian government, it became a non-self-governing entity by peaceful default, an unincorporated territory under Israeli responsibility.  It did not become an Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) as it became known because, at that time, the State of Palestine had not yet emerged.  In effect, it reverted back to the original 1948 Mandate/Trustee System legal entity → but it was NOT THEN self-governing.  

This is the thumbnail sketch of how it happened.  But it does not tie-up the other loose end and peripheral issues. 





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> It is entangled in the complexities that have arisen since more than a decade before the Jordanian Sovereign Territory (JST) of the West Bank became effectively controlled by the Israelis.


Jordan occupied the West Bank. It was not Jordanian sovereign territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The question posed by P F Tinmore is not a simple answer. It is entangled in the complexities that have arisen since more than a decade before the Jordanian Sovereign Territory (JST) of the West Bank became effectively controlled by the Israelis, blah, blah, blah...


This sounds like it was written up by Israel's shyster lawyers.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> 2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary,call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.


Useless statement. The US will not allow that to happen.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: It is very convenient for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to selectively alter history, omit the actual annexation process, and customary practice so that they can claim it was not sovereign territory.



			
				Unification of the Two Banks said:
			
		

> 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, *constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan *   in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
> SOURCE:  Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan History Website




			
				Unification of the Two Banks said:
			
		

> The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. *All automatically became citizens of Jordan,* a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.
> SOURCE:  Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan History Website



*ENDNOTE*
◈  Jordanian Parliament Resolution Regarding the Annexation of the West Bank - English Text Jordanian Parliament Resolution Regarding the Annexation of the West Bank - English Text:  



RoccoR said:


> It is entangled in the complexities that have arisen since more than a decade before the Jordanian Sovereign Territory (JST) of the West Bank became effectively controlled by the Israelis.





P F Tinmore said:


> Jordan occupied the West Bank. It was not Jordanian sovereign territory.


*(COMMENT)*

 The West Bank and part of Jerusalem were annexed by Jordan.  It does not matter what the UN may say about recognition.  The self-determination and the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933, make it clear that foreign recognition is irrelevant.



> Only the United Kingdom formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, _de facto_ in the case of East Jerusalem.[31] *The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty.*[32][33] Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan's annexation too, but this is dubious.[34][35]
> SOURCE:
> United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. page 921, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (1950)


IT IS WHAT IT IS.  The problem with this argument is that the HoAP position on whether or not Jordan extended the sovereignty is a loser either way.  If the West Bank was not Annex in 1950, it then still be under the UN International Trustee System and the HoAP could not show Arab control either way.






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: It is very convenient for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to selectively alter history, omit the actual annexation process, and customary practice so that they can claim it was not sovereign territory.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Unification of the Two Banks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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, *constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan *   in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.​SOURCE:  Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan History Website​
> 
> 
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Unification of the Two Banks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. *All automatically became citizens of Jordan,* a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.​SOURCE:  Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan History Website​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> *ENDNOTE*
> ◈  Jordanian Parliament Resolution Regarding the Annexation of the West Bank - English Text Jordanian Parliament Resolution Regarding the Annexation of the West Bank - English Text:
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is entangled in the complexities that have arisen since more than a decade before the Jordanian Sovereign Territory (JST) of the West Bank became effectively controlled by the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan occupied the West Bank. It was not Jordanian sovereign territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The West Bank and part of Jerusalem were annexed by Jordan.  It does not matter what the UN may say about recognition.  The self-determination and the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933, make it clear that foreign recognition is irrelevant.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Only the United Kingdom formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, _de facto_ in the case of East Jerusalem.[31] *The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty.*[32][33] Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan's annexation too, but this is dubious.[34][35]​SOURCE:​United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. page 921, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (1950)​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​IT IS WHAT IT IS.  The problem with this argument is that the HoAP position on whether or not Jordan extended the sovereignty is a loser either way.  If the West Bank was not Annex in 1950, it then still be under the UN International Trustee System and the HoAP could not show Arab control either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Jordan occupied the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Whose territory did Jordan occupy? The UN? Or was it Palestine?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: You need to teach me something.



P F Tinmore said:


> Jordan occupied the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.
> 
> Whose territory did Jordan occupy? The UN? Or was it Palestine?


*(QUESTION)*

Can you point me to the exact enforceable citation?  It is not in the criminal code.  And please don't use this:




 This is actually making the UN a party to the alleged crime.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a politically motivated "Advisory Opinion" and unenforceable.   The demarcations were moved as a result from Acts of Aggression demonstrated since the 1948 Conflict initiated by Arab League Forces.

And, what Article 3 actually states is:
​"The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however  temporary,  resulting from such  invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;"​
This says one state against another state → resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force.

As I say in the last several comments:  
​

			
				Posting # 961 said:
			
		

> Neither Egypt nor Jordan occupied territory sovereign to any other country.  They both occupied Territory that was transferred and under the protection of the International Trustee System.









Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: You need to teach me something.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan occupied the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.
> 
> Whose territory did Jordan occupy? The UN? Or was it Palestine?
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> Can you point me to the exact enforceable citation?  It is not in the criminal code.  And please don't use this:
> 
> 
> View attachment 415782​
> This is actually making the UN a party to the alleged crime.
> 
> The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a politically motivated "Advisory Opinion" and unenforceable.   The demarcations were moved as a result from Acts of Aggression demonstrated since the 1948 Conflict initiated by Arab League Forces.
> 
> And, what Article 3 actually states is:
> ​"The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however  temporary,  resulting from such  invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;"​
> This says one state against another state → resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force.
> 
> As I say in the last several comments:
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Posting # 961 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Egypt nor Jordan occupied territory sovereign to any other country.  They both occupied Territory that was transferred and under the protection of the International Trustee System.​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state and is generally held to be an illegal act. ... It usually follows military occupation of a territory.









						Annexation - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a politically motivated "Advisory Opinion" and unenforceable. The demarcations were moved as a result from Acts of Aggression demonstrated since the 1948 Conflict initiated by Arab League Forces.


HUH???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state



Sounds awful!!!

Which states were involved?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: I have no problem with this definition.  What I object to is the misrepresentation of the facts.


> *annexation*    The acquisition of title to territory ( scil . previously under the sovereignty
> of another State) by a unilateral act of appropriation by a conqueror State subsequent to
> subjugation: ‘At no period did conquest alone and ipso facto make the conquering state
> the sovereign of the conquered territory …. Conquest was only a mode of acquisition if
> the conqueror, after having firmly established the conquest, and the state of war having
> come to an end, then formally annexed the territory’: I Oppenheim 699 .





P F Tinmore said:


> Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state and is generally held to be an illegal act. ... It usually follows military occupation of a territory.


*(COMMENT)*

Arab Forces commit an act of aggression in May 1948.

The use of force.
Attempt to deny Israel's Right to Self-Determination.
1948 War did not end until Peace Agreements.

In the case of the West Bank, Israel did not annex it.  
In the case of the West Bank, it was abandoned by Jordan.
In the case of the West Bank, there was no other government in waiting.
In the case of the West Bank, the 1948 War did not end until 1994  ◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •
*(QUESTIONS)*

What was the identity of the previous state?"  
What State is claiming that Israel occupied it in 1967 or 1988?






Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I have no problem with this definition.  What I object to is the misrepresentation of the facts.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> *annexation*    The acquisition of title to territory ( scil . previously under the sovereignty​of another State) by a unilateral act of appropriation by a conqueror State subsequent to​subjugation: ‘At no period did conquest alone and ipso facto make the conquering state​the sovereign of the conquered territory …. Conquest was only a mode of acquisition if​the conqueror, after having firmly established the conquest, and the state of war having​come to an end, then formally annexed the territory’: I Oppenheim 699 .​​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state and is generally held to be an illegal act. ... It usually follows military occupation of a territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Arab Forces commit an act of aggression in May 1948.
> 
> The use of force.
> Attempt to deny Israel's Right to Self-Determination.
> 1948 War did not end until Peace Agreements.
> 
> In the case of the West Bank, Israel did not annex it.
> In the case of the West Bank, it was abandoned by Jordan.
> In the case of the West Bank, there was no other government in waiting.
> In the case of the West Bank, the 1948 War did not end until 1994  ◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> What was the identity of the previous state?"
> What State is claiming that Israel occupied it in 1967 or 1988?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.

2) You are ducking the question. What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> I have no problem with this definition. What I object to is the misrepresentation of the facts.


What  misrepresentation are you talking about?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I have no problem with this definition.  What I object to is the misrepresentation of the facts.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> *annexation*    The acquisition of title to territory ( scil . previously under the sovereignty​of another State) by a unilateral act of appropriation by a conqueror State subsequent to​subjugation: ‘At no period did conquest alone and ipso facto make the conquering state​the sovereign of the conquered territory …. Conquest was only a mode of acquisition if​the conqueror, after having firmly established the conquest, and the state of war having​come to an end, then formally annexed the territory’: I Oppenheim 699 .​​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state and is generally held to be an illegal act. ... It usually follows military occupation of a territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Arab Forces commit an act of aggression in May 1948.
> 
> The use of force.
> Attempt to deny Israel's Right to Self-Determination.
> 1948 War did not end until Peace Agreements.
> 
> In the case of the West Bank, Israel did not annex it.
> In the case of the West Bank, it was abandoned by Jordan.
> In the case of the West Bank, there was no other government in waiting.
> In the case of the West Bank, the 1948 War did not end until 1994  ◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> What was the identity of the previous state?"
> What State is claiming that Israel occupied it in 1967 or 1988?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.
> 
> 2) You are ducking the question. What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?
Click to expand...


*1) The Arab states did not attack Israel. *

They still managed to get their asses kicked, eh?

*What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?*

What state did Israel occupy after the 1967 war?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: I've answered this qauestion several time. Twice in the last week.



P F Tinmore said:


> 1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.
> 
> 2) You are ducking the question. What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?


*(COMMENT - ANSWERS)*

Posting #983 and Posting #961



			
				Posting # 961 said:
			
		

> Neither Egypt nor Jordan occupied territory sovereign to any other country.  They both occupied Territory that was transferred and under the protection of the International Trustee System.








Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I've answered this qauestion several time. Twice in the last week.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.
> 
> 2) You are ducking the question. What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT - ANSWERS)*
> 
> Posting #983 and Posting #961
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting # 961 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Egypt nor Jordan occupied territory sovereign to any other country.  They both occupied Territory that was transferred and under the protection of the International Trustee System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

Are you impluing that Israel won Palestinian land in a defensive war with the UN?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: I've answered this qauestion several time. Twice in the last week.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.
> 
> 2) You are ducking the question. What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT - ANSWERS)*
> 
> Posting #983 and Posting #961
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting # 961 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Egypt nor Jordan occupied territory sovereign to any other country.  They both occupied Territory that was transferred and under the protection of the International Trustee System.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you impluing that Israel won Palestinian land in a defensive war with the UN?
Click to expand...


Israel waged war with the UN?

Did you read that at the Hamas Daily?


----------



## abu afak

P F Tinmore said:


> 1) The Arab states did not attack Israel.


The Arabs states were imminently going to attack Israel, and said so publicly.
1967 was a pre-emptive war. No one claims/should claim  "arab states attacked Israel."



> 2) You are ducking the question. *What state did Jordan occupy after the 1948 war?*


Jordan 'occupied' (and annexed) Undesignated/disputed territory as Arabs had rejected the partition and 'palestine.'
The Brits had won it from the Ottomans (who 400 year earlier had won it from the Mamluks). It then became part of the Mandate (purpose homeland for the Jews, with an Arab minority), and eventually thrown in the UN's lap. Arabs/'palestinians (leftover arabs) rejected the solution.
Had Jordan/the Arabs not lost it in the 1967 war there's no reason to think it would have become anything.

Israel offered back (to Jordan/the Arabs) the land conquered in 1967 in exchange for mere recognition in August 1967.
Arabs refused. (see '3 nos Khartoum')

The last self-ruling legitimate sovereign was Israel.. the first time.

`


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## abu afak

For the record, and all of you who didn't see the earlier M-E section here, esp the older parts..
PF Tinmore CANNOT debate me.
He knows it.
He's an OCD Pallywood spammer of the lowest echelon.
He (others) can carry on for 1000 posts, and I ended it in a paragraph above.

*PF Tinmore saw my last above answering him and could NOT answer.
So after several days we get the stupid, shallow, and Trite piece of propaganda to try and cover it up.. 
The infamous lie: "The Four Maps."*
For me, another laugher/yawner.
See ie,








						Daily Mail legitimises four Palestinian maps that lie
					

By presenting the map held by Abbas in the photo, with the caption “maps of historical Palestine”, the Daily Mail is promoting Palestinian propaganda, and legitimising an outrageous historical lie.




					camera-uk.org
				



or








						Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)
					






					www.theatlantic.com
				



".. The first map in the series of four is most egregious.""
`
`


----------



## P F Tinmore

abu afak said:


> For the record, and all of you who didn't see the earlier M-E section here, esp the older parts..
> PF Tinmore CANNOT debate me.
> He knows it.
> He's an OCD Pallywood spammer of the lowest echelon.
> He (others) can carry on for 1000 posts, and I ended it in a paragraph above.
> 
> *PF Tinmore saw my last above answering him and could NOT answer.
> So after several days we get the stupid, shallow, and Trite piece of propaganda to try and cover it up..
> The infamous lie: "The Four Maps."*
> For me, another laugher/yawner.
> See ie,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail legitimises four Palestinian maps that lie
> 
> 
> By presenting the map held by Abbas in the photo, with the caption “maps of historical Palestine”, the Daily Mail is promoting Palestinian propaganda, and legitimising an outrageous historical lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> camera-uk.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".. The first map in the series of four is most egregious.""
> `
> `











						Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)
					






					www.theatlantic.com
				



The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews.​
They could not divide the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, and all of you who didn't see the earlier M-E section here, esp the older parts..
> PF Tinmore CANNOT debate me.
> He knows it.
> He's an OCD Pallywood spammer of the lowest echelon.
> He (others) can carry on for 1000 posts, and I ended it in a paragraph above.
> 
> *PF Tinmore saw my last above answering him and could NOT answer.
> So after several days we get the stupid, shallow, and Trite piece of propaganda to try and cover it up..
> The infamous lie: "The Four Maps."*
> For me, another laugher/yawner.
> See ie,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail legitimises four Palestinian maps that lie
> 
> 
> By presenting the map held by Abbas in the photo, with the caption “maps of historical Palestine”, the Daily Mail is promoting Palestinian propaganda, and legitimising an outrageous historical lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> camera-uk.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".. The first map in the series of four is most egregious.""
> `
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews.​
> They could not divide the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.
Click to expand...

A UN partition?

Link?


----------



## abu afak

P F Tinmore said:


> They could not divide the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.


So Jordan, Iraq, etc, are all illegitimate entities?
Not to mention French Mandate Lebanon.
Where's the state for the REAL people (separate language, history, ethnicity) Kurds.

Brits conquered it. It was at least or more legitimate than the disposition of any of the Ottoman Empire. (99% of which went to Arabs to rule over others like the Kurds, Druse, etc)
It was, in fact, the Only one a world body voted on.
The most legitimate state in the whole lot.

The Purpose of the original Mandate was a Homeland for the Jews in ALL of Palestine.
Over the years that eroded in the Arabs favor to roughly half of 'Territorial Palestine' and a separate state for leftover Arabs 'palestinians.'
But that wasn't enough.
They shot their load going for the whole enchilada.
They lost.
No do-overs in war.

In 1967 again, It was (as Eban said) the only time in history when the winners sued for peace, and the losers rejected it.

No answer on your BS maps you SICK palestinian-spamming/blogging FREAK.

`


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, and all of you who didn't see the earlier M-E section here, esp the older parts..
> PF Tinmore CANNOT debate me.
> He knows it.
> He's an OCD Pallywood spammer of the lowest echelon.
> He (others) can carry on for 1000 posts, and I ended it in a paragraph above.
> 
> *PF Tinmore saw my last above answering him and could NOT answer.
> So after several days we get the stupid, shallow, and Trite piece of propaganda to try and cover it up..
> The infamous lie: "The Four Maps."*
> For me, another laugher/yawner.
> See ie,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Mail legitimises four Palestinian maps that lie
> 
> 
> By presenting the map held by Abbas in the photo, with the caption “maps of historical Palestine”, the Daily Mail is promoting Palestinian propaganda, and legitimising an outrageous historical lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> camera-uk.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".. The first map in the series of four is most egregious.""
> `
> `
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew Sullivan Revises History (Again)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews.​
> They could not divide the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.
Click to expand...


*It had no land, borders, or sovereignty. *

Like Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate        
⁜→  P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, abu afak, et al

*BLUF*: Like in many of your replies, you get some basics wrong because → you look at them in isolation of everything else, as if they stand alone and are forever beyond the erosion of time.



P F Tinmore said:


> The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews.
> They could not divide the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

The Allied Powers, in conjunction with the League of Nations DID give the Mandate of Palestine territorial limits.  The generalized limits were initially decided at the San Remo Conference →  conforming to the Franco-British Treaty of 1920 → and directly applied by the League of Nations Palestine Order in Council of 1920.  These territorial limits were outlined in general the limits of the Order:
​

			
				[/FONT]Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan[FONT=arial] said:
			
		

> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.
> 
> On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.
> 
> The boundaries are described as follows:--
> 
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> *SOURCE*: Administration For the Year 1932




Remember:  The Rights and Title was renounced in favor of the Allied Powers to assume in Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 132, Treaty of Sevres). 

All the limits you keep referring to as some sort of authority favoring the Arab Palestinians DID NOT apply to the Arab Palestinians:

◈  Turkey renounced, in favor of the Principal Allied Powers, all rights and title to the territory.​◈  The Parties to the Treaties recognized the measures taken placed the future of the territories at the discretion of the Principal Allied Powers.​◈  The Arab Palestinians were not a party to any of the treaties which set the territorial limits.​◈  The Allied Powers made no obligation to the Arab Palestinians on the matter of territorial control or distribution. The only exception being the UK-TransJordan Treaty of 1946.​◈  The Treaties did not set limitations on the future of the territory as decided by the Allied Powers.​
I do not recall anyone claiming that the Allied Powers extended sovereignty.  However, the rights and title was remanded into the custody of the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinian. 





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> However, the rights and title was remanded into the custody of the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinian.


Link?

BTW, custody does not equal ownership.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Remember: The Rights and Title was renounced in favor of the Allied Powers to assume in Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 132, Treaty of Sevres).


Article 16 does not mention the Allied Powers.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, abu afak, et al
> 
> *BLUF*: Like in many of your replies, you get some basics wrong because → you look at them in isolation of everything else, as if they stand alone and are forever beyond the erosion of time.
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews.
> They could not divide the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Palestine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The Allied Powers, in conjunction with the League of Nations DID give the Mandate of Palestine territorial limits.  The generalized limits were initially decided at the San Remo Conference →  conforming to the Franco-British Treaty of 1920 → and directly applied by the League of Nations Palestine Order in Council of 1920.  These territorial limits were outlined in general the limits of the Order:
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> [/FONT]Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan[FONT=arial] said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.​​On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.​​The boundaries are described as follows:--​
> _South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.
> 
> _East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.
> 
> _North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.
> 
> _West._--The Mediterranean Sea.
> 
> *SOURCE*: Administration For the Year 1932​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> Remember:  The Rights and Title was renounced in favor of the Allied Powers to assume in Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 132, Treaty of Sevres).
> 
> All the limits you keep referring to as some sort of authority favoring the Arab Palestinians DID NOT apply to the Arab Palestinians:
> 
> ◈  Turkey renounced, in favor of the Principal Allied Powers, all rights and title to the territory.​◈  The Parties to the Treaties recognized the measures taken placed the future of the territories at the discretion of the Principal Allied Powers.​◈  The Arab Palestinians were not a party to any of the treaties which set the territorial limits.​◈  The Allied Powers made no obligation to the Arab Palestinians on the matter of territorial control or distribution. The only exception being the UK-TransJordan Treaty of 1946.​◈  The Treaties did not set limitations on the future of the territory as decided by the Allied Powers.​
> I do not recall anyone claiming that the Allied Powers extended sovereignty.  However, the rights and title was remanded into the custody of the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...


_It had no land, borders, or sovereignty._

Allow me to clarify....... Like the nation of Palestine.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the rights and title was remanded into the custody of the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinian.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> BTW, custody does not equal ownership.
Click to expand...

Now you’re getting it. Apply that principle to Arabs-Moslems occupying lands of the former Turkish Caliphate.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember: The Rights and Title was renounced in favor of the Allied Powers to assume in Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 132, Treaty of Sevres).
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 does not mention the Allied Powers.
Click to expand...

Does it mention your imaginary ‘country of Pal’istan”?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate        
⁜→  P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, abu afak, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> Article 16 does not mention the Allied Powers.


*(COMMENT)*

Each "article" of the treaty is a binding pledge between (in this case) the Allied Powers as one group and the Ottoman/Turkish Republic.  The treaty does not have to be redundant and mention the parties every single time.  At the opening of the treaty, it reads:

​

			
				The Lausanne Treaty Opening Introduction said:
			
		

> The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on one part and Turkey on the other.
> 
> Preamble
> Part I: Articles 1 - 45
> Part II: Articles 46 - 63
> Part III: Articles 64 - 100
> Part IV: Articles 101 - 118
> Part V: Articles 119 - 143
> *SOURCE*:  Treaty of Lausanne Opening Introduction






P F Tinmore said:


> BTW, custody does not equal ownership.


*(COMMENT)*

Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.



			
				The Dictionary of Legal Terms said:
			
		

> *OWNERSHIP*
> exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing; often said to include the concept of possession and that of title, thus to be broader than either.
> *SOURCE*: Dictionary of Legal Terms A Simplified Guide to the Language of Law • by Steven H. Gifis 3rd ed. • Page 341 • © Copyright 1998, 1993, 1983 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc.



Your continued protest on this point is simply a frivolous complaint.  Only YOU raised the term "ownership," → no one else used that term.  "Ownership" is generally used relevant to personal and private property.  What we are talking about in the Treaty of Lausanne is "the future of these territories" _(Palestine in this case)_ "being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  By bring-up "ownership" you are injecting an entirely new topic into the discussion.  While there are some "ownership" issues involved, at various times, we have not discussed those issues to any degree in quite some time.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## abu afak

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, abu afak, et al,
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 16 does not mention the Allied Powers.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Each "article" of the treaty is a binding pledge between (in this case) the Allied Powers as one group and the Ottoman/Turkish Republic.  The treaty does not have to be redundant and mention the parties every single time.  At the opening of the treaty, it reads:
> 
> ​
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> The Lausanne Treaty Opening Introduction said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on one part and Turkey on the other.​
> Preamble
> Part I: Articles 1 - 45
> Part II: Articles 46 - 63
> Part III: Articles 64 - 100
> Part IV: Articles 101 - 118
> Part V: Articles 119 - 143
> *SOURCE*:  Treaty of Lausanne Opening Introduction​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, custody does not equal ownership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> The Dictionary of Legal Terms said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *OWNERSHIP*​
> exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing; often said to include the concept of possession and that of title, thus to be broader than either.​
> *SOURCE*: Dictionary of Legal Terms A Simplified Guide to the Language of Law • by Steven H. Gifis 3rd ed. • Page 341 • © Copyright 1998, 1993, 1983 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc.​
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> Your continued protest on this point is simply a frivolous complaint.  Only YOU raised the term "ownership," → no one else used that term.  "Ownership" is generally used relevant to personal and private property.  What we are talking about in the Treaty of Lausanne is "the future of these territories" _(Palestine in this case)_ "being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  By bring-up "ownership" you are injecting an entirely new topic into the discussion.  While there are some "ownership" issues involved, at various times, we have not discussed those issues to any degree in quite some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...

"Owned"

App 2/3 of what became partition Israel was not owned by anyone except the Ottoman empire. It was called _miri_/belonging to the Emir.
This state land passed from the Ottomans, to the British, to the Jews.
That would include the Negev, alone fully 50% of what would become Israel.
Most of the rest of Israel and proposed Palestine was owned by NON-Resident rich Arabs who lived in Damascus, Cairo, etc
As no one with money would live in stinking/malarial 'palestine.'

`


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.


Not true.

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.*​

The territories were transferred to the new states, i.e. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

I can say that the US is "my country" even though I privately own a very small part of it. A home owner, a renter, or a homeless person have the same right to their country by the virtue of their nationality. Collectively everybody owns their country.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate        
⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't waste anymore time with you on this.  You have a reading comprehension problem. This is was we call a "hail Mary" pass.  If it was just that simple, the issues would have been resolved already (decades ago).



RoccoR said:


> Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.





P F Tinmore said:


> Not true.





P F Tinmore said:


> 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.*​
> 
> The territories were transferred to the new states, i.e. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> I can say that the US is "my country" even though I privately own a very small part of it. A home owner, a renter, or a homeless person have the same right to their country by the virtue of their nationality. Collectively everybody owns their country.


*(COMMENT)*

All it means is that, the people will assume the nationality of whatever country is assigned to the territory.  It has nothing to do with the "transfer."  It does not establish any states.  In fact, the territory that was west of the Jordan River was never transferred to any authority.  Interim government assumed sovereignty over the territory through the right of self-determination.  The Arab Palestinians rejected the recommendation and the territory was occupied by constituents of the Arab League.





Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I can't waste anymore time with you on this.  You have a reading comprehension problem. This is was we call a "hail Mary" pass.  If it was just that simple, the issues would have been resolved already (decades ago).
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.*​
> 
> The territories were transferred to the new states, i.e. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> I can say that the US is "my country" even though I privately own a very small part of it. A home owner, a renter, or a homeless person have the same right to their country by the virtue of their nationality. Collectively everybody owns their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All it means is that, the people will assume the nationality of whatever country is assigned to the territory.  It has nothing to do with the "transfer."  It does not establish any states.  In fact, the territory that was west of the Jordan River was never transferred to any authority.  Interim government assumed sovereignty over the territory through the right of self-determination.  The Arab Palestinians rejected the recommendation and the territory was occupied by constituents of the Arab League.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> All it means is that, the people will assume the nationality of whatever country is assigned to the territory. It has nothing to do with the "transfer." It does not establish any states.


Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I can't waste anymore time with you on this.  You have a reading comprehension problem. This is was we call a "hail Mary" pass.  If it was just that simple, the issues would have been resolved already (decades ago).
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.*​
> 
> The territories were transferred to the new states, i.e. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> I can say that the US is "my country" even though I privately own a very small part of it. A home owner, a renter, or a homeless person have the same right to their country by the virtue of their nationality. Collectively everybody owns their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> All it means is that, the people will assume the nationality of whatever country is assigned to the territory.  It has nothing to do with the "transfer."  It does not establish any states.  In fact, the territory that was west of the Jordan River was never transferred to any authority.  Interim government assumed sovereignty over the territory through the right of self-determination.  The Arab Palestinians rejected the recommendation and the territory was occupied by constituents of the Arab League.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it means is that, the people will assume the nationality of whatever country is assigned to the territory. It has nothing to do with the "transfer." It does not establish any states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...

Actually, the ''talking point'' is substantiated. 

You're still ducking the question.


----------



## Sixties Fan

From the New York Times, December 15, 1929:

(full article online)









						December 1929: Arabs boycotting Jews. Not "Zionists," - Jews
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Lee Edwin

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> I was only using these as examples. Palestine was a functioning society. They had districts centered around population centers and local governments. The only thing they needed were some national institutions, *like a post office,* for example. Britain had its occu...er...ahh...Mandate for thirty years and created nothing. The Palestinians would have been better off without the administrative assistance and advice of the British.
Click to expand...


Palestine didn‘t exist. It was merely Britain’s name for the British Mandate—British Mandatory Palestine. In the Ottoman Empire, no entity palestine existed, and British palestine ceased to exist with Israeli statehood.


----------



## Lee Edwin

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> ⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: It is very convenient for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to selectively alter history, omit the actual annexation process, and customary practice so that they can claim it was not sovereign territory.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Unification of the Two Banks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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, *constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan *   in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.​SOURCE:  Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan History Website​
> 
> 
> 
> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> Unification of the Two Banks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. *All automatically became citizens of Jordan,* a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.​SOURCE:  Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan History Website​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> *ENDNOTE*
> ◈  Jordanian Parliament Resolution Regarding the Annexation of the West Bank - English Text Jordanian Parliament Resolution Regarding the Annexation of the West Bank - English Text:
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is entangled in the complexities that have arisen since more than a decade before the Jordanian Sovereign Territory (JST) of the West Bank became effectively controlled by the Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan occupied the West Bank. It was not Jordanian sovereign territory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The West Bank and part of Jerusalem were annexed by Jordan.  It does not matter what the UN may say about recognition.  The self-determination and the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933, make it clear that foreign recognition is irrelevant.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Only the United Kingdom formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, _de facto_ in the case of East Jerusalem.[31] *The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty.*[32][33] Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan's annexation too, but this is dubious.[34][35]​SOURCE:​United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. page 921, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (1950)​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​IT IS WHAT IT IS.  The problem with this argument is that the HoAP position on whether or not Jordan extended the sovereignty is a loser either way.  If the West Bank was not Annex in 1950, it then still be under the UN International Trustee System and the HoAP could not show Arab control either way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jordan occupied the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.
> 
> Whose territory did Jordan occupy? The UN? Or was it Palestine?
Click to expand...


Palestine, the name of the British Mandate, no longer existed in 1948 with Israeli statehood. When Jordan seized in the ‘48 War what was internationally known as Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish land, Jordan called the territory “west bank“ (of the Jordan River), not “palestine.”


----------



## Lee Edwin

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> 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.*​
> 
> The territories were transferred to the new states, i.e. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.
> 
> I can say that the US is "my country" even though I privately own a very small part of it. A home owner, a renter, or a homeless person have the same right to their country by the virtue of their nationality. Collectively everybody owns their country.
Click to expand...


Whose country?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Lee Edwin said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> I was only using these as examples. Palestine was a functioning society. They had districts centered around population centers and local governments. The only thing they needed were some national institutions, *like a post office,* for example. Britain had its occu...er...ahh...Mandate for thirty years and created nothing. The Palestinians would have been better off without the administrative assistance and advice of the British.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine didn‘t exist. It was merely Britain’s name for the British Mandate—British Mandatory Palestine. In the Ottoman Empire, no entity palestine existed, and British palestine ceased to exist with Israeli statehood.
Click to expand...

Another one spouting Israeli talking points.

We already have plenty of those.


----------



## Lee Edwin

P F Tinmore said:


> Lee Edwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> I was only using these as examples. Palestine was a functioning society. They had districts centered around population centers and local governments. The only thing they needed were some national institutions, *like a post office,* for example. Britain had its occu...er...ahh...Mandate for thirty years and created nothing. The Palestinians would have been better off without the administrative assistance and advice of the British.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine didn‘t exist. It was merely Britain’s name for the British Mandate—British Mandatory Palestine. In the Ottoman Empire, no entity palestine existed, and British palestine ceased to exist with Israeli statehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one spouting Israeli talking points.
> 
> We already have plenty of those.
Click to expand...


Eminent Arab historian Dr. Philip Hitti: Palestine never actually existed...


----------



## Lee Edwin

P F Tinmore said:


> Lee Edwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
> ⁜→ Hollie, et al,
> 
> It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> *(OBSERVATIONS)*
> 
> In 1948, there was no internet.  In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication.  For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.
> 
> 
> An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
> The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
> There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function.  The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.
> 
> The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.
> 
> The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.
> 
> Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.
> 
> See:  United Nations Palestine Commission during its *deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948*.  It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?
> 
> I was only using these as examples. Palestine was a functioning society. They had districts centered around population centers and local governments. The only thing they needed were some national institutions, *like a post office,* for example. Britain had its occu...er...ahh...Mandate for thirty years and created nothing. The Palestinians would have been better off without the administrative assistance and advice of the British.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palestine didn‘t exist. It was merely Britain’s name for the British Mandate—British Mandatory Palestine. In the Ottoman Empire, no entity palestine existed, and British palestine ceased to exist with Israeli statehood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another one spouting Israeli talking points.
> 
> We already have plenty of those.
Click to expand...


Do we see any entity named palestine on this administrative map of the Ottoman Empire? Spoiler Alert: palestine didn’t exist...


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Rachel Busbridge on Israel-Palestine and the Settler Colonial ‘Turn’*


----------



## P F Tinmore

__





						Settler colonialism - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




In 1967, the French historian Maxime Rodinson wrote an article later translated and published in English as _Israel: A Colonial Settler-State?_[83] Lorenzo Veracini describes Israel as a colonial state and writes that Jewish settlers could expel the British in 1948 only because they had their own colonial relationships inside and outside Israel's new borders.[84] Veracini believes the possibility of an Israeli disengagement is always latent and this relationship could be severed, through an "accommodation of a Palestinian Israeli autonomy within the institutions of the Israeli state".[85] Other commentators, such as Daiva Stasiulis, Nira Yuval-Davis,[86] and Joseph Massad in the "Post Colonial Colony: time, space and bodies in Palestine/ Israel in the persistence of the Palestinian Question"[87] have included Israel in their global analysis of settler societies. Ilan Pappé describes Zionism and Israel in similar terms.[88][89] Scholar Amal Jamal, from Tel Aviv University, has stated, "Israel was created by a settler-colonial movement of Jewish immigrants".[90]


----------



## Hollie

Palestinian Settler-Colonialism
					

The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ea




					besacenter.org
				




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ease. In contrast, historical and genealogical evidence shows Palestinians descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam. The Muslim conquest of Byzantine Palestine in the 7th century CE is a textbook example of settler-colonialism, as is subsequent immigration, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries under the Ottoman and British Empires. The application of the concept to Jews and Zionism by Palestinians is both ironic and unhelpful.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Palestinian Settler-Colonialism
> 
> 
> The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> besacenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ease. In contrast, historical and genealogical evidence shows Palestinians descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam. The Muslim conquest of Byzantine Palestine in the 7th century CE is a textbook example of settler-colonialism, as is subsequent immigration, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries under the Ottoman and British Empires. The application of the concept to Jews and Zionism by Palestinians is both ironic and unhelpful.


How many Jews in Israel can trace their ancestors back to the Levant?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Settler-Colonialism
> 
> 
> The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> besacenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ease. In contrast, historical and genealogical evidence shows Palestinians descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam. The Muslim conquest of Byzantine Palestine in the 7th century CE is a textbook example of settler-colonialism, as is subsequent immigration, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries under the Ottoman and British Empires. The application of the concept to Jews and Zionism by Palestinians is both ironic and unhelpful.
> 
> 
> 
> How many Jews in Israel can trace their ancestors back to the Levant?
Click to expand...

How many?


----------



## Lee Edwin

P F Tinmore said:


> *Rachel Busbridge on Israel-Palestine and the Settler Colonial ‘Turn’*



Jews are settlers?

First century Jewish city in Israel and synagogue, including menorah and depiction of Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, believed to be where Jesus preached


----------



## Lee Edwin

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian Settler-Colonialism
> 
> 
> The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> besacenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ease. In contrast, historical and genealogical evidence shows Palestinians descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam. The Muslim conquest of Byzantine Palestine in the 7th century CE is a textbook example of settler-colonialism, as is subsequent immigration, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries under the Ottoman and British Empires. The application of the concept to Jews and Zionism by Palestinians is both ironic and unhelpful.
> 
> 
> 
> How many Jews in Israel can trace their ancestors back to the Levant?
Click to expand...


DNA research indicates Jews are genetically linked to Israel...


----------



## Lee Edwin

P F Tinmore said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Settler colonialism - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1967, the French historian Maxime Rodinson wrote an article later translated and published in English as _Israel: A Colonial Settler-State?_[83] Lorenzo Veracini describes Israel as a colonial state and writes that Jewish settlers could expel the British in 1948 only because they had their own colonial relationships inside and outside Israel's new borders.[84] Veracini believes the possibility of an Israeli disengagement is always latent and this relationship could be severed, through an "accommodation of a Palestinian Israeli autonomy within the institutions of the Israeli state".[85] Other commentators, such as Daiva Stasiulis, Nira Yuval-Davis,[86] and Joseph Massad in the "Post Colonial Colony: time, space and bodies in Palestine/ Israel in the persistence of the Palestinian Question"[87] have included Israel in their global analysis of settler societies. Ilan Pappé describes Zionism and Israel in similar terms.[88][89] Scholar Amal Jamal, from Tel Aviv University, has stated, "Israel was created by a settler-colonial movement of Jewish immigrants".[90]



Israel a colonial state? Ancient Jewish Temple in Jerusalem plundered in the Roman Empire—There weren’t any palestinians. Yeah, Jews have a really long history in their homeland...


----------



## Lee Edwin

Hollie said:


> Palestinian Settler-Colonialism
> 
> 
> The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> besacenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The concept of “settler colonialism” has been applied with almost unique vehemence against Israel. But the fact that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant can be proved with ease. In contrast, historical and genealogical evidence shows Palestinians descend primarily from three primary groups: Muslim invaders, Arab immigrants, and local converts to Islam. The Muslim conquest of Byzantine Palestine in the 7th century CE is a textbook example of settler-colonialism, as is subsequent immigration, particularly during the 19th and 20th centuries under the Ottoman and British Empires. The application of the concept to Jews and Zionism by Palestinians is both ironic and unhelpful.


 
Where were palestinians in this BBC documentary on Jews’ rebellion in Judea (“land of the Jews”) against the occupying Roman Empire about 2,000 years ago? Nowhere, palestinians didn’t exist until a few years ago...


----------



## rylah




----------



## Sixties Fan

Here is testimony from Eliahu Eliachar, the founder of the World Sephardi Foundation and a co-founder and vice president of the World Sephardi Federation, speaking before the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), held at the YMCA in Jerusalem, July 15, 1947. 

It is a good summary of the situation of Jews in Arab countries at the time.

Notably, Eliachar was a peacenik, wanting dialogue with Palestinians and a Palestinian state in the West Bank in the 1970s. He was also deputy mayor of Jerusalem

The meeting was held in private, as Eliachar explains, so as not to endanger the Jews in Arab countries further.

---------
It is through you that we are in duty bound to sound the alarm, and call upon the human conscience of the world to take stock before it is too late. What has happened under the Nazi regime in the West may happen under the rule of certain Governments, Members of the United Nations Organization. Many hundreds of thousands of Jews look up to you, Honourable Gentlemen, to prevent a repetition of massacres such as those in Baghdad under Rashid Ali, when hundreds were killed, or in Tripolitania under the British flag of occupation, where 120 men, women and children were brutally butchered. It is an open secret that the Arab League and the Arab Government consider the Jews in their realms as hostages for the Palestine problem. They have declared this openly. If you require any evidence, we have the evidence with us. We do not want to take too much of your time, but if you want any evidence on these statements made by the Arab League, made by various governments, made by Dr. Jamali, the Foreign Minister of Iraq, we are ready to give them. Jew-hatred and Jew-baiting is growing daily in almost all Arab countries. What has happened once in Baghdad, Tripolitania, Urfa, the boundary of Syria and Turkey where a whole family was massacred overnight, in Egypt, what happened on 2nd November, 1945, Balfour Declaration Day, may happen again with increased violence.
----------------
Our present position in Palestine is degrading. From free citizens we were turned — I am speaking of the Jewish population of this country — into second-rate citizens by the White Paper of 1939, and this, against all provisions of the Mandate and contrary to our own status under Turkish law. There are closed zones established by the Mandatory; these were open to us before the British occupation. Such is Transjordan, such are other zones in Palestine itself, details of which were given to you by our official spokesmen

(full article online)









						UN testimony on antisemitism in the Arab world, 1947
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

__





						Occupation of Palestine started in 1948
					

The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine, a seizure of territory that much of the world recognizes as an illegal occupation.



					www.workers.org
				




That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel_._ Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Occupation of Palestine started in 1948
> 
> 
> The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine, a seizure of territory that much of the world recognizes as an illegal occupation.
> 
> 
> 
> www.workers.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel_._ Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day.


Was that the topic delivered by your Imam during Friday prayers at your madrassah?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Green Olive + Zochrot discuss the nakba, refugees and more​


----------



## Sixties Fan

Beyond a retelling of the 1948 war, “Above and Beyond” examines the motivations of the foreign volunteers—who were both Jews and non-Jews. 

It mines the tensions between the Israelis and the Machal foreign volunteers. It reveals how desperately Israel needed planes and pilots at the time. And in recounting the personal stories of the American Jewish pilots, whose experiences in Israel were life-altering, the film is a story of Jewish identity.

“The tremendous historical, unbearable clash of the Holocaust and the birth of the state of Israel, and the loud cacophony that happened between those two events, shook these pilots into a Jewish identity that they might not have otherwise had,” Grossman says.

(full article online)









						The Story of Jewish American Pilots Who Fought for Israel in 1948 | United with Israel
					

Nancy Spielberg, sister of famed director Steven, has produced a new documentary focusing on the Jewish American pilots who volunteered to fight in Israel's War of Independence.




					unitedwithisrael.org


----------



## Sixties Fan

Fr Jovan (Culibrk), Serbian Orthodox Bishop of Lipljan in Kosovo, spoke about how the Bosnian Muslim SS troops, sent by former communist Croatian Yugoslav dictator Josip Broz Tito, fought against Israel. 1948., one of the first major battle for the independence of Israel was at a fortress, Castel, between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. On the Israeli side had fought a great general who later defended Israel in the war 1973rd year., David Dado Elazar, born in Sarajevo. A great soldier, a real soldier! Than he was very young soldier, as the second to last train ran from Yugoslavia before Hitler entered into it. Suddenly he heard a language with which he grew up, and in which language he wrote his only song in his life: Serbian! How was that possible? On the opposite side, against the Israelis fought one Bosnian Muslim battalion of the Handzar SS Division, which Tito had sent to fight against the newborn state of Israel. The only difference was in the fact that instead of the former SS officers they were now led by Communist officers. Of course, Bosnian Muslims were not allowed to be punished after World War II for what they did, but were sent to finish what they had learned. Handzar Division, as the SS Division, after working in Balcans and Europe need to finish the job in Israel. One of the surviving members of the Bosnian Muslim SS  Handzar Division now lives in a crisis area in Lebanon. A few years ago, he spoke about the mission in which they were sent by Tito from the camp where the prisoners were after the Second World War.

(vide video online)


----------



## Sixties Fan

The British authorities were supposed to protect the homes. They didn't - Arabs broke into a synagogue and defiled the Torah there several months later:






UPDATE: Here is the letter from British officials about the evacuation - and the expectation that the Jews would return shortly. (h/t Stephen)






(full article online)









						When the British evacuated the Jews from Silwan (UPDATE)
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Rigby5

Sixties Fan said:


> Fr Jovan (Culibrk), Serbian Orthodox Bishop of Lipljan in Kosovo, spoke about how the Bosnian Muslim SS troops, sent by former communist Croatian Yugoslav dictator Josip Broz Tito, fought against Israel. 1948., one of the first major battle for the independence of Israel was at a fortress, Castel, between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. On the Israeli side had fought a great general who later defended Israel in the war 1973rd year., David Dado Elazar, born in Sarajevo. A great soldier, a real soldier! Than he was very young soldier, as the second to last train ran from Yugoslavia before Hitler entered into it. Suddenly he heard a language with which he grew up, and in which language he wrote his only song in his life: Serbian! How was that possible? On the opposite side, against the Israelis fought one Bosnian Muslim battalion of the Handzar SS Division, which Tito had sent to fight against the newborn state of Israel. The only difference was in the fact that instead of the former SS officers they were now led by Communist officers. Of course, Bosnian Muslims were not allowed to be punished after World War II for what they did, but were sent to finish what they had learned. Handzar Division, as the SS Division, after working in Balcans and Europe need to finish the job in Israel. One of the surviving members of the Bosnian Muslim SS  Handzar Division now lives in a crisis area in Lebanon. A few years ago, he spoke about the mission in which they were sent by Tito from the camp where the prisoners were after the Second World War.
> 
> (vide video online)



False propaganda.
Bosnian Moslems are Turks, not really religious, and had nothing to do with the Mideast.
And Israel lost the 1948 war.
The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.
What Israel did fight for was an attempt to capture Jerusalem, because Jerusalem was not included in the UN partition.
And Israel totally lost and had to withdraw.
And Tito never sent troops into the 1948 conflict.


----------



## Rigby5

Sixties Fan said:


> The British authorities were supposed to protect the homes. They didn't - Arabs broke into a synagogue and defiled the Torah there several months later:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UPDATE: Here is the letter from British officials about the evacuation - and the expectation that the Jews would return shortly. (h/t Stephen)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the British evacuated the Jews from Silwan (UPDATE)
> 
> 
> Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elderofziyon.blogspot.com



That is ridiculous lies.
The fact the British left was because the Zionist murder them.
The Zionists blew up the King David Hotel, wiping out the British peacekeeper headquarters.
And just to ensure the UN did not try to protect the Palestinians from the murdering Zionists, they shot down the UN Moderator, Folke Berndotte, in the street.
That prevented anyone from interferring with the massacre of Arab villages by the Zionists.  
If you don't know the history, just look up the massacre of Dier Yassin, since that was recorded by famous people like Albert Einstein.









						Deir Yassin massacre - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Not pretty to read about.
The Zionist went from home to home, using grenades for their genocide.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Model Bella Hadid’s Instagram page has been filled with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic content, including abject lies.

One of her more recent posts shows how clueless she actually is about “Palestine.”

Hadid posted a picture from 1939 of a soccer team in “Palestine,” commenting with the text “so cool” and a heart emoji. But what she didn’t realize is that the players were all Jews with Hebrew logos on their shirts.

(full article online)

https://unitedwithisrael.org/watch-israel-hating-celeb-exposes-shocking-ignorance-about-palestine/?utm_source=newsletters_unitedwithisrael_org&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Israel+to+UK%3A+Let+Us+Save+2-Year+Old’s+Life%3B+Israelis+Produce+Milk+Without+Cows%21+Iran+Busted+Covering+Up+Nukes%3B+Israel-Hating+Celeb+Didn%27t+Know+This+About+‘Palestine’&utm_campaign=20210609_m163543832_Israel+to+UK%3A+Let+Us+Save+2-Year+Old’s+Life%3B+Israelis+Produce+Milk+Without+Cows%21+Iran+Busted+Covering+Up+Nukes%3B+Israel-Hating+Celeb+Didn%27t+Know+This+About+‘Palestine’&utm_term=WATCH_3A+Israel-Hating+Celebrity+Didn_27t+Know+This+Fact+About+_E2_80_98Palestine_E2_80_99


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> And Israel lost the 1948 war.
> The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.



Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war.
> The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?
Click to expand...

Israel did not win the 1948 war.

It did end up *occupying* most of Palestine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel did not win the 1948 war.



So, they held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence, because they lost?


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war.
> The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?
Click to expand...


Wrong.
Israel focused on capturing the corridor to Jerusalem and failed.
So the 1948 UN partition became the official agreed upon border after the war.
Israel gained nothing by starting the war except to vacate hundreds of Arab villages inside Israel, by massacre or extortion.


----------



## Rigby5

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war.
> The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel did not win the 1948 war.
> 
> It did end up *occupying* most of Palestine.
Click to expand...

Israel did end up occupying ALL of Palestine, but by illegally starting half a dozen additional wars.
Mostly the 1967 invasion of Jerusalem.


----------



## Rigby5

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war.
> The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel did not win the 1948 war.
> 
> It did end up *occupying* most of Palestine.
Click to expand...


And we should also remember that occupation of land by conquest is a horrific war crime since the Geneva Conventions started in 1906.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not win the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence, because they lost?
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war.
> The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Israel focused on capturing the corridor to Jerusalem and failed.
> So the 1948 UN partition became the official agreed upon border after the war.
> Israel gained nothing by starting the war except to vacate hundreds of Arab villages inside Israel, by massacre or extortion.
Click to expand...


*Wrong.
Israel focused on capturing the corridor to Jerusalem and failed.*

They never reached Jerusalem?
How much land did they hold the day they declared independence?
How much land did they hold after the war?

*Israel gained nothing by starting the war*

Israel started the war? By tricking Arab armies to invade? That's funny!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Israel did end up occupying ALL of Palestine



When did Israel occupy Jordan?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not win the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence, because they lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


Really? How much before? How much after? Round numbers.

Use Arabic number, if it makes you feel like less of a failure.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not win the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence, because they lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? How much before? How much after? Round numbers.
> 
> Use Arabic number, if it makes you feel like less of a failure.
Click to expand...

Israel won nothing in 1948.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not win the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence, because they lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? How much before? How much after? Round numbers.
> 
> Use Arabic number, if it makes you feel like less of a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel won nothing in 1948.
Click to expand...


That's awesome!

So what was its size, before and after they won nothing?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not win the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence, because they lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? How much before? How much after? Round numbers.
> 
> Use Arabic number, if it makes you feel like less of a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel won nothing in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's awesome!
> 
> So what was its size, before and after they won nothing?
Click to expand...

0


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not win the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence, because they lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? How much before? How much after? Round numbers.
> 
> Use Arabic number, if it makes you feel like less of a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel won nothing in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's awesome!
> 
> So what was its size, before and after they won nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 0
Click to expand...


Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0.......


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not win the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence, because they lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? How much before? How much after? Round numbers.
> 
> Use Arabic number, if it makes you feel like less of a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel won nothing in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's awesome!
> 
> So what was its size, before and after they won nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0.......
Click to expand...

That sidesteps my post


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not win the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence, because they lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? How much before? How much after? Round numbers.
> 
> Use Arabic number, if it makes you feel like less of a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel won nothing in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's awesome!
> 
> So what was its size, before and after they won nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sidesteps my post
Click to expand...


Makes Arabs look even weaker than we know they are.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel did not win the 1948 war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, they held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence, because they lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? How much before? How much after? Round numbers.
> 
> Use Arabic number, if it makes you feel like less of a failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel won nothing in 1948.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's awesome!
> 
> So what was its size, before and after they won nothing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That sidesteps my post
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Makes Arabs look even weaker than we know they are.
Click to expand...

You are acting like you won.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> You are acting like you won.



Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass, and got much larger, before I was born.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are acting like you won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass, and got much larger, before I was born.
Click to expand...

Who said you won? What did you win? Who did you win it from?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are acting like you won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass, and got much larger, before I was born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said you won? What did you win? Who did you win it from?
Click to expand...


*Who said you won?*

I said I won? Link?

*What did you win?*

Are you drunk? Alzheimer's?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are acting like you won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass, and got much larger, before I was born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said you won? What did you win? Who did you win it from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Who said you won?*
> 
> I said I won? Link?
> 
> *What did you win?*
> 
> Are you drunk? Alzheimer's?
Click to expand...

You are ducking the questions.

Link to what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Link to what?



To the claims you're ascribing to me.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
Click to expand...

You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
Click to expand...

*
You say that you kicked Arab ass.*

I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
Click to expand...




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,







__





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

And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
Click to expand...


Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
Do you often speak to nations?
Do they speak back?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
Click to expand...

Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
Click to expand...


Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?
Click to expand...

Why are you wasting time on this crap when you haven't answered my questions yet?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you wasting time on this crap when you haven't answered my questions yet?
Click to expand...


You know, Mohammed, you're my favorite Hamas spokesman.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you wasting time on this crap when you haven't answered my questions yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, Mohammed, you're my favorite Hamas spokesman.
Click to expand...

Anything to duck out of those questions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you wasting time on this crap when you haven't answered my questions yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, Mohammed, you're my favorite Hamas spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to duck out of those questions.
Click to expand...

What do you get out of being such a hypocrite? You duck EVERYONES question, but then go around accusing other posters of doing to same ....


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you wasting time on this crap when you haven't answered my questions yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, Mohammed, you're my favorite Hamas spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to duck out of those questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you get out of being such a hypocrite? You duck EVERYONES question, but then go around accusing other posters of doing to same ....
Click to expand...

Examples?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you wasting time on this crap when you haven't answered my questions yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, Mohammed, you're my favorite Hamas spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to duck out of those questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you get out of being such a hypocrite? You duck EVERYONES question, but then go around accusing other posters of doing to same ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples?
Click to expand...

How about the biggest example of all. You are always asked to provide evidence of Palestine’s alleges “international borders”. Yet you duck this question all the time or you provide an unrelated document


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you wasting time on this crap when you haven't answered my questions yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, Mohammed, you're my favorite Hamas spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to duck out of those questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you get out of being such a hypocrite? You duck EVERYONES question, but then go around accusing other posters of doing to same ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the biggest example of all. You are always asked to provide evidence of Palestine’s alleges “international borders”. Yet you duck this question all the time or you provide an unrelated document
Click to expand...

I have posted two different sources many times. Why do you keep coming back with the same stupid question?

I can post them again if you like but tomorrow you will come back with the same stupid question.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you wasting time on this crap when you haven't answered my questions yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, Mohammed, you're my favorite Hamas spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to duck out of those questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you get out of being such a hypocrite? You duck EVERYONES question, but then go around accusing other posters of doing to same ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the biggest example of all. You are always asked to provide evidence of Palestine’s alleges “international borders”. Yet you duck this question all the time or you provide an unrelated document
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted two different sources many times. Why do you keep coming back with the same stupid question?
> 
> I can post them again if you like but tomorrow you will come back with the same stupid question.
Click to expand...

No you haven’t . You’re lying again. I on the other hand have posted several links on MANY occasions that clearly state: ISRAEL HAS INTERNATIONAL BORDERS WITH JORDAN AND EGYPT.
All you do is post some link that is unrelated . So if Palestine has international borders, then who borders it to the East, West, North and south ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> I have posted two different sources many times.



Hamas and Fatah? DURR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

toastman said:


> So if Palestine has international borders, then who borders it to the East, West, North and south ?



Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you wasting time on this crap when you haven't answered my questions yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, Mohammed, you're my favorite Hamas spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to duck out of those questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you get out of being such a hypocrite? You duck EVERYONES question, but then go around accusing other posters of doing to same ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the biggest example of all. You are always asked to provide evidence of Palestine’s alleges “international borders”. Yet you duck this question all the time or you provide an unrelated document
Click to expand...

I have posted two different sources many times. Why do you keep coming back with the same stupid question?

I can post them again if you like but tomorrow you will come back with the same stupid question.


toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you wasting time on this crap when you haven't answered my questions yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, Mohammed, you're my favorite Hamas spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to duck out of those questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you get out of being such a hypocrite? You duck EVERYONES question, but then go around accusing other posters of doing to same ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the biggest example of all. You are always asked to provide evidence of Palestine’s alleges “international borders”. Yet you duck this question all the time or you provide an unrelated document
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted two different sources many times. Why do you keep coming back with the same stupid question?
> 
> I can post them again if you like but tomorrow you will come back with the same stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you haven’t . You’re lying again. I on the other hand have posted several links on MANY occasions that clearly state: ISRAEL HAS INTERNATIONAL BORDERS WITH JORDAN AND EGYPT.
> All you do is post some link that is unrelated . So if Palestine has international borders, then who borders it to the East, West, North and south ?
Click to expand...




toastman said:


> ISRAEL HAS INTERNATIONAL BORDERS WITH JORDAN AND EGYPT.


And my question about those is always ducked.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if Palestine has international borders, then who borders it to the East, West, North and south ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel?
Click to expand...

There are no borders there.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted two different sources many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamas and Fatah? DURR
Click to expand...

Yeah, those too but they aren't the ones I posted.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Palestine doesn't exist the Arabs refuse every offer to form a country cause they claim all of Israel as their Country.


----------



## rylah

RetiredGySgt said:


> Palestine doesn't exist the Arabs refuse every offer to form a country cause they claim all of Israel as their Country.



What they claim is *exclusive Arab domination over the entire Middle East.*

Israel for them is "just pennies" when compared to their long term appetites.

100,000 Arabs already sacrificed - calling for another million "martyrs",

 - for them it's pennies, "pennies for pennies"...


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you wasting time on this crap when you haven't answered my questions yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, Mohammed, you're my favorite Hamas spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to duck out of those questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you get out of being such a hypocrite? You duck EVERYONES question, but then go around accusing other posters of doing to same ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the biggest example of all. You are always asked to provide evidence of Palestine’s alleges “international borders”. Yet you duck this question all the time or you provide an unrelated document
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted two different sources many times. Why do you keep coming back with the same stupid question?
> 
> I can post them again if you like but tomorrow you will come back with the same stupid question.
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To the claims you're ascribing to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that you kicked Arab ass. Does that not imply that you believe that you won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You say that you kicked Arab ass.*
> 
> I never said I kicked Arab ass. Sorry about your traumatic brain injury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kicking a lot of Arab ass with 0...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, Israel kicked Arab ass,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war. The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.   Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?  Israel did not win the 1948 war.  It did end up occupying most of Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you think you're speaking to Israel.
> Do you often speak to nations?
> Do they speak back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aren't you an Israeli spokesperson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is everyone who points out your idiocy an Israeli spokesperson, or just me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you wasting time on this crap when you haven't answered my questions yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, Mohammed, you're my favorite Hamas spokesman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anything to duck out of those questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you get out of being such a hypocrite? You duck EVERYONES question, but then go around accusing other posters of doing to same ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the biggest example of all. You are always asked to provide evidence of Palestine’s alleges “international borders”. Yet you duck this question all the time or you provide an unrelated document
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have posted two different sources many times. Why do you keep coming back with the same stupid question?
> 
> I can post them again if you like but tomorrow you will come back with the same stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you haven’t . You’re lying again. I on the other hand have posted several links on MANY occasions that clearly state: ISRAEL HAS INTERNATIONAL BORDERS WITH JORDAN AND EGYPT.
> All you do is post some link that is unrelated . So if Palestine has international borders, then who borders it to the East, West, North and south ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ISRAEL HAS INTERNATIONAL BORDERS WITH JORDAN AND EGYPT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And my question about those is always ducked.
Click to expand...

Your questions are irrelevant. The links that I posted are facts, your jibberish is not. You have yet to refute the links I posted about Israel’s borders


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if Palestine has international borders, then who borders it to the East, West, North and south ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no borders there.
Click to expand...

Israel has internationally recognized borders with Egypt and Jordan, through treaties. Not a single mention of Palestine in this treaties . Wonder why that is ....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I think Israel should evict the Arabs from the West bank and Gaza nd take it as part of Israel.


----------



## toastman

So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

toastman said:


> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?



Do you remember when Tinny claimed none of the Armistice agreements mentioned Israel?

That was funny.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?


Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember when Tinny claimed none of the Armistice agreements mentioned Israel?
> 
> That was funny.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that is correct.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
Click to expand...


* Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. *

Treaties have to be brokered by the UN?
Are non-UN treaties invalid?

*You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. *

The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember when Tinny claimed none of the Armistice agreements mentioned Israel?
> 
> That was funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, that is correct.
Click to expand...


I know, when I pointed out your lies, it was funny indeed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. *
> 
> Treaties have to be brokered by the UN?
> Are non-UN treaties invalid?
> 
> *You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. *
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
Click to expand...




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?


Indeed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. *
> 
> Treaties have to be brokered by the UN?
> Are non-UN treaties invalid?
> 
> *You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. *
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...


Israel got both while they were kicking Arab ass.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. *
> 
> Treaties have to be brokered by the UN?
> Are non-UN treaties invalid?
> 
> *You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. *
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...

But you just said that they did .. So you’re agreeing with another poster who just contradicted your last post ????? Yikes


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
Click to expand...

So treaties have to be brokered by the U.N to be valid ? And how could the U.S have given anything to Israel ?
Just because you disagree with Israel’s borders, it does not mean that they simply do not exist.

when someone makes a claim on this message board, they are asked to back it up with links, which I have done multiple times . You are simply to naive and immature to accept the truth. A country either has borders, or it doesn’t; there is nothing it between, no grey area. In this case, I have provided sufficient evidence to prove that they do ....


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So treaties have to be brokered by the U.N to be valid ? And how could the U.S have given anything to Israel ?
> Just because you disagree with Israel’s borders, it does not mean that they simply do not exist.
> 
> when someone makes a claim on this message board, they are asked to back it up with links, which I have done multiple times . You are simply to naive and immature to accept the truth. A country either has borders, or it doesn’t; there is nothing it between, no grey area. In this case, I have provided sufficient evidence to prove that they do ....
Click to expand...

In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?

Whenever I ask that question everyone starts dancing.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Israel lost the 1948 war.
> The 1948 borders were created by the UN, not by Israel winning anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why Israel held more land after the war than they did the day they declared independence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel did not win the 1948 war.
> 
> It did end up *occupying* most of Palestine.
Click to expand...

Arabs did not lose the war. Their occupation ended in humiliating fashion.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
Click to expand...

Your bumbling tirades are a hoot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?



Who signed the agreements on the Palestinian side?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. *
> 
> Treaties have to be brokered by the UN?
> Are non-UN treaties invalid?
> 
> *You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. *
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel got both while they were kicking Arab ass.
Click to expand...

It is inadmissible to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who signed the agreements on the Palestinian side?
Click to expand...

Nobody. Palestine was not a party to that war.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. *
> 
> Treaties have to be brokered by the UN?
> Are non-UN treaties invalid?
> 
> *You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. *
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel got both while they were kicking Arab ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is inadmissible to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
Click to expand...

"Inadmissible"

You cut and pasted that silly slogan from an earlier thread.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who signed the agreements on the Palestinian side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody. Palestine was not a party to that war.
Click to expand...

There was no "Pal'istan''. A little common sense would have saved you some embarrassment.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> It is inadmissible to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.


 

Is it inadmissible to acquire territory by beating Arab ass?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who signed the agreements on the Palestinian side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody. Palestine was not a party to that war.
Click to expand...


Exactly. 
Not a country, not a party to the Armistice Agreements between Israel and the Arabs they beat.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. *
> 
> Treaties have to be brokered by the UN?
> Are non-UN treaties invalid?
> 
> *You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. *
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel got both while they were kicking Arab ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is inadmissible to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Inadmissible"
> 
> You cut and pasted that silly slogan from an earlier thread.
Click to expand...

Indeed, UN Resolution 242.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who signed the agreements on the Palestinian side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody. Palestine was not a party to that war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> Not a country, not a party to the Armistice Agreements between Israel and the Arabs they beat.
Click to expand...

Contrary to Israeli bullshit propaganda, Israel did not win that war.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. *
> 
> Treaties have to be brokered by the UN?
> Are non-UN treaties invalid?
> 
> *You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. *
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US didn't hold either, how could it give them to Israel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Israel got both while they were kicking Arab ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is inadmissible to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Inadmissible"
> 
> You cut and pasted that silly slogan from an earlier thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, UN Resolution 242.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Pass that on to your Islamic terrorist heroes at the next border gee-had.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who signed the agreements on the Palestinian side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody. Palestine was not a party to that war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> Not a country, not a party to the Armistice Agreements between Israel and the Arabs they beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contrary to Israeli bullshit propaganda, Israel did not win that war.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Israel won convincingly. The Araba-Moslems sufferd a humiliating loss, something they have done repeatedly.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who signed the agreements on the Palestinian side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody. Palestine was not a party to that war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> Not a country, not a party to the Armistice Agreements between Israel and the Arabs they beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contrary to Israeli bullshit propaganda, Israel did not win that war.
Click to expand...


Right. They didn't win despite kicking Arab ass and being larger after the war than before.

We'll call it a draw.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So treaties have to be brokered by the U.N to be valid ? And how could the U.S have given anything to Israel ?
> Just because you disagree with Israel’s borders, it does not mean that they simply do not exist.
> 
> when someone makes a claim on this message board, they are asked to back it up with links, which I have done multiple times . You are simply to naive and immature to accept the truth. A country either has borders, or it doesn’t; there is nothing it between, no grey area. In this case, I have provided sufficient evidence to prove that they do ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?
> 
> Whenever I ask that question everyone starts dancing.
Click to expand...

And once again Tinmore, you proved that you are the kind of ducking and dancing. Not a SINGLE rebuttal to all the proof I provided about Israel’s borders. Just more jibberish. The map I showed you clearly shows Israel’s territory and international borders. Nothing about Palestine . Why is that ? Also, where did the UN state that the Negev is Palestine ?? Where is a current map of Palestine showing the Negev inside its borders ?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who signed the agreements on the Palestinian side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody. Palestine was not a party to that war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> Not a country, not a party to the Armistice Agreements between Israel and the Arabs they beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contrary to Israeli bullshit propaganda, Israel did not win that war.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War

RESULT: Israel victory
Palestinian Arab defeat


Once again, another of Tinmore’s lies is shot down by a link. Man, this is just too easy


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who signed the agreements on the Palestinian side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody. Palestine was not a party to that war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> Not a country, not a party to the Armistice Agreements between Israel and the Arabs they beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contrary to Israeli bullshit propaganda, Israel did not win that war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. They didn't win despite kicking Arab ass and being larger after the war than before.
> 
> We'll call it a draw.
Click to expand...


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War


Where does it say that Israel won that war?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who signed the agreements on the Palestinian side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody. Palestine was not a party to that war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> Not a country, not a party to the Armistice Agreements between Israel and the Arabs they beat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contrary to Israeli bullshit propaganda, Israel did not win that war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. They didn't win despite kicking Arab ass and being larger after the war than before.
> 
> We'll call it a draw.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Nice duck.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
Click to expand...

Indeed, Arabs-Moslems losing.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
Click to expand...

In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..

let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
Click to expand...

This article *needs additional citations for verification*.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Tinmore, why is there no mention of Palestine in the treaties between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan ?
> 
> 
> 
> Now we are getting to a serious question. Those treaties were not brokered by the UN. They were brokered by the US. You know, the same country that illegally gave Jerusalem and the Golan to Israel. They also claim that Fatah is the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
> 
> The US is not a credible source. Just because they say so does not make it so. No surprise that Palestine was not mentioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So treaties have to be brokered by the U.N to be valid ? And how could the U.S have given anything to Israel ?
> Just because you disagree with Israel’s borders, it does not mean that they simply do not exist.
> 
> when someone makes a claim on this message board, they are asked to back it up with links, which I have done multiple times . You are simply to naive and immature to accept the truth. A country either has borders, or it doesn’t; there is nothing it between, no grey area. In this case, I have provided sufficient evidence to prove that they do ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the1949 UN Armistice Agreements, the UN states *two times* that the Negev is Palestine. How can Israel claim borders on that territory?
> 
> Whenever I ask that question everyone starts dancing.
Click to expand...

the Arabs BROKE the armistice making it null and void. Pretty simple concept.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
Click to expand...

Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??

How about this:

“Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”









						Why the Arabs were defeated
					

Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.




					www.aljazeera.com
				




This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.

From the same article :


The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
Click to expand...




toastman said:


> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......


What did Egypt lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Lebanon lose?
What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
Click to expand...

They failed to defeat the Israelis, 5 Arab armies couldn't beat the Israelis. 5 supposedly professional armies could not beat the rag tag Israelis.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RetiredGySgt said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They failed to defeat the Israelis, 5 Arab armies couldn't beat the Israelis. 5 supposedly professional armies could not beat the rag tag Israelis.
Click to expand...

Duck.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They failed to defeat the Israelis, 5 Arab armies couldn't beat the Israelis. 5 supposedly professional armies could not beat the rag tag Israelis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Duck.
Click to expand...

Your usual:


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
Click to expand...


What did Israel lose?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
Click to expand...

They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war . 
You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
Nice duck BTW


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
Click to expand...

Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
Click to expand...

They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
Click to expand...

The Islamist armies were defeated by Israel. Pretty simple. It seems that hurts your feelings.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
Click to expand...

You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
Click to expand...

Holy obfuscation, Batman.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy obfuscation, Batman.
Click to expand...

Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore. 
Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking . 
I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy obfuscation, Batman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
> Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
> I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..
Click to expand...

No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy obfuscation, Batman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
> Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
> I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.
Click to expand...

I have answered everything you have asked me and provided several links. You have provided NOTHING . Just ducking and dancing. Now you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing , trying to retreat when you know you lost ..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> What did Israel win and from whom?



More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy obfuscation, Batman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
> Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
> I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered everything you have asked me and provided several links. You have provided NOTHING . Just ducking and dancing. Now you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing , trying to retreat when you know you lost ..
Click to expand...

What did Egypt lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Lebanon lose?
What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
Click to expand...

Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.

You don't make any sense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy obfuscation, Batman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
> Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
> I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered everything you have asked me and provided several links. You have provided NOTHING . Just ducking and dancing. Now you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing , trying to retreat when you know you lost ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
Click to expand...


*What did Egypt lose?*

They got their ass kicked.

*What did Syria lose?*

They got their ass kicked.

*What did Lebanon lose?*

They got their ass kicked.

*What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?*

They got their ass kicked.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.
> 
> You don't make any sense.
Click to expand...



*Israel had a war with nobody*

They didn't fight Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq?

* and did not win.*

Only if you call kicking Arab ass and winning more territory "not winning"......DURR

You run with that, Sparky.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel had a war with nobody*
> 
> They didn't fight Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq?
> 
> * and did not win.*
> 
> Only if you call kicking Arab ass and winning more territory "not winning"......DURR
> 
> You run with that, Sparky.
Click to expand...

What did they win and who did they win it from?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel had a war with nobody*
> 
> They didn't fight Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq?
> 
> * and did not win.*
> 
> Only if you call kicking Arab ass and winning more territory "not winning"......DURR
> 
> You run with that, Sparky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did they win and who did they win it from?
Click to expand...




Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel had a war with nobody*
> 
> They didn't fight Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq?
> 
> * and did not win.*
> 
> Only if you call kicking Arab ass and winning more territory "not winning"......DURR
> 
> You run with that, Sparky.
Click to expand...

Tinmore is getting desperate now, he’s trying his best to retreat but he’s making even more a fool out for himself


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC:  Outcomes
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF:* The term "win" or "lose" in the regards to combat gains or losses is rather an obsolete line of thought and termonology.  It is an unsophisticate and crude _(over symplistic)_ way of stating the nature of  territorial control, political achivements, and battle engagements.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

When you talk about accomplishments at the stratigic advvantages of a region _(__militarily economically, diplomatically, territrorially, etc__)_, you are better able to discuss the degree to which the nature of  territorial control, political achivements, and battlefield assessments of victories might be practically discussed. 

To suggest that Israel won or lost any of the territory it is now in control of and responsible → is just as absurd as questioning the "win" • "loss" statistics as if it were a game.  Anyone who _(like myself)_ has been to Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Yemen knows better then to treat it as a game.  There is no real rule book.  

If you apply deeper meaning into the what our friend "toddsterpatriot" said, there is something about it that rings true.  After the UN Charter (1945) became effective the monitoing of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine fell under the responsibility of _International Trusteeship System; _less - of course, that which was earmarked the Jewish State and the Arab State.  

The Arab League States _(in particular Egypt and Jordan)_ took control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and Jersualem.  The first established a Military Governship and the second Annex the territory by extending Sovereignty.  Was the territory "won" or "lost"?  _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO...  You can see that the duration of control was temporary, not all that long.  By 1988, the Irsaelis had extended - what was termed → "effective control."  And while we may argue about what the meaning is for these terms, the one "fact" is that until 2006, the Arab Palestinians had no real control over the political agency of control for became segmented.

In this little description you can see why the terms "win" or "loss" are not really descriptive. An "occupation" is defined by *Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations* (HR). It is very clear and uncomplicated.

"Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."​
*(QUESTIONS)*

When an Army extends over more territory than what they started with, what is that called?
When a Political Entity is offered more territory during the peace before a conflict → than it controls at the end of the conflict, what is that called?

*(Ω)*

The "Tinmore" question is very symplistic, too simplistic to answer.

.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## Hollie

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC:  Outcomes
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF:* The term "win" or "lose" in the regards to combat gains or losses is rather an obsolete line of thought and termonology.  It is an unsophisticate and crude _(over symplistic)_ way of stating the nature of  territorial control, political achivements, and battle engagements.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When you talk about accomplishments at the stratigic advvantages of a region _(__militarily economically, diplomatically, territrorially, etc__)_, you are better able to discuss the degree to which the nature of  territorial control, political achivements, and battlefield assessments of victories might be practically discussed.
> 
> To suggest that Israel won or lost any of the territory it is now in control of and responsible → is just as absurd as questioning the "win" • "loss" statistics as if it were a game.  Anyone who _(like myself)_ has been to Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Yemen knows better then to treat it as a game.  There is no real rule book.
> 
> If you apply deeper meaning into the what our friend "toddsterpatriot" said, there is something about it that rings true.  After the UN Charter (1945) became effective the monitoing of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine fell under the responsibility of _International Trusteeship System; _less - of course, that which was earmarked the Jewish State and the Arab State.
> 
> The Arab League States _(in particular Egypt and Jordan)_ took control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and Jersualem.  The first established a Military Governship and the second Annex the territory by extending Sovereignty.  Was the territory "won" or "lost"?  _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO...  You can see that the duration of control was temporary, not all that long.  By 1988, the Irsaelis had extended - what was termed → "effective control."  And while we may argue about what the meaning is for these terms, the one "fact" is that until 2006, the Arab Palestinians had no real control over the political agency of control for became segmented.
> 
> In this little description you can see why the terms "win" or "loss" are not really descriptive. An "occupation" is defined by *Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations* (HR). It is very clear and uncomplicated.
> 
> "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."​
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> When an Army extends over more territory than what they started with, what is that called?
> When a Political Entity is offered more territory during the peace before a conflict → than it controls at the end of the conflict, what is that called?
> 
> *(Ω)*
> 
> The "Tinmore" question is very symplistic, too simplistic to answer.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...

At the risk of hurting P F. Tinmore's feelings, what is it called when armies cross a frontier with the stated goal of destroying a nascent State and fail at that stated goal?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> What did they win and who did they win it from?



Already told you.

More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.

And they kicked a bunch of Arab ass.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy obfuscation, Batman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
> Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
> I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered everything you have asked me and provided several links. You have provided NOTHING . Just ducking and dancing. Now you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing , trying to retreat when you know you lost ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What did Egypt lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Syria lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Lebanon lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
Click to expand...


How is that relevant?
Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons, while the Arab states had old surplus that was decades obsolete.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel had a war with nobody*
> 
> They didn't fight Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq?
> 
> * and did not win.*
> 
> Only if you call kicking Arab ass and winning more territory "not winning"......DURR
> 
> You run with that, Sparky.
Click to expand...


No, not a single Arab nation ever committed more than a symbolic force against Israeli aggression, because it was not that important to them, and the US paid them to only do a minor, symbolic resistance.
And Iraq has as yet never ever been involved in any conflict with Israel.

Stealing more territory illegally by armed conflict, is totally and completely a war crime.
Has been since 1906 when the Geneva Conventions were started.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> How is that relevant?
> Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons



In 1948? Are you drunk again?


----------



## Rigby5

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC:  Outcomes
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF:* The term "win" or "lose" in the regards to combat gains or losses is rather an obsolete line of thought and termonology.  It is an unsophisticate and crude _(over symplistic)_ way of stating the nature of  territorial control, political achivements, and battle engagements.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When you talk about accomplishments at the stratigic advvantages of a region _(__militarily economically, diplomatically, territrorially, etc__)_, you are better able to discuss the degree to which the nature of  territorial control, political achivements, and battlefield assessments of victories might be practically discussed.
> 
> To suggest that Israel won or lost any of the territory it is now in control of and responsible → is just as absurd as questioning the "win" • "loss" statistics as if it were a game.  Anyone who _(like myself)_ has been to Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Yemen knows better then to treat it as a game.  There is no real rule book.
> 
> If you apply deeper meaning into the what our friend "toddsterpatriot" said, there is something about it that rings true.  After the UN Charter (1945) became effective the monitoing of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine fell under the responsibility of _International Trusteeship System; _less - of course, that which was earmarked the Jewish State and the Arab State.
> 
> The Arab League States _(in particular Egypt and Jordan)_ took control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and Jersualem.  The first established a Military Governship and the second Annex the territory by extending Sovereignty.  Was the territory "won" or "lost"?  _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO...  You can see that the duration of control was temporary, not all that long.  By 1988, the Irsaelis had extended - what was termed → "effective control."  And while we may argue about what the meaning is for these terms, the one "fact" is that until 2006, the Arab Palestinians had no real control over the political agency of control for became segmented.
> 
> In this little description you can see why the terms "win" or "loss" are not really descriptive. An "occupation" is defined by *Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations* (HR). It is very clear and uncomplicated.
> 
> "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."​
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> When an Army extends over more territory than what they started with, what is that called?
> When a Political Entity is offered more territory during the peace before a conflict → than it controls at the end of the conflict, what is that called?
> 
> *(Ω)*
> 
> The "Tinmore" question is very symplistic, too simplistic to answer.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...


Except what you are forgetting is that the legal documents that created Palestine and its borders were the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, and was contractually binding due to the promises the Allies made in order to get the Arab to help beat the Ottoman Empire in WWI.
When an Army extends over more territory than it started with, that depends on the peace negotiations.
If the loser start it, then the winner can administer the occupied land until a new government can be created.
But it can't legally annex any of the occupied territory.

If you go back to WWII you will see that land was not taken by the winners.
That is because it would be illegal to do so.
Land was taken in WWI, but now everyone recognized that as a crime.
So then there is no legal way by which Israel can ever claim Jerusalem or any part of the West Bank.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel had a war with nobody and did not win.
> 
> You don't make any sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Israel had a war with nobody*
> 
> They didn't fight Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq?
> 
> * and did not win.*
> 
> Only if you call kicking Arab ass and winning more territory "not winning"......DURR
> 
> You run with that, Sparky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not a single Arab nation ever committed more than a symbolic force against Israeli aggression, because it was not that important to them, and the US paid them to only do a minor, symbolic resistance.
> And Iraq has as yet never ever been involved in any conflict with Israel.
> 
> Stealing more territory illegally by armed conflict, is totally and completely a war crime.
> Has been since 1906 when the Geneva Conventions were started.
Click to expand...

*
No, not a single Arab nation ever committed more than a symbolic force*

How many symbolic troops did each loser...err...Arab nation commit? Link?

*Stealing more territory illegally by armed conflict, is totally and completely a war crime.*

Is that why Germany is as large today as it was in 1914?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> If you go back to WWII you will see that land was not taken by the winners.



Dude!

Just because weed is legal doesn't mean you should try to smoke all of it.......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> So then there is no legal way by which Israel can ever claim Jerusalem or any part of the West Bank.



Who did they take it from?


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant?
> Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948? Are you drunk again?
Click to expand...


YES in 1948.
The US sent about 20 B-17 bombers, which were only a few years old, flown from Florida to Palestine.
About 50 p-51 Mustangs, about the best fighter in the world at the time, were sent in crates.
And after being re-gunned in Czechoslovakia, the M-4 Sherman tanks were also about the best in the world.
All the latest WWII weapons just recently use by the US armed forces.
Also artillery, machineguns, rifles, pistols, etc.
In comparison, the Arabs had more like WWI relics because the British and French had blocked them from getting weapons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC:  Outcomes
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF:* The term "win" or "lose" in the regards to combat gains or losses is rather an obsolete line of thought and termonology.  It is an unsophisticate and crude _(over symplistic)_ way of stating the nature of  territorial control, political achivements, and battle engagements.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When you talk about accomplishments at the stratigic advvantages of a region _(__militarily economically, diplomatically, territrorially, etc__)_, you are better able to discuss the degree to which the nature of  territorial control, political achivements, and battlefield assessments of victories might be practically discussed.
> 
> To suggest that Israel won or lost any of the territory it is now in control of and responsible → is just as absurd as questioning the "win" • "loss" statistics as if it were a game.  Anyone who _(like myself)_ has been to Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Yemen knows better then to treat it as a game.  There is no real rule book.
> 
> If you apply deeper meaning into the what our friend "toddsterpatriot" said, there is something about it that rings true.  After the UN Charter (1945) became effective the monitoing of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine fell under the responsibility of _International Trusteeship System; _less - of course, that which was earmarked the Jewish State and the Arab State.
> 
> The Arab League States _(in particular Egypt and Jordan)_ took control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and Jersualem.  The first established a Military Governship and the second Annex the territory by extending Sovereignty.  Was the territory "won" or "lost"?  _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO...  You can see that the duration of control was temporary, not all that long.  By 1988, the Irsaelis had extended - what was termed → "effective control."  And while we may argue about what the meaning is for these terms, the one "fact" is that until 2006, the Arab Palestinians had no real control over the political agency of control for became segmented.
> 
> In this little description you can see why the terms "win" or "loss" are not really descriptive. An "occupation" is defined by *Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations* (HR). It is very clear and uncomplicated.
> 
> "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."​
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> When an Army extends over more territory than what they started with, what is that called?
> When a Political Entity is offered more territory during the peace before a conflict → than it controls at the end of the conflict, what is that called?
> 
> *(Ω)*
> 
> The "Tinmore" question is very symplistic, too simplistic to answer.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except what you are forgetting is that the legal documents that created Palestine and its borders were the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, and was contractually binding due to the promises the Allies made in order to get the Arab to help beat the Ottoman Empire in WWI.
> When an Army extends over more territory than it started with, that depends on the peace negotiations.
> If the loser start it, then the winner can administer the occupied land until a new government can be created.
> But it can't legally annex any of the occupied territory.
> 
> If you go back to WWII you will see that land was not taken by the winners.
> That is because it would be illegal to do so.
> Land was taken in WWI, but now everyone recognized that as a crime.
> So then there is no legal way by which Israel can ever claim Jerusalem or any part of the West Bank.
Click to expand...

*If you go back to WWII you will see that land was not taken by the winners.
That is because it would be illegal to do so.*













						Former eastern territories of Germany - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Konisberg says you're wrong.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then there is no legal way by which Israel can ever claim Jerusalem or any part of the West Bank.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who did they take it from?
Click to expand...


Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine, which had it borders set by the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres in 1920.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC:  Outcomes
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF:* The term "win" or "lose" in the regards to combat gains or losses is rather an obsolete line of thought and termonology.  It is an unsophisticate and crude _(over symplistic)_ way of stating the nature of  territorial control, political achivements, and battle engagements.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When you talk about accomplishments at the stratigic advvantages of a region _(__militarily economically, diplomatically, territrorially, etc__)_, you are better able to discuss the degree to which the nature of  territorial control, political achivements, and battlefield assessments of victories might be practically discussed.
> 
> To suggest that Israel won or lost any of the territory it is now in control of and responsible → is just as absurd as questioning the "win" • "loss" statistics as if it were a game.  Anyone who _(like myself)_ has been to Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Yemen knows better then to treat it as a game.  There is no real rule book.
> 
> If you apply deeper meaning into the what our friend "toddsterpatriot" said, there is something about it that rings true.  After the UN Charter (1945) became effective the monitoing of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine fell under the responsibility of _International Trusteeship System; _less - of course, that which was earmarked the Jewish State and the Arab State.
> 
> The Arab League States _(in particular Egypt and Jordan)_ took control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and Jersualem.  The first established a Military Governship and the second Annex the territory by extending Sovereignty.  Was the territory "won" or "lost"?  _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO...  You can see that the duration of control was temporary, not all that long.  By 1988, the Irsaelis had extended - what was termed → "effective control."  And while we may argue about what the meaning is for these terms, the one "fact" is that until 2006, the Arab Palestinians had no real control over the political agency of control for became segmented.
> 
> In this little description you can see why the terms "win" or "loss" are not really descriptive. An "occupation" is defined by *Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations* (HR). It is very clear and uncomplicated.
> 
> "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."​
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> When an Army extends over more territory than what they started with, what is that called?
> When a Political Entity is offered more territory during the peace before a conflict → than it controls at the end of the conflict, what is that called?
> 
> *(Ω)*
> 
> The "Tinmore" question is very symplistic, too simplistic to answer.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except what you are forgetting is that the legal documents that created Palestine and its borders were the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, and was contractually binding due to the promises the Allies made in order to get the Arab to help beat the Ottoman Empire in WWI.
> When an Army extends over more territory than it started with, that depends on the peace negotiations.
> If the loser start it, then the winner can administer the occupied land until a new government can be created.
> But it can't legally annex any of the occupied territory.
> 
> If you go back to WWII you will see that land was not taken by the winners.
> That is because it would be illegal to do so.
> Land was taken in WWI, but now everyone recognized that as a crime.
> So then there is no legal way by which Israel can ever claim Jerusalem or any part of the West Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *If you go back to WWII you will see that land was not taken by the winners.
> That is because it would be illegal to do so.*
> 
> View attachment 500169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former eastern territories of Germany - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Konisberg says you're wrong.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
The creation of Poland was the recognition of the right of indigenous, and was not taken by any of the participants in WWII.
It would have been illegal if and of the Allies had taken it.
But none did.
Recognizing local sovereignty rights of the Poles is not invading, occupying, and then annexing by force.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did they win and who did they win it from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already told you.
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> And they kicked a bunch of Arab ass.
Click to expand...


The British Mandate for Palestine was not land owned by the British, but land owned by Palestine.
The British were just under mandate to help protect and administer for the Palestinian Arabs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant?
> Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948? Are you drunk again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES in 1948.
> The US sent about 20 B-17 bombers, which were only a few years old, flown from Florida to Palestine.
> About 50 p-51 Mustangs, about the best fighter in the world at the time, were sent in crates.
> And after being re-gunned in Czechoslovakia, the M-4 Sherman tanks were also about the best in the world.
> All the latest WWII weapons just recently use by the US armed forces.
> Also artillery, machineguns, rifles, pistols, etc.
> In comparison, the Arabs had more like WWI relics because the British and French had blocked them from getting weapons.
Click to expand...


*The US sent about 20 B-17 bombers, *

The US government? I don't believe you. 

*About 50 p-51 Mustangs, about the best fighter in the world at the time, were sent in crates.*

50? Sent by the US government? I don't believe you. 

*In comparison, the Arabs had more like WWI relics*

Plus, you said they only sent a couple of dozen troops.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,



Palestine? Sweet!!!

Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?

You have any links to back you up?
Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> The creation of Poland was the recognition of the right of indigenous, and was not taken by any of the participants in WWII.



But some of the land previously belonged to Germany, right?
Poland was invaded in WWII, right? That means they participated, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did they win and who did they win it from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already told you.
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> And they kicked a bunch of Arab ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The British Mandate for Palestine was not land owned by the British, but land owned by Palestine.
> The British were just under mandate to help protect and administer for the Palestinian Arabs.
Click to expand...


*The British Mandate for Palestine was not land owned by the British*

I never said it was owned by the British. Did you?
*
but land owned by Palestine.*

No such country.

*The British were just under mandate to help protect and administer for the Palestinian Arabs.*

And the Palestinian Jews.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant?
> Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1948? Are you drunk again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES in 1948.
> The US sent about 20 B-17 bombers, which were only a few years old, flown from Florida to Palestine.
> About 50 p-51 Mustangs, about the best fighter in the world at the time, were sent in crates.
> And after being re-gunned in Czechoslovakia, the M-4 Sherman tanks were also about the best in the world.
> All the latest WWII weapons just recently use by the US armed forces.
> Also artillery, machineguns, rifles, pistols, etc.
> In comparison, the Arabs had more like WWI relics because the British and French had blocked them from getting weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The US sent about 20 B-17 bombers, *
> 
> The US government? I don't believe you.
> 
> *About 50 p-51 Mustangs, about the best fighter in the world at the time, were sent in crates.*
> 
> 50? Sent by the US government? I don't believe you.
> 
> *In comparison, the Arabs had more like WWI relics*
> 
> Plus, you said they only sent a couple of dozen troops.
Click to expand...


Just like the heavy water the US government sent to Israel to make nuclear weapons, of course middle men were used to hide direct involvement by the US government.
But clearly none of these illegal weapons would have reached Israel unless the US government was responsible.
All arms to everyone else was blocked.
Only the Zionists arms got through.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
Click to expand...

They survived and held most of their territory against 5 Arab Armies.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy obfuscation, Batman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
> Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
> I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered everything you have asked me and provided several links. You have provided NOTHING . Just ducking and dancing. Now you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing , trying to retreat when you know you lost ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
Click to expand...

Their goal was to eliminate the Jews and conquer the lands they failed both objectives.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Just like the heavy water the US government sent to Israel to make nuclear weapons, of course middle men were used to hide direct involvement by the US government.



Oh. Middle men. So you don't have any actual proof.

*All arms to everyone else was blocked.*

So the Arabs were even dumber than I first thought.
They sent a few dozen soldiers with crappy old weapons.
What a bunch of morons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> But clearly none of these illegal weapons would have reached Israel unless the US government was responsible.



Illegal?


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of Poland was the recognition of the right of indigenous, and was not taken by any of the participants in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But some of the land previously belonged to Germany, right?
> Poland was invaded in WWII, right? That means they participated, right?
Click to expand...


No, Poland essentially did not participate in WWII.
The partition between German and Russia of what used to be Poland, actually happened before WWII.
And Poland most definitely did not invade, and then later try to annex the land they had captured.
That is what is illegal.
Borders can change after wars, but only due to the rights of the indigenous natives, not a gain by conquest.
The 1967 invasion of the West Bank by Israel is totally and completely illegal and can then never be recognized by anyone.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy obfuscation, Batman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
> Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
> I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered everything you have asked me and provided several links. You have provided NOTHING . Just ducking and dancing. Now you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing , trying to retreat when you know you lost ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What did Egypt lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Syria lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Lebanon lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that relevant?
> Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons, while the Arab states had old surplus that was decades obsolete.
Click to expand...

Not in 1948 dumb ass.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The creation of Poland was the recognition of the right of indigenous, and was not taken by any of the participants in WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But some of the land previously belonged to Germany, right?
> Poland was invaded in WWII, right? That means they participated, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Poland essentially did not participate in WWII.
> The partition between German and Russia of what used to be Poland, actually happened before WWII.
> And Poland most definitely did not invade, and then later try to annex the land they had captured.
> That is what is illegal.
> Borders can change after wars, but only due to the rights of the indigenous natives, not a gain by conquest.
> The 1967 invasion of the West Bank by Israel is totally and completely illegal and can then never be recognized by anyone.
Click to expand...


*No, Poland essentially did not participate in WWII.*

Getting invaded doesn't count? Why not? 

*The partition between German and Russia of what used to be Poland, actually happened before WWII.*

But that's illegal!!

*And Poland most definitely did not invade*

They did not invade. But they sure got some formerly German land. Right?

*Borders can change after wars, *

German didn't freely give up the Polish land they took. 
Armed conflict was needed to get the Germans to leave. The same conflict that gave Poland 
some land that WAS Germany. Does Poland know that land was illegally stolen? LOL!

*but only due to the rights of the indigenous natives, not a gain by conquest.*

The indigenous Germans in much of Eastern Europe were deported after WWII.

*The 1967 invasion of the West Bank by Israel is totally and completely illegal and can then never be recognized by anyone.*

Why?


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the heavy water the US government sent to Israel to make nuclear weapons, of course middle men were used to hide direct involvement by the US government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Middle men. So you don't have any actual proof.
> 
> *All arms to everyone else was blocked.*
> 
> So the Arabs were even dumber than I first thought.
> They sent a few dozen soldiers with crappy old weapons.
> What a bunch of morons.
Click to expand...


No, it is called being bribed by the US.
The Arab nations were not really allowed to have significant arms because the French and British had been invading them for so long, they did not want them to have any significant arms.

{...
_War History Online proudly presents this Guest Piece from Christopher Stuttard_​Prior to and during 1947, the Jewish paramilitary group, the Haganah (precursor to the Israeli Defense Forces), had been procuring weapons in the build-up to the “Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel,” otherwise known as Israeli independence from Britain and Palestine.


Under the leadership of Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, the underground operatives of the Haganah had been manufacturing and stockpiling small arms in what Benny Morris dubbed: “a massive, covert arms acquisition campaign in the West.”

By late September 1947, they had an arsenal of rifles, sub-machine guns, mortars, and light machine guns. These weapons numbered in the thousands. However, the problem the fledgling force faced was a distinct lack of heavy weaponry, aircraft, and armored units.
*Solution*​Enter the curious case of Charles “Charlie” Thompson Winters. Born February 10, 1913, in Brookline, Massachusetts, Charlie Winters procured four B-17 Flying Fortresses with the bold plan of retrofitting them and delivering them to the newly created Israeli AirForce.

Along with Al Schwimmer and Herman “Hank” Greenspun, Winters was essential in the creation of the Israeli Air Force and a major contributor to the course of the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948.

In 1948, Winters was running a freight service between Miami, Florida and the Caribbean, mainly transporting fruit and vegetables. He used his piloting skills and export license to deliver three B-17 bombers to Israel.

Taking off from Miami, the B-17s refueled in Puerto Rico as they would do in a normal produce delivery.

Then, instead of heading to the Caribbean with their usual cargo, the heavy bombers were piloted to the Azores and then to Žatec in former Czechoslovakia. Winters flew one of the aircraft himself.
...}

The CIA smuggled many more with similar methodology.
None could have happened without the knowledge and assistance of the US government.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did they win and who did they win it from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already told you.
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> And they kicked a bunch of Arab ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The British Mandate for Palestine was not land owned by the British, but land owned by Palestine.
> The British were just under mandate to help protect and administer for the Palestinian Arabs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The British Mandate for Palestine was not land owned by the British*
> 
> I never said it was owned by the British. Did you?
> 
> *but land owned by Palestine.*
> 
> No such country.
> 
> *The British were just under mandate to help protect and administer for the Palestinian Arabs.*
> 
> And the Palestinian Jews.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.

There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.
The Jews agreed to that in 1920, in exchange for facilitated immigration.
There also were only about 70k Jews and 70k Christians in Palestine in 1920.
Over 90% of the population was Moslem Arabs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the heavy water the US government sent to Israel to make nuclear weapons, of course middle men were used to hide direct involvement by the US government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Middle men. So you don't have any actual proof.
> 
> *All arms to everyone else was blocked.*
> 
> So the Arabs were even dumber than I first thought.
> They sent a few dozen soldiers with crappy old weapons.
> What a bunch of morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is called being bribed by the US.
> The Arab nations were not really allowed to have significant arms because the French and British had been invading them for so long, they did not want them to have any significant arms.
> 
> {...
> _War History Online proudly presents this Guest Piece from Christopher Stuttard_​Prior to and during 1947, the Jewish paramilitary group, the Haganah (precursor to the Israeli Defense Forces), had been procuring weapons in the build-up to the “Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel,” otherwise known as Israeli independence from Britain and Palestine.
> 
> 
> Under the leadership of Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, the underground operatives of the Haganah had been manufacturing and stockpiling small arms in what Benny Morris dubbed: “a massive, covert arms acquisition campaign in the West.”
> 
> By late September 1947, they had an arsenal of rifles, sub-machine guns, mortars, and light machine guns. These weapons numbered in the thousands. However, the problem the fledgling force faced was a distinct lack of heavy weaponry, aircraft, and armored units.
> *Solution*​Enter the curious case of Charles “Charlie” Thompson Winters. Born February 10, 1913, in Brookline, Massachusetts, Charlie Winters procured four B-17 Flying Fortresses with the bold plan of retrofitting them and delivering them to the newly created Israeli AirForce.
> 
> Along with Al Schwimmer and Herman “Hank” Greenspun, Winters was essential in the creation of the Israeli Air Force and a major contributor to the course of the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948.
> 
> In 1948, Winters was running a freight service between Miami, Florida and the Caribbean, mainly transporting fruit and vegetables. He used his piloting skills and export license to deliver three B-17 bombers to Israel.
> 
> Taking off from Miami, the B-17s refueled in Puerto Rico as they would do in a normal produce delivery.
> 
> Then, instead of heading to the Caribbean with their usual cargo, the heavy bombers were piloted to the Azores and then to Žatec in former Czechoslovakia. Winters flew one of the aircraft himself.
> ...}
> 
> The CIA smuggled many more with similar methodology.
> None could have happened without the knowledge and assistance of the US government.
Click to expand...


*The Arab nations were not really allowed to have significant arms because the French and British had been invading them for so long, they did not want them to have any significant arms.*

You convinced me. The Arabs were morons.

*Enter the curious case of Charles “Charlie” Thompson Winters. Born February 10, 1913, in Brookline, Massachusetts, Charlie Winters procured four B-17 Flying Fortresses with the bold plan of retrofitting them and delivering them to the newly created Israeli AirForce.*

That was awesome!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.



You're lying. 

*There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*

What government of Palestine?


----------



## Rigby5

RetiredGySgt said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy obfuscation, Batman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
> Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
> I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered everything you have asked me and provided several links. You have provided NOTHING . Just ducking and dancing. Now you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing , trying to retreat when you know you lost ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What did Egypt lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Syria lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Lebanon lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that relevant?
> Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons, while the Arab states had old surplus that was decades obsolete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in 1948 dumb ass.
Click to expand...


Yes in 1948.
The US ensured that the Zionists got the latest US weapons that the US military had used only a few years before that.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the heavy water the US government sent to Israel to make nuclear weapons, of course middle men were used to hide direct involvement by the US government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Middle men. So you don't have any actual proof.
> 
> *All arms to everyone else was blocked.*
> 
> So the Arabs were even dumber than I first thought.
> They sent a few dozen soldiers with crappy old weapons.
> What a bunch of morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is called being bribed by the US.
> The Arab nations were not really allowed to have significant arms because the French and British had been invading them for so long, they did not want them to have any significant arms.
> 
> {...
> _War History Online proudly presents this Guest Piece from Christopher Stuttard_​Prior to and during 1947, the Jewish paramilitary group, the Haganah (precursor to the Israeli Defense Forces), had been procuring weapons in the build-up to the “Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel,” otherwise known as Israeli independence from Britain and Palestine.
> 
> 
> Under the leadership of Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, the underground operatives of the Haganah had been manufacturing and stockpiling small arms in what Benny Morris dubbed: “a massive, covert arms acquisition campaign in the West.”
> 
> By late September 1947, they had an arsenal of rifles, sub-machine guns, mortars, and light machine guns. These weapons numbered in the thousands. However, the problem the fledgling force faced was a distinct lack of heavy weaponry, aircraft, and armored units.
> *Solution*​Enter the curious case of Charles “Charlie” Thompson Winters. Born February 10, 1913, in Brookline, Massachusetts, Charlie Winters procured four B-17 Flying Fortresses with the bold plan of retrofitting them and delivering them to the newly created Israeli AirForce.
> 
> Along with Al Schwimmer and Herman “Hank” Greenspun, Winters was essential in the creation of the Israeli Air Force and a major contributor to the course of the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948.
> 
> In 1948, Winters was running a freight service between Miami, Florida and the Caribbean, mainly transporting fruit and vegetables. He used his piloting skills and export license to deliver three B-17 bombers to Israel.
> 
> Taking off from Miami, the B-17s refueled in Puerto Rico as they would do in a normal produce delivery.
> 
> Then, instead of heading to the Caribbean with their usual cargo, the heavy bombers were piloted to the Azores and then to Žatec in former Czechoslovakia. Winters flew one of the aircraft himself.
> ...}
> 
> The CIA smuggled many more with similar methodology.
> None could have happened without the knowledge and assistance of the US government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Arab nations were not really allowed to have significant arms because the French and British had been invading them for so long, they did not want them to have any significant arms.*
> 
> You convinced me. The Arabs were morons.
> 
> *Enter the curious case of Charles “Charlie” Thompson Winters. Born February 10, 1913, in Brookline, Massachusetts, Charlie Winters procured four B-17 Flying Fortresses with the bold plan of retrofitting them and delivering them to the newly created Israeli AirForce.*
> 
> That was awesome!!!
Click to expand...


The Arabs were not morons, but simply had no interest in war, with anyone, much less bucking what the US wanted.

And the fact Charles Winters was not prosecuted for his obvious violations of law and treaty, proves the US government was involved secretly.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
Click to expand...


What do you think the British Mandate for Palestine was, if not to help the Palestinians for a government?

There certainly was no possible legitimacy for a Zionist government since the Zionists were all illegal immigrants without any historic ties to the Mideast at all.
Ashkenazi come from Poland and Russia, not the Mideast.
They have no more Mideast DNA than Hitler did.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> The Arabs were not morons, but simply had no interest in war, with anyone, much less bucking what the US wanted.



And they still invaded.

That's like Rigby level stupid.

You never answered by questions about the Palestinian government/central bank etc.

Still looking for the answers? Avoiding the questions? What?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the British Mandate for Palestine was, if not to help the Palestinians for a government?
> 
> There certainly was no possible legitimacy for a Zionist government since the Zionists were all illegal immigrants without any historic ties to the Mideast at all.
> Ashkenazi come from Poland and Russia, not the Mideast.
> They have no more Mideast DNA than Hitler did.
Click to expand...


*What do you think the British Mandate for Palestine was, if not to help the Palestinians for a government?*

Homeland for the Jews. It was in all the papers.

*There certainly was no possible legitimacy for a Zionist government since the Zionists were all illegal immigrants*

You ran away before without showing any were illegal immigrants. Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> And the fact Charles Winters was not prosecuted for his obvious violations of law and treaty



What laws? What treaties? Link?


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
Click to expand...


You are obviously confused.
The only way to learn the truth is by reading what the British had to say about the British Mandate for Palestine.
So the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 is a quick synopsis.





__





						The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
					





					avalon.law.yale.edu
				




{... 
Unauthorized 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 deegation, 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 a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, 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 its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

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. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

That clearly proves Palestine was to be Moslem Arab, independent rule.
Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a Jewish homeland WITHIN this independent Moslem, Arab, Palestine.
The Zionist Organization has pledged to never want any participation in rule, in the 1921 Carlsbad conference.


----------



## Indeependent

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are obviously confused.
> The only way to learn the truth is by reading what the British had to say about the British Mandate for Palestine.
> So the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 is a quick synopsis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> Unauthorized 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 deegation, 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 a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, 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 its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
> 
> 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. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
> ...}
> 
> That clearly proves Palestine was to be Moslem Arab, independent rule.
> Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a Jewish homeland WITHIN this independent Moslem, Arab, Palestine.
> The Zionist Organization has pledged to never want any participation in rule, in the 1921 Carlsbad conference.
Click to expand...

Why not bring up a document from 1922 where the Arabs living in the area did not yet establish a nation?
O!  You did!
You *are* stupid.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the British Mandate for Palestine was, if not to help the Palestinians for a government?
> 
> There certainly was no possible legitimacy for a Zionist government since the Zionists were all illegal immigrants without any historic ties to the Mideast at all.
> Ashkenazi come from Poland and Russia, not the Mideast.
> They have no more Mideast DNA than Hitler did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What do you think the British Mandate for Palestine was, if not to help the Palestinians for a government?*
> 
> Homeland for the Jews. It was in all the papers.
> 
> *There certainly was no possible legitimacy for a Zionist government since the Zionists were all illegal immigrants*
> 
> You ran away before without showing any were illegal immigrants. Why?
Click to expand...


Wrong.
The Jews had not helped fight in WWI, so was due nothing.
It was the Arabs who fought with Lawrence of Arabia, and the deal was for an independent Arab Palestine in return.
It was never in the papers that Jews were to have their own sovereignty.
A Jewish homeland is a reservation, like for the Bantu in South Africa.
The Balfour Declaration was only about facilitated immigration.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact Charles Winters was not prosecuted for his obvious violations of law and treaty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws? What treaties? Link?
Click to expand...


I already listed the laws, treaties, and British statements, so you clearly are just spamming.


----------



## Rigby5

Indeependent said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are obviously confused.
> The only way to learn the truth is by reading what the British had to say about the British Mandate for Palestine.
> So the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 is a quick synopsis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> Unauthorized 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 deegation, 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 a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, 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 its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
> 
> 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. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
> ...}
> 
> That clearly proves Palestine was to be Moslem Arab, independent rule.
> Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a Jewish homeland WITHIN this independent Moslem, Arab, Palestine.
> The Zionist Organization has pledged to never want any participation in rule, in the 1921 Carlsbad conference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not bring up a document from 1922 where the Arabs living in the area did not yet establish a nation?
> O!  You did!
> You *are* stupid.
Click to expand...


The nation of Palestine was created by the 1920 treaties.
What the Palestinians had not yet created was a government, so then the British were mandated to hold their hand until they were ready.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are obviously confused.
> The only way to learn the truth is by reading what the British had to say about the British Mandate for Palestine.
> So the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 is a quick synopsis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> Unauthorized 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 deegation, 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 a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, 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 its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
> 
> 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. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
> ...}
> 
> That clearly proves Palestine was to be Moslem Arab, independent rule.
> Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a Jewish homeland WITHIN this independent Moslem, Arab, Palestine.
> The Zionist Organization has pledged to never want any participation in rule, in the 1921 Carlsbad conference.
Click to expand...


_Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. _

Wholly? Where did Transjordan come from?

_Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian_

And?

*That clearly proves Palestine was to be Moslem Arab, independent rule.*

But enough about Jordan.

_The Zionist Organization has pledged to never want any participation in rule, in the 1921 Carlsbad conference._

And?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the British Mandate for Palestine was, if not to help the Palestinians for a government?
> 
> There certainly was no possible legitimacy for a Zionist government since the Zionists were all illegal immigrants without any historic ties to the Mideast at all.
> Ashkenazi come from Poland and Russia, not the Mideast.
> They have no more Mideast DNA than Hitler did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What do you think the British Mandate for Palestine was, if not to help the Palestinians for a government?*
> 
> Homeland for the Jews. It was in all the papers.
> 
> *There certainly was no possible legitimacy for a Zionist government since the Zionists were all illegal immigrants*
> 
> You ran away before without showing any were illegal immigrants. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Jews had not helped fight in WWI, so was due nothing.
> It was the Arabs who fought with Lawrence of Arabia, and the deal was for an independent Arab Palestine in return.
> It was never in the papers that Jews were to have their own sovereignty.
> A Jewish homeland is a reservation, like for the Bantu in South Africa.
> The Balfour Declaration was only about facilitated immigration.
Click to expand...


*The Jews had not helped fight in WWI, so was due nothing.*

How many Palestinians fought? Couple of dozen?

*It was never in the papers that Jews were to have their own sovereignty.*

Liar.

_The *Balfour Declaration* was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917._









						Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact Charles Winters was not prosecuted for his obvious violations of law and treaty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws? What treaties? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already listed the laws, treaties, and British statements, so you clearly are just spamming.
Click to expand...


What law did Winters violate? What treaty?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are obviously confused.
> The only way to learn the truth is by reading what the British had to say about the British Mandate for Palestine.
> So the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 is a quick synopsis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> Unauthorized 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 deegation, 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 a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, 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 its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
> 
> 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. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
> ...}
> 
> That clearly proves Palestine was to be Moslem Arab, independent rule.
> Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a Jewish homeland WITHIN this independent Moslem, Arab, Palestine.
> The Zionist Organization has pledged to never want any participation in rule, in the 1921 Carlsbad conference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not bring up a document from 1922 where the Arabs living in the area did not yet establish a nation?
> O!  You did!
> You *are* stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation of Palestine was created by the 1920 treaties.
> What the Palestinians had not yet created was a government, so then the British were mandated to hold their hand until they were ready.
Click to expand...


They were ready in May 1948.





__





						Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The  Arab "Palestinians", still not ready.......


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
Click to expand...


Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.

The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.


			https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact Charles Winters was not prosecuted for his obvious violations of law and treaty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws? What treaties? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already listed the laws, treaties, and British statements, so you clearly are just spamming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What law did Winters violate? What treaty?
Click to expand...


There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.
As a signature of the UN, that made it illegal under US law.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are obviously confused.
> The only way to learn the truth is by reading what the British had to say about the British Mandate for Palestine.
> So the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 is a quick synopsis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> Unauthorized 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 deegation, 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 a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, 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 its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
> 
> 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. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
> ...}
> 
> That clearly proves Palestine was to be Moslem Arab, independent rule.
> Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a Jewish homeland WITHIN this independent Moslem, Arab, Palestine.
> The Zionist Organization has pledged to never want any participation in rule, in the 1921 Carlsbad conference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not bring up a document from 1922 where the Arabs living in the area did not yet establish a nation?
> O!  You did!
> You *are* stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation of Palestine was created by the 1920 treaties.
> What the Palestinians had not yet created was a government, so then the British were mandated to hold their hand until they were ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were ready in May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The  Arab "Palestinians", still not ready.......
Click to expand...


Obviously the Palestinians are not ready because they were illegally invaded by Israel.
To be ready, they would need arms and an army that could defend themselves.
And the illegal occupation by Israel prevents that.


----------



## toastman

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy obfuscation, Batman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
> Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
> I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered everything you have asked me and provided several links. You have provided NOTHING . Just ducking and dancing. Now you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing , trying to retreat when you know you lost ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What did Egypt lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Syria lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Lebanon lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that relevant?
> Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons, while the Arab states had old surplus that was decades obsolete.
Click to expand...

Israel was not only outnumbered and outgunned, but they had to goth The war on all front. They were completely surrounded by the Srabs, yet still managed to fend them off ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
Click to expand...


*Abbas is the temporary elected leader*

I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s. 

*The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*

Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact Charles Winters was not prosecuted for his obvious violations of law and treaty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws? What treaties? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already listed the laws, treaties, and British statements, so you clearly are just spamming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What law did Winters violate? What treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.
> As a signature of the UN, that made it illegal under US law.
Click to expand...


*There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.*

Hostilities? You mean when the couple of dozen Arabs invaded?

Now you said Israel got 50 bombers and 50 Mustangs from the US.
What did they really get? 3 or 4? LOL!


----------



## Rigby5

RetiredGySgt said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They survived and held most of their territory against 5 Arab Armies.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
No one attacked Israel.
Zionists were massacring Arab villages in Israel and Egypt, Syria, and Joran tried to stop it.
That is all that happened.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are obviously confused.
> The only way to learn the truth is by reading what the British had to say about the British Mandate for Palestine.
> So the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 is a quick synopsis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> Unauthorized 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 deegation, 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 a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, 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 its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
> 
> 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. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
> ...}
> 
> That clearly proves Palestine was to be Moslem Arab, independent rule.
> Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a Jewish homeland WITHIN this independent Moslem, Arab, Palestine.
> The Zionist Organization has pledged to never want any participation in rule, in the 1921 Carlsbad conference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not bring up a document from 1922 where the Arabs living in the area did not yet establish a nation?
> O!  You did!
> You *are* stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation of Palestine was created by the 1920 treaties.
> What the Palestinians had not yet created was a government, so then the British were mandated to hold their hand until they were ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were ready in May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The  Arab "Palestinians", still not ready.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously the Palestinians are not ready because they were illegally invaded by Israel.
> To be ready, they would need arms and an army that could defend themselves.
> And the illegal occupation by Israel prevents that.
Click to expand...


*Obviously the Palestinians are not ready because they were illegally invaded by Israel.*

Back in the 1920s, when the nation of Palestine was created by treaty? Sneaky Jews.

*To be ready, they would need arms and an army that could defend themselves.*

And they'd have to work at it. Their whining doesn't count as work.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
Click to expand...


Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.

{... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
 ...
Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}

What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.

{...
If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated. 
...}








						Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
					

If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
Click to expand...


*Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*

Especially in the 1920s.

*What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*

How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?

Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact Charles Winters was not prosecuted for his obvious violations of law and treaty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws? What treaties? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already listed the laws, treaties, and British statements, so you clearly are just spamming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What law did Winters violate? What treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.
> As a signature of the UN, that made it illegal under US law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.*
> 
> Hostilities? You mean when the couple of dozen Arabs invaded?
> 
> Now you said Israel got 50 bombers and 50 Mustangs from the US.
> What did they really get? 3 or 4? LOL!
Click to expand...


As was explained many times, no one ever invaded.
What happened is Zionist massacred over 400 Arab villages in Israel, and the Arab neighbors tried to stop the murders.

Wrong.
They got 3 or 4 at a time because they were trying to hide their existence.
But they obviously had a full US trained air force.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC:  Outcomes
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF:* The term "win" or "lose" in the regards to combat gains or losses is rather an obsolete line of thought and termonology.  It is an unsophisticate and crude _(over symplistic)_ way of stating the nature of  territorial control, political achivements, and battle engagements.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More territory. From Mandate land held by no other nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> When you talk about accomplishments at the stratigic advvantages of a region _(__militarily economically, diplomatically, territrorially, etc__)_, you are better able to discuss the degree to which the nature of  territorial control, political achivements, and battlefield assessments of victories might be practically discussed.
> 
> To suggest that Israel won or lost any of the territory it is now in control of and responsible → is just as absurd as questioning the "win" • "loss" statistics as if it were a game.  Anyone who _(like myself)_ has been to Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Yemen knows better then to treat it as a game.  There is no real rule book.
> 
> If you apply deeper meaning into the what our friend "toddsterpatriot" said, there is something about it that rings true.  After the UN Charter (1945) became effective the monitoing of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine fell under the responsibility of _International Trusteeship System; _less - of course, that which was earmarked the Jewish State and the Arab State.
> 
> The Arab League States _(in particular Egypt and Jordan)_ took control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and Jersualem.  The first established a Military Governship and the second Annex the territory by extending Sovereignty.  Was the territory "won" or "lost"?  _*(RHETORICAL)*_ NO...  You can see that the duration of control was temporary, not all that long.  By 1988, the Irsaelis had extended - what was termed → "effective control."  And while we may argue about what the meaning is for these terms, the one "fact" is that until 2006, the Arab Palestinians had no real control over the political agency of control for became segmented.
> 
> In this little description you can see why the terms "win" or "loss" are not really descriptive. An "occupation" is defined by *Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations* (HR). It is very clear and uncomplicated.
> 
> "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."​
> *(QUESTIONS)*
> 
> When an Army extends over more territory than what they started with, what is that called?
> When a Political Entity is offered more territory during the peace before a conflict → than it controls at the end of the conflict, what is that called?
> 
> *(Ω)*
> 
> The "Tinmore" question is very symplistic, too simplistic to answer.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...




RoccoR said:


> To suggest that Israel won or lost any of the territory it is now in control of and responsible


By the end of the war Israel had "control" of 78% of Palestine.

What was the process of gaining that control?

What was the meaning of control?


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
Click to expand...


That is stupid.
Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
That is trillions that need to get paid back.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact Charles Winters was not prosecuted for his obvious violations of law and treaty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws? What treaties? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already listed the laws, treaties, and British statements, so you clearly are just spamming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What law did Winters violate? What treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.
> As a signature of the UN, that made it illegal under US law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.*
> 
> Hostilities? You mean when the couple of dozen Arabs invaded?
> 
> Now you said Israel got 50 bombers and 50 Mustangs from the US.
> What did they really get? 3 or 4? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was explained many times, no one ever invaded.
> What happened is Zionist massacred over 400 Arab villages in Israel, and the Arab neighbors tried to stop the murders.
> 
> Wrong.
> They got 3 or 4 at a time because they were trying to hide their existence.
> But they obviously had a full US trained air force.
Click to expand...

*
As was explained many times, no one ever invaded.*

Then how did the couple of dozen Arabs get from their home country to where the Jews beat them?

*They got 3 or 4 at a time*

Or 3 or 4 total.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are obviously confused.
> The only way to learn the truth is by reading what the British had to say about the British Mandate for Palestine.
> So the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 is a quick synopsis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> Unauthorized 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 deegation, 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 a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, 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 its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
> 
> 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. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
> ...}
> 
> That clearly proves Palestine was to be Moslem Arab, independent rule.
> Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a Jewish homeland WITHIN this independent Moslem, Arab, Palestine.
> The Zionist Organization has pledged to never want any participation in rule, in the 1921 Carlsbad conference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not bring up a document from 1922 where the Arabs living in the area did not yet establish a nation?
> O!  You did!
> You *are* stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation of Palestine was created by the 1920 treaties.
> What the Palestinians had not yet created was a government, so then the British were mandated to hold their hand until they were ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were ready in May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The  Arab "Palestinians", still not ready.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously the Palestinians are not ready because they were illegally invaded by Israel.
> To be ready, they would need arms and an army that could defend themselves.
> And the illegal occupation by Israel prevents that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Obviously the Palestinians are not ready because they were illegally invaded by Israel.*
> 
> Back in the 1920s, when the nation of Palestine was created by treaty? Sneaky Jews.
> 
> *To be ready, they would need arms and an army that could defend themselves.*
> 
> And they'd have to work at it. Their whining doesn't count as work.
Click to expand...


Yes, the Zionists were attacking the natives way back in the 1920s.
Why do you think the British were arresting and executing Zionists, and why do you think the Zionists finally wiped out the British peacekeeper command?
Not to mention why the Zionists gunned down the UN Moderator, Folke Bernadotte?
It obviously was so there was no one to stop the mass murder of Arabs by immigrant Zionists.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
Click to expand...


*Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*

Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.

*Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*

6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Yes, the Zionists were attacking the natives way back in the 1920s.



Did the Jews invade the "country" of "Palestine"?


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact Charles Winters was not prosecuted for his obvious violations of law and treaty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws? What treaties? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already listed the laws, treaties, and British statements, so you clearly are just spamming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What law did Winters violate? What treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.
> As a signature of the UN, that made it illegal under US law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.*
> 
> Hostilities? You mean when the couple of dozen Arabs invaded?
> 
> Now you said Israel got 50 bombers and 50 Mustangs from the US.
> What did they really get? 3 or 4? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was explained many times, no one ever invaded.
> What happened is Zionist massacred over 400 Arab villages in Israel, and the Arab neighbors tried to stop the murders.
> 
> Wrong.
> They got 3 or 4 at a time because they were trying to hide their existence.
> But they obviously had a full US trained air force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *As was explained many times, no one ever invaded.*
> 
> Then how did the couple of dozen Arabs get from their home country to where the Jews beat them?
> 
> *They got 3 or 4 at a time*
> 
> Or 3 or 4 total.
Click to expand...


The Jews did not beat the Arabs in 1948.
The goal of the Jews was the invasion of the West Bank, and they were utterly defeated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> The Jews did not beat the Arabs in 1948.



Did the Jews lose in 1948?


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.

And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jews did not beat the Arabs in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the Jews lose in 1948?
Click to expand...


Yes, the goal of the Jews in the 1948 war was the invasion of the West Bank, and due to Jordan stepping in, the Zionists were totally defeated and had to fall back on the UN partition instead.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
Click to expand...

*The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.*









						(PDF) Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization Processes in Palestine, 1858–1918
					

PDF | The Land Law and other processes in nineteenth century Palestine brought about the beginning of land survey and land settlement , land... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate




					www.researchgate.net
				




*The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.*

LOL!

*And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists*

I saw your silliness the first time.
So over 6 million Jews now live in those houses. SOUNDS CROWDED moron


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Yes, the goal of the Jews in the 1948 war was the invasion of the West Bank,



So when the Jews lost, they ended up with more land than they started with.

Just like Germany in WWI and WWII, right?

*the Zionists were totally defeated and had to fall back on the UN partition instead.*

But they didn't. You should post all 3 maps.....just to prove your claim.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Zionists were attacking the natives way back in the 1920s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the Jews invade the "country" of "Palestine"?
Click to expand...


Yes.
There were over half a dozen so called "wars", but in reality they were almost all just Israel stealing more land.
The exception was the Yom Kippur war of 73, when Egypt won back the Sinai.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (PDF) Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization Processes in Palestine, 1858–1918
> 
> 
> PDF | The Land Law and other processes in nineteenth century Palestine brought about the beginning of land survey and land settlement , land... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.researchgate.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> *And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists*
> 
> I saw your silliness the first time.
> So over 6 million Jews now live in those houses. SOUNDS CROWDED moron
Click to expand...


Wrong again, so consistently ignorant.
The Palestinians were almost completely rural farmers, and the Zionist had no history of farming, and lived in urban dwellings on the stolen land.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Zionists were attacking the natives way back in the 1920s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the Jews invade the "country" of "Palestine"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> There were over half a dozen so called "wars", but in reality they were almost all just Israel stealing more land.
> The exception was the Yom Kippur war of 73, when Egypt won back the Sinai.
Click to expand...


*Yes.*

The day the Jews invaded, who was the palestinian leader?

*There were over half a dozen so called "wars", but in reality they were almost all just Israel stealing more land.*

The Jews kicked a lot of Arab ass. 
*
The exception was the Yom Kippur war of 73, when Egypt won back the Sinai.*

Damn, that's some strong fucking weed you're smoking.













						Sinai Peninsula | Definition, Map, History, & Facts
					

Sinai Peninsula, Arabic Shibh Jazīrat Sīnāʾ,  triangular peninsula linking Africa with Asia and occupying an area of 23,500 square miles (61,000 square km). The Sinai Desert, as the peninsula’s arid expanse is called, is separated by the Gulf of Suez and the Suez Canal from the Eastern Desert of...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the goal of the Jews in the 1948 war was the invasion of the West Bank,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when the Jews lost, they ended up with more land than they started with.
> 
> Just like Germany in WWI and WWII, right?
> 
> *the Zionists were totally defeated and had to fall back on the UN partition instead.*
> 
> But they didn't. You should post all 3 maps.....just to prove your claim.
Click to expand...


Consistently wrong.
After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.

With the 3 maps, the first map was both before and after the 1948 war.

The other maps represent the advances by Israel in the 1980s and then very recent thefts of the West Banks for the construction of the illegal wall in the West Bank.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (PDF) Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization Processes in Palestine, 1858–1918
> 
> 
> PDF | The Land Law and other processes in nineteenth century Palestine brought about the beginning of land survey and land settlement , land... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.researchgate.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> *And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists*
> 
> I saw your silliness the first time.
> So over 6 million Jews now live in those houses. SOUNDS CROWDED moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, so consistently ignorant.
> The Palestinians were almost completely rural farmers, and the Zionist had no history of farming, and lived in urban dwellings on the stolen land.
Click to expand...


The homes the Jews stole weren't homes, they were farms?

*Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*

Was your account hacked by someone even dumber than you are?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the goal of the Jews in the 1948 war was the invasion of the West Bank,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when the Jews lost, they ended up with more land than they started with.
> 
> Just like Germany in WWI and WWII, right?
> 
> *the Zionists were totally defeated and had to fall back on the UN partition instead.*
> 
> But they didn't. You should post all 3 maps.....just to prove your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consistently wrong.
> After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.
> 
> With the 3 maps, the first map was both before and after the 1948 war.
> 
> The other maps represent the advances by Israel in the 1980s and then very recent thefts of the West Banks for the construction of the illegal wall in the West Bank.
Click to expand...


*After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.*

Show me.

Post the partition map and the after war map.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Zionists were attacking the natives way back in the 1920s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the Jews invade the "country" of "Palestine"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> There were over half a dozen so called "wars", but in reality they were almost all just Israel stealing more land.
> The exception was the Yom Kippur war of 73, when Egypt won back the Sinai.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes.*
> 
> The day the Jews invaded, who was the palestinian leader?
> 
> *There were over half a dozen so called "wars", but in reality they were almost all just Israel stealing more land.*
> 
> The Jews kicked a lot of Arab ass.
> 
> *The exception was the Yom Kippur war of 73, when Egypt won back the Sinai.*
> 
> Damn, that's some strong fucking weed you're smoking.
> 
> View attachment 500205
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinai Peninsula | Definition, Map, History, & Facts
> 
> 
> Sinai Peninsula, Arabic Shibh Jazīrat Sīnāʾ,  triangular peninsula linking Africa with Asia and occupying an area of 23,500 square miles (61,000 square km). The Sinai Desert, as the peninsula’s arid expanse is called, is separated by the Gulf of Suez and the Suez Canal from the Eastern Desert of...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
Click to expand...



Wrong.
Israel lost the 1973 Yom Kippur war and was forced to give back the Sinai that Israel illegally had occupied since 1967.

{...
The *Yom Kippur War*, *Ramadan War*, or *October War*[56] also known as the *1973 Arab–Israeli War*, was fought from October 6 to 25, 1973, by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel. The war took place mostly in Sinai and the Golan—occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War—with some fighting in African Egypt and northern Israel.[57][58] Egypt's initial war objective was to use its military to seize a foothold on the east bank of the Suez Canal and use this to negotiate the return of the rest of Sinai.[59][60][61][62]

...Both the United States and the Soviet Union initiated massive resupply efforts to their respective allies during the war, and these efforts led to a near-confrontation between the two nuclear superpowers.[64]...

The war began with a massive and successful Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal. Egyptian forces crossed the cease-fire lines, then advanced virtually unopposed into the Sinai Peninsula. After three days, Israel had mobilized most of its forces and halted the Egyptian offensive, resulting in a military stalemate. The Syrians coordinated their attack on the Golan Heights to coincide with the Egyptian offensive and initially made threatening gains into Israeli-held territory. Within three days, however, Israeli forces had pushed the Syrians back to the pre-war ceasefire lines. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) then launched a four-day counter-offensive deep into Syria. Within a week, Israeli artillery began to shell the outskirts of Damascus, and Egyptian President Sadat began to worry about the integrity of his major ally. He believed that capturing two strategic passes located deeper in the Sinai would make his position stronger during post-war negotiations; he therefore ordered the Egyptians to go back on the offensive, but their attack was quickly repulsed. The Israelis then counter-attacked at the seam between the two Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal into Egypt, and began slowly advancing southward and westward towards the city of Suez in over a week of heavy fighting that resulted in heavy casualties on both sides.[65][66]

On October 22, a United Nations–brokered ceasefire unraveled, with each side blaming the other for the breach. By October 24, the Israelis had improved their positions considerably and completed their encirclement of Egypt's Third Army and the city of Suez. This development led to tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, and a second ceasefire was imposed cooperatively on October 25 to end the war.

The war had far-reaching implications. The Arab world had experienced humiliation in the lopsided rout of the Egyptian–Syrian–Jordanian alliance in the Six-Day War but felt psychologically vindicated by early successes in this conflict. The war led Israel to recognize that, despite impressive operational and tactical achievements on the battlefield, there was no guarantee that they would always dominate the Arab states militarily, as they had consistently through the earlier 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the Suez Crisis and the Six-Day War. These changes paved the way for the subsequent peace process. 
...}








						Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (PDF) Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization Processes in Palestine, 1858–1918
> 
> 
> PDF | The Land Law and other processes in nineteenth century Palestine brought about the beginning of land survey and land settlement , land... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.researchgate.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> *And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists*
> 
> I saw your silliness the first time.
> So over 6 million Jews now live in those houses. SOUNDS CROWDED moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, so consistently ignorant.
> The Palestinians were almost completely rural farmers, and the Zionist had no history of farming, and lived in urban dwellings on the stolen land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homes the Jews stole weren't homes, they were farms?
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> Was your account hacked by someone even dumber than you are?
Click to expand...


Not only was I offered a free home in Israel, but almost every Jew I know was also.
That is trillions in real estate that you know Israelis never paid for, since they just illegally confiscated Arab land and homes.


----------



## Hollie

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
Click to expand...

Actually, your comment about Pallys owning all plots of land is nonsense. The Pallys _did not_ have ownership of all the plots of land. That is confirmed by Ottoman land records. Jewish organizations purchased large tracts of land from absentee  Arab owners in Syria and Lebanon.

Turkey hands over Ottoman land records to Palestinians

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.

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.

Ever since 1948, Palestinian institutions dealing with the refugee issue have been trying to obtain accurate records on the land and property that were lost when Israel was established. This effort has gained steam in recent years, but no Palestinian institution has come close to collecting all the relevant data. One reason for the lackadaisical effort may be the Palestinians' understanding that the data has little practical value other than for public relations. At most, it will be used in the bargaining over compensation for refugees, if and when such negotiations take place.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the goal of the Jews in the 1948 war was the invasion of the West Bank,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when the Jews lost, they ended up with more land than they started with.
> 
> Just like Germany in WWI and WWII, right?
> 
> *the Zionists were totally defeated and had to fall back on the UN partition instead.*
> 
> But they didn't. You should post all 3 maps.....just to prove your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consistently wrong.
> After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.
> 
> With the 3 maps, the first map was both before and after the 1948 war.
> 
> The other maps represent the advances by Israel in the 1980s and then very recent thefts of the West Banks for the construction of the illegal wall in the West Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.*
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Post the partition map and the after war map.
Click to expand...


Here is the pre-1948 war UN partition.







Here is the map after the 1948 war was over, and then the changes in 1967.






Obviously Israel lost the 1948 war because they fighting was almost all around Jerusalem, and Israel achieved nothing.


----------



## Hollie

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (PDF) Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization Processes in Palestine, 1858–1918
> 
> 
> PDF | The Land Law and other processes in nineteenth century Palestine brought about the beginning of land survey and land settlement , land... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.researchgate.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> *And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists*
> 
> I saw your silliness the first time.
> So over 6 million Jews now live in those houses. SOUNDS CROWDED moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong again, so consistently ignorant.
> The Palestinians were almost completely rural farmers, and the Zionist had no history of farming, and lived in urban dwellings on the stolen land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The homes the Jews stole weren't homes, they were farms?
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> Was your account hacked by someone even dumber than you are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only was I offered a free home in Israel, but almost every Jew I know was also.
> That is trillions in real estate that you know Israelis never paid for, since they just illegally confiscated Arab land and homes.
Click to expand...


You just make up nonsense as you go along, right?


----------



## Hollie

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the goal of the Jews in the 1948 war was the invasion of the West Bank,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when the Jews lost, they ended up with more land than they started with.
> 
> Just like Germany in WWI and WWII, right?
> 
> *the Zionists were totally defeated and had to fall back on the UN partition instead.*
> 
> But they didn't. You should post all 3 maps.....just to prove your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consistently wrong.
> After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.
> 
> With the 3 maps, the first map was both before and after the 1948 war.
> 
> The other maps represent the advances by Israel in the 1980s and then very recent thefts of the West Banks for the construction of the illegal wall in the West Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.*
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Post the partition map and the after war map.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the pre-1948 war UN partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the map after the 1948 war was over, and then the changes in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Israel lost the 1948 war because they fighting was almost all around Jerusalem, and Israel achieved nothing.
Click to expand...

Funny cartoons. You were playing with Sharpee markers?


----------



## Rigby5

Hollie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your comment about Pallys owning all plots of land is nonsense. The Pallys _did not_ have ownership of all the plots of land. That is confirmed by Ottoman land records. Jewish organizations purchased large tracts of land from absentee Arabs in Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Turkey hands over Ottoman land records to Palestinians
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Ever since 1948, Palestinian institutions dealing with the refugee issue have been trying to obtain accurate records on the land and property that were lost when Israel was established. This effort has gained steam in recent years, but no Palestinian institution has come close to collecting all the relevant data. One reason for the lackadaisical effort may be the Palestinians' understanding that the data has little practical value other than for public relations. At most, it will be used in the bargaining over compensation for refugees, if and when such negotiations take place.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
There are no Ottoman records indicating the land was not owned by individual Palestinian families, and had been even way before the Ottoman invasion.
Invaders like the Ottoman Turks own sovereignty, but never own any plots of land.

Yes there were some foolish Zionists who sent money to frauds in other countries who falsely claimed to be land owners in Palestine, but how are Syrians or Lebanese going to own land in Palestine?
It simply never happened, and those who sent money to these supposed land lords were ripped off.
Its like sending money to Nigerian princes on the internet these days.
The Palestinians deeds go back over 2000 years.


----------



## Hollie

Rigby5 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your comment about Pallys owning all plots of land is nonsense. The Pallys _did not_ have ownership of all the plots of land. That is confirmed by Ottoman land records. Jewish organizations purchased large tracts of land from absentee Arabs in Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Turkey hands over Ottoman land records to Palestinians
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Ever since 1948, Palestinian institutions dealing with the refugee issue have been trying to obtain accurate records on the land and property that were lost when Israel was established. This effort has gained steam in recent years, but no Palestinian institution has come close to collecting all the relevant data. One reason for the lackadaisical effort may be the Palestinians' understanding that the data has little practical value other than for public relations. At most, it will be used in the bargaining over compensation for refugees, if and when such negotiations take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> There are no Ottoman records indicating the land was not owned by individual Palestinian families, and had been even way before the Ottoman invasion.
> Invaders like the Ottoman Turks own sovereignty, but never own any plots of land.
> 
> Yes there were some foolish Zionists who sent money to frauds in other countries who falsely claimed to be land owners in Palestine, but how are Syrians or Lebanese going to own land in Palestine?
> It simply never happened, and those who sent money to these supposed land lords were ripped off.
> Its like sending money to Nigerian princes on the internet these days.
> The Palestinians deeds go back over 2000 years.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. So the Turks didn't have the Ottoman lands they turned over to the Pallys. It was all a conspiracy?

What other conspiracy theories are your favorites?


----------



## Hollie

Rigby5 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your comment about Pallys owning all plots of land is nonsense. The Pallys _did not_ have ownership of all the plots of land. That is confirmed by Ottoman land records. Jewish organizations purchased large tracts of land from absentee Arabs in Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Turkey hands over Ottoman land records to Palestinians
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Ever since 1948, Palestinian institutions dealing with the refugee issue have been trying to obtain accurate records on the land and property that were lost when Israel was established. This effort has gained steam in recent years, but no Palestinian institution has come close to collecting all the relevant data. One reason for the lackadaisical effort may be the Palestinians' understanding that the data has little practical value other than for public relations. At most, it will be used in the bargaining over compensation for refugees, if and when such negotiations take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> There are no Ottoman records indicating the land was not owned by individual Palestinian families, and had been even way before the Ottoman invasion.
> Invaders like the Ottoman Turks own sovereignty, but never own any plots of land.
> 
> Yes there were some foolish Zionists who sent money to frauds in other countries who falsely claimed to be land owners in Palestine, but how are Syrians or Lebanese going to own land in Palestine?
> It simply never happened, and those who sent money to these supposed land lords were ripped off.
> Its like sending money to Nigerian princes on the internet these days.
> The Palestinians deeds go back over 2000 years.
Click to expand...


"The Palestinians deeds go back over 2000 years."

What deeds?


----------



## Hollie

Rigby5 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your comment about Pallys owning all plots of land is nonsense. The Pallys _did not_ have ownership of all the plots of land. That is confirmed by Ottoman land records. Jewish organizations purchased large tracts of land from absentee Arabs in Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Turkey hands over Ottoman land records to Palestinians
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Ever since 1948, Palestinian institutions dealing with the refugee issue have been trying to obtain accurate records on the land and property that were lost when Israel was established. This effort has gained steam in recent years, but no Palestinian institution has come close to collecting all the relevant data. One reason for the lackadaisical effort may be the Palestinians' understanding that the data has little practical value other than for public relations. At most, it will be used in the bargaining over compensation for refugees, if and when such negotiations take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> There are no Ottoman records indicating the land was not owned by individual Palestinian families, and had been even way before the Ottoman invasion.
> Invaders like the Ottoman Turks own sovereignty, but never own any plots of land.
> 
> Yes there were some foolish Zionists who sent money to frauds in other countries who falsely claimed to be land owners in Palestine, but how are Syrians or Lebanese going to own land in Palestine?
> It simply never happened, and those who sent money to these supposed land lords were ripped off.
> Its like sending money to Nigerian princes on the internet these days.
> The Palestinians deeds go back over 2000 years.
Click to expand...

"Yes there were some foolish Zionists who sent money to frauds in other countries who falsely claimed to be land owners in Palestine, but how are Syrians or Lebanese going to own land in Palestine?''

Good gawd, man.


----------



## Rigby5

toastman said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy obfuscation, Batman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
> Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
> I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered everything you have asked me and provided several links. You have provided NOTHING . Just ducking and dancing. Now you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing , trying to retreat when you know you lost ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What did Egypt lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Syria lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Lebanon lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that relevant?
> Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons, while the Arab states had old surplus that was decades obsolete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel was not only outnumbered and outgunned, but they had to goth The war on all front. They were completely surrounded by the Srabs, yet still managed to fend them off ...
Click to expand...


Total lie.
The Israelis had been planning this over 50 years, so had accumulated a much larger trained military force, and much more modern weapons.
In contrast, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria not only had very little experience with independence themselves, but had no modern arms or armies at all.
And they were not willing to commit even a tiny fraction of what they did have.
Nor were there wide spread fonts as you claim.
Egyptian forces were no where near to Gaza.
Lebanese forces were no where near the Galilee area.
Syrian forces were no where near the Golan Heights.
Jordanian forces never set foot on any Israeli land at all, and only defensively fought in the West Bank, to stop the Israeli invasion attempt.
Anyone had to cross a lot of territory just to get to Israel.
And no, Israel did not "fend them off".
Israel has tried to invade the West Bank, and totally lost.
They had to go back entirely to prewar borders.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
Click to expand...


The Zionists stole homes from Arabs who should have been equally Israeli citizens.
Countries have nothing to do with that.


----------



## Rigby5

Hollie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your comment about Pallys owning all plots of land is nonsense. The Pallys _did not_ have ownership of all the plots of land. That is confirmed by Ottoman land records. Jewish organizations purchased large tracts of land from absentee Arabs in Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Turkey hands over Ottoman land records to Palestinians
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Ever since 1948, Palestinian institutions dealing with the refugee issue have been trying to obtain accurate records on the land and property that were lost when Israel was established. This effort has gained steam in recent years, but no Palestinian institution has come close to collecting all the relevant data. One reason for the lackadaisical effort may be the Palestinians' understanding that the data has little practical value other than for public relations. At most, it will be used in the bargaining over compensation for refugees, if and when such negotiations take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> There are no Ottoman records indicating the land was not owned by individual Palestinian families, and had been even way before the Ottoman invasion.
> Invaders like the Ottoman Turks own sovereignty, but never own any plots of land.
> 
> Yes there were some foolish Zionists who sent money to frauds in other countries who falsely claimed to be land owners in Palestine, but how are Syrians or Lebanese going to own land in Palestine?
> It simply never happened, and those who sent money to these supposed land lords were ripped off.
> Its like sending money to Nigerian princes on the internet these days.
> The Palestinians deeds go back over 2000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Palestinians deeds go back over 2000 years."
> 
> What deeds?
Click to expand...


All land transactions are always recorded.
The Palestinians lived there for over 10,000 years.


----------



## Rigby5

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact Charles Winters was not prosecuted for his obvious violations of law and treaty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws? What treaties? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already listed the laws, treaties, and British statements, so you clearly are just spamming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What law did Winters violate? What treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.
> As a signature of the UN, that made it illegal under US law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.*
> 
> Hostilities? You mean when the couple of dozen Arabs invaded?
> 
> Now you said Israel got 50 bombers and 50 Mustangs from the US.
> What did they really get? 3 or 4? LOL!
Click to expand...


Liar.
The Israelis accumumulated hundreds of planes, none of which they could have obtained if not for the US secretly allowing them to.
They even started shooting down British observation planes once they had US Mustang, P-51 high altitude interceptors.

{...
Preceded by the Sherut Avir, the air wing of the Haganah, the Israeli Air Force was officially formed on May 28, 1948, shortly after Israel declared statehood and found itself under immediate attack from its Arab neighbors. At first, it was assembled from a hodge-podge collection of civilian aircraft commandeered or donated and converted to military use. A variety of obsolete and surplus ex-World War II combat aircraft were quickly sourced by various means – both legal and illegal – to supplement this fleet. The backbone of the IAF consisted of 25 Avia S-199s (purchased from Czechoslovakia, essentially Czechoslovak-built Messerschmitt Bf 109s) and 60 Supermarine Spitfire LF Mk IXEs, the first of which, "Israel 1" was locally assembled from British abandoned spare parts and a salvaged engine from an Egyptian Spitfire with most of the rest purchased from Czechoslovakia.[4] Some spitfires were ferried from Žatec base code-named "Zebra" where pilots also received preliminary flight training, while others were transported by sea. Creativity and resourcefulness were the early foundations of Israeli military success in the air, rather than technology (which, at the inception of the IAF, was generally inferior to that used by Israel's adversaries). Many of the first IAF's pilots in 1948 were foreign volunteers (both Jewish and non-Jewish) and World War II veterans, who wanted to collaborate with Israel's struggle for its independence. The IAF's humble beginnings made its first air victories particularly impressive and noteworthy.

Similarly the Air Transport Command begun its existence as the Panamanian registered _Lineos Aeros de Panama Society Anonyme_ or LAPSA acquired C-46 and C-47 aircraft.[5] Of the 607 IAF servicemen who served in the IAF during the War of Independence, over 414 of them were volunteers from overseas.[6]

Israel's new fighter arm first went into action on May 29, 1948, assisting the efforts to halt the Egyptian advance from Gaza northwards. Four newly arrived Avia S-199s, flown by Lou Lenart, Modi Alon, Ezer Weizman and Eddie Cohen, struck Egyptian forces near Isdud. Although damage was minimal, two aircraft were lost and Cohen killed, the attack nevertheless achieved its goal and the Egyptians stopped. The Avias were back in action on May 30, attacking Jordanian forces near Tulkarem, losing another aircraft in the process.[7][8] After un-assembled planes were strafed on the ground on May 30 at Ekron airfield the fighters were moved to makeshift strip located around the current Herzliya Airport. The airfield was used as it was a bit back from the front-lines, and was clandestine since it was a purpose built strip, that was constructed after the beginning of hostilities, in between the orange orchards around Herzliya, and didn't appear on published maps.




A 1949 aerial view of Ramat David air force base, taken from a B-17.
The Israeli Air Force scored its first aerial victories on June 3 when Modi Alon, flying Avia D.112, shot down two Egyptian Air Force DC-3s which had just bombed Tel Aviv.[8][9][10] The first dogfight against enemy fighters took place a few days later, on June 8, when Gideon Lichtaman shot down an Egyptian Spitfire.[11] During these initial operations, the squadron operated with a few planes versus almost complete Arab theater Air supremacy and the airplanes were parked dispersed between the orange trees. The fighters were moved in October to Hatzor Airbase from the Herzliya strip in due to its unsuitability in rainy conditions, probable loss of clandestine status, moving front lines which made former British bases safe for use, and a shift in the balance of air superiority towards the Israelis.[12][13][14]

As the war progressed, more and more aircraft were procured, including Boeing B-17s,[15] Bristol Beaufighters, de Havilland Mosquitoes and P-51D Mustangs, leading to a shift in the balance of power. Although the IAF had never secured complete aerial supremacy, by the end of the war it had proven decisive in the air.[16][17]

The war also saw the IAF clash with Britain's Royal Air Force. During the summer and autumn of 1948 RAF photo-reconnaissance De Havilland Mosquitos of No. 13 Squadron RAF flew routine reconnaissance overflights over Israel. These high-altitude flights remained unchallenged until Israel acquired the Mustang. On November 20, 1948 one such reconnaissance aircraft was spotted over the Galilee and was shot down by Wayne Peake, crashing in the Mediterranean off Ashdod.[18][19] The IAF and RAF clashed again on January 7, 1949, during Operation Horev, when four RAF Spitfires were shot down, followed by a Hawker Tempest later that day.[20][21]
...}


----------



## Rigby5

Hollie said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your comment about Pallys owning all plots of land is nonsense. The Pallys _did not_ have ownership of all the plots of land. That is confirmed by Ottoman land records. Jewish organizations purchased large tracts of land from absentee Arabs in Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Turkey hands over Ottoman land records to Palestinians
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Ever since 1948, Palestinian institutions dealing with the refugee issue have been trying to obtain accurate records on the land and property that were lost when Israel was established. This effort has gained steam in recent years, but no Palestinian institution has come close to collecting all the relevant data. One reason for the lackadaisical effort may be the Palestinians' understanding that the data has little practical value other than for public relations. At most, it will be used in the bargaining over compensation for refugees, if and when such negotiations take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> There are no Ottoman records indicating the land was not owned by individual Palestinian families, and had been even way before the Ottoman invasion.
> Invaders like the Ottoman Turks own sovereignty, but never own any plots of land.
> 
> Yes there were some foolish Zionists who sent money to frauds in other countries who falsely claimed to be land owners in Palestine, but how are Syrians or Lebanese going to own land in Palestine?
> It simply never happened, and those who sent money to these supposed land lords were ripped off.
> Its like sending money to Nigerian princes on the internet these days.
> The Palestinians deeds go back over 2000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, I see. So the Turks didn't have the Ottoman lands they turned over to the Pallys. It was all a conspiracy?
> 
> What other conspiracy theories are your favorites?
Click to expand...


No, it is a fraud, not a conspiracy.
Turks has no land ownership in Palestine.
How would they get it?
They did not farm, they did not live there, and invaders do not get ownership of individual plots of land.


----------



## toastman

Rigby5 said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab–Israeli_War
> 
> 
> 
> Where does it say that Israel won that war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning where it says Result: Israeli victory. It also says Palestinian Arab defeat..
> 
> let me guess, you’re going to twist the word ‘victory’ and claim it doesn’t mean ‘to win’... right Tinmore ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This article *needs additional citations for verification*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that was an act of desperation Tinmore. Really??
> 
> How about this:
> 
> “Another factor that contributed to the 1948 defeat”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Arabs were defeated
> 
> 
> Historians argue the reasons behind Arab losses against Israel in 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aljazeera.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article comes from your favourite source, Al Jazeera. The entire article is based on why the Arabs lost and Israel won.
> 
> From the same article :
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The forces of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Israeli military......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not meet their goals . You don’t have to lose territory to lose a war .
> You lost the argument Tinmore, again.
> Nice duck BTW
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Turn it around. What did Israel win and from whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They met their goals, which was to repel the Arab armies . Simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That wasn't the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep posting under the false premise that Israel had to physically win something in order to win the war . Wars are won or lost based on goals that are met or not.  I provided several links already to back up my statement that Israel win the 1948 war, you have provided Nothing but ducks and dancing !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy obfuscation, Batman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another duck by Tinmore. What’s the record for ducks by one poster in one thread? It must be Tinmore.
> Whenever he loses an argument, he tries to retreat by accusing the other poster is ducking .
> I’m still waiting for just one link to contradict what I posted Tinmore . Just one..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you just are trying to move away from my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have answered everything you have asked me and provided several links. You have provided NOTHING . Just ducking and dancing. Now you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing , trying to retreat when you know you lost ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What did Egypt lose?
> What did Syria lose?
> What did Lebanon lose?
> What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *What did Egypt lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Syria lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Lebanon lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> *What did Transjordan/Iraq lose?*
> 
> They got their ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that relevant?
> Clearly Israel had the latest US weapons, while the Arab states had old surplus that was decades obsolete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Israel was not only outnumbered and outgunned, but they had to goth The war on all front. They were completely surrounded by the Srabs, yet still managed to fend them off ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total lie.
> The Israelis had been planning this over 50 years, so had accumulated a much larger trained military force, and much more modern weapons.
> In contrast, Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria not only had very little experience with independence themselves, but had no modern arms or armies at all.
> And they were not willing to commit even a tiny fraction of what they did have.
> Nor were there wide spread fonts as you claim.
> Egyptian forces were no where near to Gaza.
> Lebanese forces were no where near the Galilee area.
> Syrian forces were no where near the Golan Heights.
> Jordanian forces never set foot on any Israeli land at all, and only defensively fought in the West Bank, to stop the Israeli invasion attempt.
> Anyone had to cross a lot of territory just to get to Israel.
> And no, Israel did not "fend them off".
> Israel has tried to invade the West Bank, and totally lost.
> They had to go back entirely to prewar borders.
Click to expand...

The Israelis has been planning what? They had just declared independence the day before. How could they have planned anything 50 years prior ?
So you even have a link to prove this ?


----------



## toastman

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
Click to expand...

No one invaded? Where did you get this crap, you Arab apologist. S soon as Israel declared independence, Arab states invaded. There is no denying that, no matter how much you try and distort history ..


----------



## toastman

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the goal of the Jews in the 1948 war was the invasion of the West Bank,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when the Jews lost, they ended up with more land than they started with.
> 
> Just like Germany in WWI and WWII, right?
> 
> *the Zionists were totally defeated and had to fall back on the UN partition instead.*
> 
> But they didn't. You should post all 3 maps.....just to prove your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consistently wrong.
> After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.
> 
> With the 3 maps, the first map was both before and after the 1948 war.
> 
> The other maps represent the advances by Israel in the 1980s and then very recent thefts of the West Banks for the construction of the illegal wall in the West Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.*
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Post the partition map and the after war map.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the pre-1948 war UN partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the map after the 1948 war was over, and then the changes in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Israel lost the 1948 war because they fighting was almost all around Jerusalem, and Israel achieved nothing.
Click to expand...

If Israel had lost the war. They would have ceased to exist .I even posted a link earlier in this thread from Al Jazeera where even they say Israel won the war and the Arabs failed.
You like to make up history , don’t you ?


----------



## Hollie

Rigby5 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your comment about Pallys owning all plots of land is nonsense. The Pallys _did not_ have ownership of all the plots of land. That is confirmed by Ottoman land records. Jewish organizations purchased large tracts of land from absentee Arabs in Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Turkey hands over Ottoman land records to Palestinians
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Ever since 1948, Palestinian institutions dealing with the refugee issue have been trying to obtain accurate records on the land and property that were lost when Israel was established. This effort has gained steam in recent years, but no Palestinian institution has come close to collecting all the relevant data. One reason for the lackadaisical effort may be the Palestinians' understanding that the data has little practical value other than for public relations. At most, it will be used in the bargaining over compensation for refugees, if and when such negotiations take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> There are no Ottoman records indicating the land was not owned by individual Palestinian families, and had been even way before the Ottoman invasion.
> Invaders like the Ottoman Turks own sovereignty, but never own any plots of land.
> 
> Yes there were some foolish Zionists who sent money to frauds in other countries who falsely claimed to be land owners in Palestine, but how are Syrians or Lebanese going to own land in Palestine?
> It simply never happened, and those who sent money to these supposed land lords were ripped off.
> Its like sending money to Nigerian princes on the internet these days.
> The Palestinians deeds go back over 2000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Palestinians deeds go back over 2000 years."
> 
> What deeds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All land transactions are always recorded.
> The Palestinians lived there for over 10,000 years.
Click to expand...

Wow. So Pallys existed before there were Pallys.


----------



## Hollie

Rigby5 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is stupid.
> Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.
> And Zionists murdered natives in order to steal their homes.
> Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.
> That is trillions that need to get paid back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Land is owned by individual property owners, not countries.*
> 
> Yeah, but talking about the Ottoman owners is so boring.
> 
> *Almost no one in Israel has ever paid for their homes because they were almost all stolen from the natives.*
> 
> 6 million Jews got their homes from a couple hundred thousand Palestinians? Sounds crowded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> The Ottoman invaders were rulers, not owners of individual plots of land.
> The Palestinians had ownership of all the plots of land, including all of Israel.
> There is hardly a parcel in Israel that is not actually legally owned by Arabs.
> The exception would be the Old Jewish Quarter of the West Bank, where some native Jews lived.
> 
> And no, over a million Arabs were illegally displaced by Zionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, your comment about Pallys owning all plots of land is nonsense. The Pallys _did not_ have ownership of all the plots of land. That is confirmed by Ottoman land records. Jewish organizations purchased large tracts of land from absentee Arabs in Syria and Lebanon.
> 
> Turkey hands over Ottoman land records to Palestinians
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Ever since 1948, Palestinian institutions dealing with the refugee issue have been trying to obtain accurate records on the land and property that were lost when Israel was established. This effort has gained steam in recent years, but no Palestinian institution has come close to collecting all the relevant data. One reason for the lackadaisical effort may be the Palestinians' understanding that the data has little practical value other than for public relations. At most, it will be used in the bargaining over compensation for refugees, if and when such negotiations take place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> There are no Ottoman records indicating the land was not owned by individual Palestinian families, and had been even way before the Ottoman invasion.
> Invaders like the Ottoman Turks own sovereignty, but never own any plots of land.
> 
> Yes there were some foolish Zionists who sent money to frauds in other countries who falsely claimed to be land owners in Palestine, but how are Syrians or Lebanese going to own land in Palestine?
> It simply never happened, and those who sent money to these supposed land lords were ripped off.
> Its like sending money to Nigerian princes on the internet these days.
> The Palestinians deeds go back over 2000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, I see. So the Turks didn't have the Ottoman lands they turned over to the Pallys. It was all a conspiracy?
> 
> What other conspiracy theories are your favorites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is a fraud, not a conspiracy.
> Turks has no land ownership in Palestine.
> How would they get it?
> They did not farm, they did not live there, and invaders do not get ownership of individual plots of land.
Click to expand...

Your conspiracy theories are funny, The loosely defined land area you define as the Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan was a sanjak of the Ottoman empire. 









						Empire Ottoman : division administrative
					

Includes four insets and tables of cities, with size and population. Available also through the Library of Congress Web site as a raster image.



					www.loc.gov


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Zionists were attacking the natives way back in the 1920s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the Jews invade the "country" of "Palestine"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> There were over half a dozen so called "wars", but in reality they were almost all just Israel stealing more land.
> The exception was the Yom Kippur war of 73, when Egypt won back the Sinai.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yes.*
> 
> The day the Jews invaded, who was the palestinian leader?
> 
> *There were over half a dozen so called "wars", but in reality they were almost all just Israel stealing more land.*
> 
> The Jews kicked a lot of Arab ass.
> 
> *The exception was the Yom Kippur war of 73, when Egypt won back the Sinai.*
> 
> Damn, that's some strong fucking weed you're smoking.
> 
> View attachment 500205
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinai Peninsula | Definition, Map, History, & Facts
> 
> 
> Sinai Peninsula, Arabic Shibh Jazīrat Sīnāʾ,  triangular peninsula linking Africa with Asia and occupying an area of 23,500 square miles (61,000 square km). The Sinai Desert, as the peninsula’s arid expanse is called, is separated by the Gulf of Suez and the Suez Canal from the Eastern Desert of...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> Israel lost the 1973 Yom Kippur war and was forced to give back the Sinai that Israel illegally had occupied since 1967.
> 
> {...
> The *Yom Kippur War*, *Ramadan War*, or *October War*[56] also known as the *1973 Arab–Israeli War*, was fought from October 6 to 25, 1973, by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel. The war took place mostly in Sinai and the Golan—occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War—with some fighting in African Egypt and northern Israel.[57][58] Egypt's initial war objective was to use its military to seize a foothold on the east bank of the Suez Canal and use this to negotiate the return of the rest of Sinai.[59][60][61][62]
> 
> ...Both the United States and the Soviet Union initiated massive resupply efforts to their respective allies during the war, and these efforts led to a near-confrontation between the two nuclear superpowers.[64]...
> 
> The war began with a massive and successful Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal. Egyptian forces crossed the cease-fire lines, then advanced virtually unopposed into the Sinai Peninsula. After three days, Israel had mobilized most of its forces and halted the Egyptian offensive, resulting in a military stalemate. The Syrians coordinated their attack on the Golan Heights to coincide with the Egyptian offensive and initially made threatening gains into Israeli-held territory. Within three days, however, Israeli forces had pushed the Syrians back to the pre-war ceasefire lines. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) then launched a four-day counter-offensive deep into Syria. Within a week, Israeli artillery began to shell the outskirts of Damascus, and Egyptian President Sadat began to worry about the integrity of his major ally. He believed that capturing two strategic passes located deeper in the Sinai would make his position stronger during post-war negotiations; he therefore ordered the Egyptians to go back on the offensive, but their attack was quickly repulsed. The Israelis then counter-attacked at the seam between the two Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal into Egypt, and began slowly advancing southward and westward towards the city of Suez in over a week of heavy fighting that resulted in heavy casualties on both sides.[65][66]
> 
> On October 22, a United Nations–brokered ceasefire unraveled, with each side blaming the other for the breach. By October 24, the Israelis had improved their positions considerably and completed their encirclement of Egypt's Third Army and the city of Suez. This development led to tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, and a second ceasefire was imposed cooperatively on October 25 to end the war.
> 
> The war had far-reaching implications. The Arab world had experienced humiliation in the lopsided rout of the Egyptian–Syrian–Jordanian alliance in the Six-Day War but felt psychologically vindicated by early successes in this conflict. The war led Israel to recognize that, despite impressive operational and tactical achievements on the battlefield, there was no guarantee that they would always dominate the Arab states militarily, as they had consistently through the earlier 1948 Arab–Israeli War, the Suez Crisis and the Six-Day War. These changes paved the way for the subsequent peace process.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


*Israel lost the 1973 Yom Kippur war and was forced to give back the Sinai that Israel illegally had occupied since 1967.*

So why did Israel hold it until 1982?

I don't think you understand the difference between win and lose.

_ The Israelis then counter-attacked at the seam between the two Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal into Egypt, and began slowly advancing southward and westward towards the city of Suez in over a week of heavy fighting that resulted in heavy casualties on both sides.[65]__[66]_

Your own source disagrees with your claim.

_The war led Israel to recognize that, despite impressive operational and tactical achievements on the battlefield, there was no guarantee that they would always dominate the Arab states militarily,_

See? DURR


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Obviously Israel lost the 1948 war because they fighting was almost all around Jerusalem, and Israel achieved nothing.









Thanks.

Now use a real post war map. Not one you drew with crayons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Abbas is the temporary elected leader*
> 
> I know he's old, but he wasn't their leader back in the 60s.
> 
> *The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.*
> 
> Not when you claim something was stolen. Try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.
> 
> {... An Arab summit meeting in Cairo in 1964 led to the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A political umbrella organization of several Palestinian groups, the PLO thereafter consistently claimed to be the sole representative of all Palestinian people. Its first leader was Aḥmad Shuqayrī, a protégé of Egypt.
> ...
> Several years before the creation of the PLO, a secret organization had been formed: the Palestine National Liberation Movement (Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī al-Filasṭīnī), known from a reversal of its Arabic initials as Fatah. ...}
> 
> What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.
> Zionist murdered, looted, and stole hundreds of Arab villages from the native Palestinians.
> 
> {...
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist military forces before May 15, 1948, or by the Israeli army after that date or fled for fear of violence by these forces. Many wealthy merchants and leading urban notables from Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem fled to Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, while the middle class tended to move to all-Arab towns such as Nāblus and Nazareth. The majority of fellahin ended up in refugee camps. More than 400 Arab villages disappeared, and Arab life in the coastal cities (especially Jaffa and Haifa) virtually disintegrated.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine - Palestine and the Palestinians (1948–67)
> 
> 
> If one chief theme in the post-1948 pattern was embattled Israel and a second the hostility of its Arab neighbours, a third was the plight of the huge number of Arab refugees. The violent birth of Israel led to a major displacement of the Arab population, who either were driven out by Zionist...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Leadership changes fast when invaded by a hostile country like the Zionists.*
> 
> Especially in the 1920s.
> 
> *What was stolen was land, so currency has nothing at all to do with it.*
> 
> How can you steal land from a country that has no leaders and no currency?
> 
> Now, tell me more about those 100 US planes you smoked up.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Zionists stole homes from Arabs who should have been equally Israeli citizens.
> Countries have nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...

*
Countries have nothing to do with that.*

You said the nation of Palestine was created in 1920. 
But it had no leaders, no currency, no military.
Not in 1920. Not in 1930. Not in 1940. Not in 1948. Not today.

Only in your (drug warped) imagination.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> The Palestinians lived there for over 10,000 years.



I heard it was 1,000,000 years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact Charles Winters was not prosecuted for his obvious violations of law and treaty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What laws? What treaties? Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already listed the laws, treaties, and British statements, so you clearly are just spamming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What law did Winters violate? What treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.
> As a signature of the UN, that made it illegal under US law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There was a UN embargo on arms to the Mideast participants in hostilities.*
> 
> Hostilities? You mean when the couple of dozen Arabs invaded?
> 
> Now you said Israel got 50 bombers and 50 Mustangs from the US.
> What did they really get? 3 or 4? LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> The Israelis accumumulated hundreds of planes, none of which they could have obtained if not for the US secretly allowing them to.
> They even started shooting down British observation planes once they had US Mustang, P-51 high altitude interceptors.
> 
> {...
> Preceded by the Sherut Avir, the air wing of the Haganah, the Israeli Air Force was officially formed on May 28, 1948, shortly after Israel declared statehood and found itself under immediate attack from its Arab neighbors. At first, it was assembled from a hodge-podge collection of civilian aircraft commandeered or donated and converted to military use. A variety of obsolete and surplus ex-World War II combat aircraft were quickly sourced by various means – both legal and illegal – to supplement this fleet. The backbone of the IAF consisted of 25 Avia S-199s (purchased from Czechoslovakia, essentially Czechoslovak-built Messerschmitt Bf 109s) and 60 Supermarine Spitfire LF Mk IXEs, the first of which, "Israel 1" was locally assembled from British abandoned spare parts and a salvaged engine from an Egyptian Spitfire with most of the rest purchased from Czechoslovakia.[4] Some spitfires were ferried from Žatec base code-named "Zebra" where pilots also received preliminary flight training, while others were transported by sea. Creativity and resourcefulness were the early foundations of Israeli military success in the air, rather than technology (which, at the inception of the IAF, was generally inferior to that used by Israel's adversaries). Many of the first IAF's pilots in 1948 were foreign volunteers (both Jewish and non-Jewish) and World War II veterans, who wanted to collaborate with Israel's struggle for its independence. The IAF's humble beginnings made its first air victories particularly impressive and noteworthy.
> 
> Similarly the Air Transport Command begun its existence as the Panamanian registered _Lineos Aeros de Panama Society Anonyme_ or LAPSA acquired C-46 and C-47 aircraft.[5] Of the 607 IAF servicemen who served in the IAF during the War of Independence, over 414 of them were volunteers from overseas.[6]
> 
> Israel's new fighter arm first went into action on May 29, 1948, assisting the efforts to halt the Egyptian advance from Gaza northwards. Four newly arrived Avia S-199s, flown by Lou Lenart, Modi Alon, Ezer Weizman and Eddie Cohen, struck Egyptian forces near Isdud. Although damage was minimal, two aircraft were lost and Cohen killed, the attack nevertheless achieved its goal and the Egyptians stopped. The Avias were back in action on May 30, attacking Jordanian forces near Tulkarem, losing another aircraft in the process.[7][8] After un-assembled planes were strafed on the ground on May 30 at Ekron airfield the fighters were moved to makeshift strip located around the current Herzliya Airport. The airfield was used as it was a bit back from the front-lines, and was clandestine since it was a purpose built strip, that was constructed after the beginning of hostilities, in between the orange orchards around Herzliya, and didn't appear on published maps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 1949 aerial view of Ramat David air force base, taken from a B-17.
> The Israeli Air Force scored its first aerial victories on June 3 when Modi Alon, flying Avia D.112, shot down two Egyptian Air Force DC-3s which had just bombed Tel Aviv.[8][9][10] The first dogfight against enemy fighters took place a few days later, on June 8, when Gideon Lichtaman shot down an Egyptian Spitfire.[11] During these initial operations, the squadron operated with a few planes versus almost complete Arab theater Air supremacy and the airplanes were parked dispersed between the orange trees. The fighters were moved in October to Hatzor Airbase from the Herzliya strip in due to its unsuitability in rainy conditions, probable loss of clandestine status, moving front lines which made former British bases safe for use, and a shift in the balance of air superiority towards the Israelis.[12][13][14]
> 
> As the war progressed, more and more aircraft were procured, including Boeing B-17s,[15] Bristol Beaufighters, de Havilland Mosquitoes and P-51D Mustangs, leading to a shift in the balance of power. Although the IAF had never secured complete aerial supremacy, by the end of the war it had proven decisive in the air.[16][17]
> 
> The war also saw the IAF clash with Britain's Royal Air Force. During the summer and autumn of 1948 RAF photo-reconnaissance De Havilland Mosquitos of No. 13 Squadron RAF flew routine reconnaissance overflights over Israel. These high-altitude flights remained unchallenged until Israel acquired the Mustang. On November 20, 1948 one such reconnaissance aircraft was spotted over the Galilee and was shot down by Wayne Peake, crashing in the Mediterranean off Ashdod.[18][19] The IAF and RAF clashed again on January 7, 1949, during Operation Horev, when four RAF Spitfires were shot down, followed by a Hawker Tempest later that day.[20][21]
> ...}
Click to expand...


*The Israelis accumumulated hundreds of planes*

Thousands!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

toastman said:


> So you even have a link to prove this ?



Here's his link.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC:  Outcomes
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF:* These are very good issues to explore.



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> By the end of the war Israel had "control" of 78% of Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

Not exactly true, but let's not get bogged down in the fine points of reality.  You are actually talking about ≈78% of the original ≈23% of the Territory under the Mandate (_West of the Jordan River_).  Jordan actually was allocated the lions share of territory; ≈78% of the entire territory that was subject to the Mandate.

Under its "Self-Determination" Israel declared independence and assumed the 56% of the territory West of the Jordan River under the Partition Plan in A/RES/181 (II) → adopted by the General Assembly. 

On the cessation of hostilities in 1949, yes - Israel was responsible for more territory than the Partition Plan.  However, the Arab Higher Committee had already rejected their allocated portion.  The Arab Palestinians did not relinquish any sovereignty because they never had any sovereignty. They rejected their opportunity for Self-Governance.  What was not placed under the jurisdiction of Israel, was placed under the jurisdiction of an adjacent Arab State.  Of what is called the West Bank, Jordan annexed all of it - NOT Israel.



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> What was the process of gaining that control?


*(COMMENT)*

This answer comes in two parts:

*   ◈  Self-Determination* on the recommendation adopted by the General Assembly.​​*   ◈  Armistice Arrangements* agreed upon by Israel and the adjacent countries of the Arab League.​


			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> What was the meaning of control?


*(COMMENT)*

There is actually no binding or legal definition under International Law as to the specific meaning of either: 1)  control -- or -- 2)  territorial integrity.

In the context of the conflict, after the Armistice Arrangements of 1949, territorial control was ground truth in two parts:

   ◈  External Territory _(__to a party bound by the agreement__)_ that was actually placed under the authority of International Law administered by one party to the Armistice.​​   ◈  Sovereign Territory (_boundary delimitation_) under the jurisdiction exclusive to the authority within a State that is considered Independent.​
This is actually quite important in concept because under International Law:

Occupation is a method of acquiring title to territory, derived from occupation in Roman Law. Only territory that is not subject to any sovereignty (*terra nullius*) may be acquired by occupation.  In 1988, when the King of Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem, the territory became, in perspective "_terra nullius,_" and in the hands of Israeli control.  However, Israel has only declared sovereignty in Jerusalem relative to the abandon territory under former Jordanian control.​
Now, I know you are going to jump-up and recite the mantra:  "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"

This is all worn out.  Peace Treaties the 1948 Conflict, as mentioned in the Armistice Agreements, had not been agreed upon.  So, in fact, the 1967 Conflict was a continuation of the 1948 Conflict initiated by the Arab League.  Thus, 1967 was still a defensive action predicated by the Arab League Forces on the frontier which consituted the Activation of Article 51 (_restore international peace and security_) to neutralize the Arab  League threatening use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel [Article 2(4)].




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Not exactly true, but let's not get bogged down in the fine points of reality. You are actually talking about ≈78% of the original ≈23% of the Territory under the Mandate (_West of the Jordan River_). Jordan actually was allocated the lions share of territory; ≈78% of the entire territory that was subject to the Mandate.


OK Mr. Irrelevance, what does this have to do with anything?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly true, but let's not get bogged down in the fine points of reality. You are actually talking about ≈78% of the original ≈23% of the Territory under the Mandate (_West of the Jordan River_). Jordan actually was allocated the lions share of territory; ≈78% of the entire territory that was subject to the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> OK Mr. Irrelevance, what does this have to do with anything?
Click to expand...


*what does this have to do with anything?*

He doesn't need me to answer for him, but.....

*"By the end of the war Israel had "control" of 78% of Palestine"*

This proved your math wrong.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Under its "Self-Determination" Israel declared independence and assumed the 56% of the territory West of the Jordan River under the Partition Plan in A/RES/181 (II) → adopted by the General Assembly.


No it didn't.

Resolution 181 was never implemented. There was no 56%.
Israel never declared those to be its borders.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> On the cessation of hostilities in 1949, yes - Israel was responsible for more territory than the Partition Plan. However, the Arab Higher Committee had already rejected their allocated portion.


They rejected partition. That changed nothing.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> What was not placed under the jurisdiction of Israel, was placed under the jurisdiction of an adjacent Arab State.


Who had the authority to place jurisdiction?


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly true, but let's not get bogged down in the fine points of reality. You are actually talking about ≈78% of the original ≈23% of the Territory under the Mandate (_West of the Jordan River_). Jordan actually was allocated the lions share of territory; ≈78% of the entire territory that was subject to the Mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> OK Mr. Irrelevance, what does this have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Why do you bother posting here if every single time your lies are exposed, you just end up asking irrelevant questions that have no merit to the conversation? 
Israel is a country with defined territory and international borders . Palestine isnt. Deal with it .


----------



## toastman

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was not placed under the jurisdiction of Israel, was placed under the jurisdiction of an adjacent Arab State.
> 
> 
> 
> Who had the authority to place jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

And the dancing has begun !!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the goal of the Jews in the 1948 war was the invasion of the West Bank,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when the Jews lost, they ended up with more land than they started with.
> 
> Just like Germany in WWI and WWII, right?
> 
> *the Zionists were totally defeated and had to fall back on the UN partition instead.*
> 
> But they didn't. You should post all 3 maps.....just to prove your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consistently wrong.
> After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.
> 
> With the 3 maps, the first map was both before and after the 1948 war.
> 
> The other maps represent the advances by Israel in the 1980s and then very recent thefts of the West Banks for the construction of the illegal wall in the West Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.*
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Post the partition map and the after war map.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the pre-1948 war UN partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the map after the 1948 war was over, and then the changes in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Israel lost the 1948 war because they fighting was almost all around Jerusalem, and Israel achieved nothing.
Click to expand...


Still looking for a better map? LOL!


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under its "Self-Determination" Israel declared independence and assumed the 56% of the territory West of the Jordan River under the Partition Plan in A/RES/181 (II) → adopted by the General Assembly.
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't.
> 
> Resolution 181 was never implemented. There was no 56%.
> Israel never declared those to be its borders.
Click to expand...

Yes it did. 

1. Res. 181 being implemented or not is irrelevant. There was 56% assumption of territory in spite of your denials, 

2. Israel's declared borders have been established by treaty with adjoining nations in spite of your denial of the existence of those treaties.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was not placed under the jurisdiction of Israel, was placed under the jurisdiction of an adjacent Arab State.
> 
> 
> 
> Who had the authority to place jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

Those who had the authority to place jurisdiction.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: Now your just playing with the question.  Arab Palestinians use the Pre-June 4th Line (Green Line) .



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> Who had the authority to place jurisdiction?



*(COMMENT)*

The 1949 "Armistice Agreements" as the starting point; knowing today that they have been superseded.





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: Now your just playing with the question.  Arab Palestinians use the Pre-June 4th Line (Green Line) .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who had the authority to place jurisdiction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The 1949 "Armistice Agreements" as the starting point; knowing today that they have been superseded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

Huh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the goal of the Jews in the 1948 war was the invasion of the West Bank,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when the Jews lost, they ended up with more land than they started with.
> 
> Just like Germany in WWI and WWII, right?
> 
> *the Zionists were totally defeated and had to fall back on the UN partition instead.*
> 
> But they didn't. You should post all 3 maps.....just to prove your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consistently wrong.
> After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.
> 
> With the 3 maps, the first map was both before and after the 1948 war.
> 
> The other maps represent the advances by Israel in the 1980s and then very recent thefts of the West Banks for the construction of the illegal wall in the West Bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *After the 1948 war, Israel ended up with the exact same amount of land as before, the UN partition.*
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Post the partition map and the after war map.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the pre-1948 war UN partition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the map after the 1948 war was over, and then the changes in 1967.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously Israel lost the 1948 war because they fighting was almost all around Jerusalem, and Israel achieved nothing.
Click to expand...


*Obviously Israel lost the 1948 war because they fighting was almost all around Jerusalem, and Israel achieved nothing.*

I know you're still looking for a map.

Maybe this will help you?













						1948 Arab–Israeli War - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Weird. It disagrees with your claim that "Israel achieved nothing".


----------



## RetiredGySgt

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was not placed under the jurisdiction of Israel, was placed under the jurisdiction of an adjacent Arab State.
> 
> 
> 
> Who had the authority to place jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

The UN RECOGNIZED and authorized the state of Israel and no amount of you whining and complaining will change that,


----------



## Indeependent

Rigby5 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are obviously confused.
> The only way to learn the truth is by reading what the British had to say about the British Mandate for Palestine.
> So the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 is a quick synopsis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> Unauthorized 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 deegation, 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 a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, 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 its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
> 
> 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. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
> ...}
> 
> That clearly proves Palestine was to be Moslem Arab, independent rule.
> Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a Jewish homeland WITHIN this independent Moslem, Arab, Palestine.
> The Zionist Organization has pledged to never want any participation in rule, in the 1921 Carlsbad conference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not bring up a document from 1922 where the Arabs living in the area did not yet establish a nation?
> O!  You did!
> You *are* stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation of Palestine was created by the 1920 treaties.
> What the Palestinians had not yet created was a government, so then the British were mandated to hold their hand until they were ready.
Click to expand...

It's been 90 years and they still haven't created a government, but their "government" has taken billions of dollars from the US and the UN.
Your refusal to see facts is comical.


----------



## Indeependent

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine legally existed in 1920 by the Allies and Axis powers signing the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> *There were not to be any Jewish involvement in the government of Palestine.*
> 
> What government of Palestine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are obviously confused.
> The only way to learn the truth is by reading what the British had to say about the British Mandate for Palestine.
> So the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922 is a quick synopsis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> {...
> Unauthorized 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 deegation, 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 a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, 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 its peoples an undisturbed national development."
> 
> It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
> 
> 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. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
> ...}
> 
> That clearly proves Palestine was to be Moslem Arab, independent rule.
> Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a Jewish homeland WITHIN this independent Moslem, Arab, Palestine.
> The Zionist Organization has pledged to never want any participation in rule, in the 1921 Carlsbad conference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not bring up a document from 1922 where the Arabs living in the area did not yet establish a nation?
> O!  You did!
> You *are* stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The nation of Palestine was created by the 1920 treaties.
> What the Palestinians had not yet created was a government, so then the British were mandated to hold their hand until they were ready.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were ready in May 1948.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Israeli Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The  Arab "Palestinians", still not ready.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously the Palestinians are not ready because they were illegally invaded by Israel.
> To be ready, they would need arms and an army that could defend themselves.
> And the illegal occupation by Israel prevents that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Obviously the Palestinians are not ready because they were illegally invaded by Israel.*
> 
> Back in the 1920s, when the nation of Palestine was created by treaty? Sneaky Jews.
> 
> *To be ready, they would need arms and an army that could defend themselves.*
> 
> And they'd have to work at it. Their whining doesn't count as work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Zionists were attacking the natives way back in the 1920s.
> Why do you think the British were arresting and executing Zionists, and why do you think the Zionists finally wiped out the British peacekeeper command?
> Not to mention why the Zionists gunned down the UN Moderator, Folke Bernadotte?
> It obviously was so there was no one to stop the mass murder of Arabs by immigrant Zionists.
Click to expand...

Any Links from non-Arab sites?


----------



## Indeependent

Rigby5 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel stole Jerusalem and the West Bank from Palestine,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palestine? Sweet!!!
> 
> Who were the elected leaders of this "Palestine" you speak of?
> What was their currency? Who was in charge of their central bank?
> What were the interest rates on their debt the day before their land was stolen?
> 
> You have any links to back you up?
> Besides that cloud of bong smoke you keep pulling your info from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abbas is the temporary elected leader since the Israelis assassinated the previous Hamas president.
> 
> The currency of Palestine is the Palestine Pound.
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_pound.
Click to expand...

And the backing of their currency is the US and Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

__





						Self-determination: the Palestinian trump card - Opinion
					

The right to self-determination of the Palestinians is inviolable, undermining legally and morally the propaganda surrounding the UN’s supposed recognition of Israel




					english.ahram.org.eg
				




Understood in the context of international law, such a statement must have meant that a “national home for the Jewish people” would only be established in Palestine with the Palestinians’ consent.


Moreover, after a short period of military occupation and administration, the British agreed to administer Palestine as a mandatory power of the “Allied Powers-created” League of Nations. The British were granted the League of Nations Mandate under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations at a meeting held in San Remo, Italy, on 24 August 1920.


This mandate set the terms, with Britain’s agreement, by which the international community would ensure the fundamental right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. The mandate was authorised by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations that governed its interpretation and implementation in relation to Palestine. This article made it clear that the mandatory power only held Palestine in trust until its people “are able to stand alone”. It is also stated unequivocally that the “wishes” of the Palestinians must be the “principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory”.


The ICJ described the League of Nations mandates as “created, in the interests of the inhabitants of the Territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international object —a sacred trust of civilisation.” The mandate did not, in the words of the World Court, “involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty” and the mandatory power exercised its responsibility “with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants”.


The right to self-determination for peoples who were not subject to claims of permanent sovereignty by a state provided for —and still provides today —for the recognition of the will of the local community to determine their own future. Thus by virtue of their right to self-determination the Palestinian people, about 80 per cent of whom were Muslim or Arabs or both, had the right to decide their own future without the interference of any foreign state, including the mandatory power. Indeed, Britain’s legal obligation under international law was to facilitate the realisation of the right to self-determination by the Palestinian people.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self-determination: the Palestinian trump card - Opinion
> 
> 
> The right to self-determination of the Palestinians is inviolable, undermining legally and morally the propaganda surrounding the UN’s supposed recognition of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> english.ahram.org.eg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understood in the context of international law, such a statement must have meant that a “national home for the Jewish people” would only be established in Palestine with the Palestinians’ consent.
> 
> 
> Moreover, after a short period of military occupation and administration, the British agreed to administer Palestine as a mandatory power of the “Allied Powers-created” League of Nations. The British were granted the League of Nations Mandate under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations at a meeting held in San Remo, Italy, on 24 August 1920.
> 
> 
> This mandate set the terms, with Britain’s agreement, by which the international community would ensure the fundamental right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. The mandate was authorised by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations that governed its interpretation and implementation in relation to Palestine. This article made it clear that the mandatory power only held Palestine in trust until its people “are able to stand alone”. It is also stated unequivocally that the “wishes” of the Palestinians must be the “principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory”.
> 
> 
> The ICJ described the League of Nations mandates as “created, in the interests of the inhabitants of the Territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international object —a sacred trust of civilisation.” The mandate did not, in the words of the World Court, “involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty” and the mandatory power exercised its responsibility “with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants”.
> 
> 
> The right to self-determination for peoples who were not subject to claims of permanent sovereignty by a state provided for —and still provides today —for the recognition of the will of the local community to determine their own future. Thus by virtue of their right to self-determination the Palestinian people, about 80 per cent of whom were Muslim or Arabs or both, had the right to decide their own future without the interference of any foreign state, including the mandatory power. Indeed, Britain’s legal obligation under international law was to facilitate the realisation of the right to self-determination by the Palestinian people.


You should send the above and and an irrelevant Linda Sarsour youtube video to the UN.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC:  Consent
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: No, it is you that do not understand in terms of the "context.'



P F Tinmore said:


> Understood in the context of international law, such a statement must have meant that a “national home for the Jewish people” would only be established in Palestine with the Palestinians’ consent.


*(COMMENT)*

In over a century, no document or political statement has ever eluded to a "need" for Arab Palestinian approval.  A century ago, the only obligation that was made in that context → was actually an agreement between the Principal Allied Powers.  

The Allied Powers agreed among themselves that there should be the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and that nothing should be done which:  (See Paragraph 2 of the *Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine*.

 ◈  Might prejudice the* "rights and political status"* enjoyed by Jews. ​​◈  Might prejudice the "*civil and religious rights"* of existing non-Jewish communities _(ie the Arab Palestinians)_.​​These are two entirely different sets of rights to be considered.  It is critical to the understanding of the arguments presented by the Arab Palestinians to understand the "INTENT" of the Allied Powers." One for the Jews (rights and political status), and one for the non-Jews (civil and religious rights).  And you have to understand what the 1922 era → Rights, Civil Rights, Religious Rights, and the Political Status meant* in context a century ago*.

In the of P F Tinmore, he certainly wants to ignore the context in time.  He makes an interpretive assumption that is clearly not in evidence.  He ignores that something else exists that is in evidence.  When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play? (RHETORICAL)  Certainly not before the Allied Powers protected the * "rights and political status"* enjoyed by Jews. 






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC:  Consent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: No, it is you that do not understand in terms of the "context.'
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Understood in the context of international law, such a statement must have meant that a “national home for the Jewish people” would only be established in Palestine with the Palestinians’ consent.
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> In over a century, no document or political statement has ever eluded to a "need" for Arab Palestinian approval.  A century ago, the only obligation that was made in that context → was actually an agreement between the Principal Allied Powers.
> 
> The Allied Powers agreed among themselves that there should be the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and that nothing should be done which:  (See Paragraph 2 of the *Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine*.
> 
> ◈  Might prejudice the* "rights and political status"* enjoyed by Jews. ​​◈  Might prejudice the "*civil and religious rights"* of existing non-Jewish communities _(ie the Arab Palestinians)_.​​These are two entirely different sets of rights to be considered.  It is critical to the understanding of the arguments presented by the Arab Palestinians to understand the "INTENT" of the Allied Powers." One for the Jews (rights and political status), and one for the non-Jews (civil and religious rights).  And you have to understand what the 1922 era → Rights, Civil Rights, Religious Rights, and the Political Status meant* in context a century ago*.
> 
> In the of P F Tinmore, he certainly wants to ignore the context in time.  He makes an interpretive assumption that is clearly not in evidence.  He ignores that something else exists that is in evidence.  When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play? (RHETORICAL)  Certainly not before the Allied Powers protected the * "rights and political status"* enjoyed by Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

You love that external interference.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play?


Excellent question.
-------------
_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;





__





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





					unispal.un.org
				



-------------------------
If, as you claim, the Palestinians did not have these rights during the Mandate period. And they did have these rights in 1974 as the UN states.

When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?

Hmmm!


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Consent
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*BLUF*: OK, the oldest document listed by you is, the UN Charter 1945.  Nothing more binding until when?  *(RHETORICAL)* More than a quarter of a century after Israels Independence.  Of the* 9 core international human rights instruments*, the oldest of these are: 

*◈     International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*; Entered into Force in 1969​​_*◈     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*_*;* Entered into Force in 1976​​*◈    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*; Entered into Force in 1976​​Having said that, I would like to role back to WWII.  There is the* Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America (US) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (UK)* (AKA:  The Atlantic Charter). This Charter has some very specific declarations.  But those declarations are expressly applicable ONLY to the US and UK and only refer to the "desires" of the government and NOT obligations or requirements.  I would like to call your attention to three of the eight passages in the declaration (supra):

*Second*, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;​​*Third*, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;​​*Fourth*, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;​


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> -------------
> _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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> If, as you claim, the Palestinians did not have these rights during the Mandate period. And they did have these rights in 1974 as the UN states.
> 
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> Hmmm!
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*
.
It will be exceptionally difficult to define these rights as you have expressed them.  This is because the types and kinds of governments very.  Rights are phased into effect on the acceptance.

*First Generation* (human rights) → civil and political,​​*Second Generation* (human rights) → economic and social rights,​​*Third Generation* (human rights) → self-determination and development,​
These three generate groups of rights are exceedingly difficult to define in any universally accepted way.  These groups of rights are in the Core Interments for Human Rights (_supra_).  Without these core instruments, you simply cannot define (in any binding way) what is meant by these Rights that does not become subjective and controversial.

Certainly, the Arab Palestinian arguments rely heavily on non-binding interpretations that are not universally the custom in the countries of the Middle East.






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: QUESTION on Self-determination
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_



P F Tinmore said:


> The ICJ described the League of Nations mandates as “created, in the interests of the inhabitants of the Territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international object —a sacred trust of civilisation.” The mandate did not, in the words of the World Court, “involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty” and the mandatory power exercised its responsibility “with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants”.


*(QUESTION)*

When were the Arab Palestinians denied the Right of Self-determination?
When did the Arab Palestinians come together and formed a body to achieve and Arab State?






_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Consent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, the oldest document listed by you is, the UN Charter 1945.  Nothing more binding until when?  *(RHETORICAL)* More than a quarter of a century after Israels Independence.  Of the* 9 core international human rights instruments*, the oldest of these are:
> 
> *◈     International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*; Entered into Force in 1969​​_*◈     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*_*;* Entered into Force in 1976​​*◈    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*; Entered into Force in 1976​​Having said that, I would like to role back to WWII.  There is the*Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America (US) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (UK)* (AKA:  The Atlantic Charter). This Charter has some very specific declarations.  But those declarations are expressly applicable ONLY to the US and UK and only refer to the "desires" of the government and NOT obligations or requirements.  I would like to call your attention to three of the eight passages in the declaration (supra):
> 
> *Second*, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;​​*Third*, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;​​*Fourth*, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> -------------
> _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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> If, as you claim, the Palestinians did not have these rights during the Mandate period. And they did have these rights in 1974 as the UN states.
> 
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It will be exceptionally difficult to define these rights as you have expressed them.  This is because the types and kinds of governments very.  Rights are phased into effect on the acceptance.
> 
> *First Generation* (human rights) → civil and political,​​*Second Generation* (human rights) → economic and social rights,​​*Third Generation* (human rights) → self-determination and development,​
> These three generate groups of rights are exceedingly difficult to define in any universally accepted way.  These groups of rights are in the Core Interments for Human Rights (_supra_).  Without these core instruments, you simply cannot define (in any binding way) what is meant by these Rights that does not become subjective and controversial.
> 
> Certainly, the Arab Palestinian arguments rely heavily on non-binding interpretations that are not universally the custom in the countries of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

Holy verbosity, Batman!

Now how about answering the question?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: QUESTION on Self-determination
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ICJ described the League of Nations mandates as “created, in the interests of the inhabitants of the Territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international object —a sacred trust of civilisation.” The mandate did not, in the words of the World Court, “involve any cession of territory or transfer of sovereignty” and the mandatory power exercised its responsibility “with the object of promoting the well-being and development of the inhabitants”.
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> When were the Arab Palestinians denied the Right of Self-determination?
> When did the Arab Palestinians come together and formed a body to achieve and Arab State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_
Click to expand...

Why do you answer a question with a question?

Do I?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: QUESTION on Self-determination
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,

*BLUF*:  _I did not see one question mark except for the single reprint (cut'n'paste) of my question.  And I object to your continuous _ad hominem_ attack about being verbose.  You confuse being thorough and citing references as being verbose.  




			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> Why do you answer a question with a question?
> Do I?
> 
> Holy verbosity, Batman!
> Now how about answering the question?




*(COMMENT)*

If you are going to make complex allegations, then use the language correctly for the specified time period.  Don't use late 20th Century and early 21st Century criteria for events that happened during the Six-Day War (67) and earlier.

And if you are going to claim that the Palestinians have a 1967 Border, then you best defend how that came about and the method by which the territorial boundary is defined.  From a view by the outside observer, Israel has established its border between the State of Israel and the dubious State of Palestine by means of self-determination.  If you are going to claim that Israel's self-determination is invalid, then defend the claim.

I however addressed the issue.  And again you advocate the exact opposite of the law.  You want to retroactively apply non-bind criteria to events that happened before such rights might even have been created in binding form.

*(IMO)*

You don't really want to address the issues.  You don't actually read the commentary.  And you simply don't do the research that equips you to discuss the issue in point-by-point fashion.  You don't give any specificity to the questions that you do present.  And often, in your biased dialog,   you build them on assumptions, not in evidence.






_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Consent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, the oldest document listed by you is, the UN Charter 1945.  Nothing more binding until when?  *(RHETORICAL)* More than a quarter of a century after Israels Independence.  Of the* 9 core international human rights instruments*, the oldest of these are:
> 
> *◈     International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*; Entered into Force in 1969​​_*◈     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*_*;* Entered into Force in 1976​​*◈    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*; Entered into Force in 1976​​Having said that, I would like to role back to WWII.  There is the*Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America (US) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (UK)* (AKA:  The Atlantic Charter). This Charter has some very specific declarations.  But those declarations are expressly applicable ONLY to the US and UK and only refer to the "desires" of the government and NOT obligations or requirements.  I would like to call your attention to three of the eight passages in the declaration (supra):
> 
> *Second*, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;​​*Third*, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;​​*Fourth*, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> -------------
> _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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> If, as you claim, the Palestinians did not have these rights during the Mandate period. And they did have these rights in 1974 as the UN states.
> 
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It will be exceptionally difficult to define these rights as you have expressed them.  This is because the types and kinds of governments very.  Rights are phased into effect on the acceptance.
> 
> *First Generation* (human rights) → civil and political,​​*Second Generation* (human rights) → economic and social rights,​​*Third Generation* (human rights) → self-determination and development,​
> These three generate groups of rights are exceedingly difficult to define in any universally accepted way.  These groups of rights are in the Core Interments for Human Rights (_supra_).  Without these core instruments, you simply cannot define (in any binding way) what is meant by these Rights that does not become subjective and controversial.
> 
> Certainly, the Arab Palestinian arguments rely heavily on non-binding interpretations that are not universally the custom in the countries of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
Click to expand...

Simple question.
When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?

And I get a whole page of non answer.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Consent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, the oldest document listed by you is, the UN Charter 1945.  Nothing more binding until when?  *(RHETORICAL)* More than a quarter of a century after Israels Independence.  Of the* 9 core international human rights instruments*, the oldest of these are:
> 
> *◈     International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*; Entered into Force in 1969​​_*◈     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*_*;* Entered into Force in 1976​​*◈    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*; Entered into Force in 1976​​Having said that, I would like to role back to WWII.  There is the*Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America (US) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (UK)* (AKA:  The Atlantic Charter). This Charter has some very specific declarations.  But those declarations are expressly applicable ONLY to the US and UK and only refer to the "desires" of the government and NOT obligations or requirements.  I would like to call your attention to three of the eight passages in the declaration (supra):
> 
> *Second*, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;​​*Third*, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;​​*Fourth*, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> -------------
> _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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> If, as you claim, the Palestinians did not have these rights during the Mandate period. And they did have these rights in 1974 as the UN states.
> 
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It will be exceptionally difficult to define these rights as you have expressed them.  This is because the types and kinds of governments very.  Rights are phased into effect on the acceptance.
> 
> *First Generation* (human rights) → civil and political,​​*Second Generation* (human rights) → economic and social rights,​​*Third Generation* (human rights) → self-determination and development,​
> These three generate groups of rights are exceedingly difficult to define in any universally accepted way.  These groups of rights are in the Core Interments for Human Rights (_supra_).  Without these core instruments, you simply cannot define (in any binding way) what is meant by these Rights that does not become subjective and controversial.
> 
> Certainly, the Arab Palestinian arguments rely heavily on non-binding interpretations that are not universally the custom in the countries of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple question.
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> And I get a whole page of non answer.
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension skills are non-functioning.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Consent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, the oldest document listed by you is, the UN Charter 1945.  Nothing more binding until when?  *(RHETORICAL)* More than a quarter of a century after Israels Independence.  Of the* 9 core international human rights instruments*, the oldest of these are:
> 
> *◈     International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*; Entered into Force in 1969​​_*◈     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*_*;* Entered into Force in 1976​​*◈    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*; Entered into Force in 1976​​Having said that, I would like to role back to WWII.  There is the*Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America (US) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (UK)* (AKA:  The Atlantic Charter). This Charter has some very specific declarations.  But those declarations are expressly applicable ONLY to the US and UK and only refer to the "desires" of the government and NOT obligations or requirements.  I would like to call your attention to three of the eight passages in the declaration (supra):
> 
> *Second*, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;​​*Third*, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;​​*Fourth*, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> -------------
> _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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> If, as you claim, the Palestinians did not have these rights during the Mandate period. And they did have these rights in 1974 as the UN states.
> 
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It will be exceptionally difficult to define these rights as you have expressed them.  This is because the types and kinds of governments very.  Rights are phased into effect on the acceptance.
> 
> *First Generation* (human rights) → civil and political,​​*Second Generation* (human rights) → economic and social rights,​​*Third Generation* (human rights) → self-determination and development,​
> These three generate groups of rights are exceedingly difficult to define in any universally accepted way.  These groups of rights are in the Core Interments for Human Rights (_supra_).  Without these core instruments, you simply cannot define (in any binding way) what is meant by these Rights that does not become subjective and controversial.
> 
> Certainly, the Arab Palestinian arguments rely heavily on non-binding interpretations that are not universally the custom in the countries of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple question.
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> And I get a whole page of non answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading comprehension skills are non-functioning.
Click to expand...

So, where was the answer?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Consent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, the oldest document listed by you is, the UN Charter 1945.  Nothing more binding until when?  *(RHETORICAL)* More than a quarter of a century after Israels Independence.  Of the* 9 core international human rights instruments*, the oldest of these are:
> 
> *◈     International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*; Entered into Force in 1969​​_*◈     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*_*;* Entered into Force in 1976​​*◈    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*; Entered into Force in 1976​​Having said that, I would like to role back to WWII.  There is the*Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America (US) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (UK)* (AKA:  The Atlantic Charter). This Charter has some very specific declarations.  But those declarations are expressly applicable ONLY to the US and UK and only refer to the "desires" of the government and NOT obligations or requirements.  I would like to call your attention to three of the eight passages in the declaration (supra):
> 
> *Second*, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;​​*Third*, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;​​*Fourth*, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> -------------
> _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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> If, as you claim, the Palestinians did not have these rights during the Mandate period. And they did have these rights in 1974 as the UN states.
> 
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It will be exceptionally difficult to define these rights as you have expressed them.  This is because the types and kinds of governments very.  Rights are phased into effect on the acceptance.
> 
> *First Generation* (human rights) → civil and political,​​*Second Generation* (human rights) → economic and social rights,​​*Third Generation* (human rights) → self-determination and development,​
> These three generate groups of rights are exceedingly difficult to define in any universally accepted way.  These groups of rights are in the Core Interments for Human Rights (_supra_).  Without these core instruments, you simply cannot define (in any binding way) what is meant by these Rights that does not become subjective and controversial.
> 
> Certainly, the Arab Palestinian arguments rely heavily on non-binding interpretations that are not universally the custom in the countries of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple question.
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> And I get a whole page of non answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading comprehension skills are non-functioning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, where was the answer?
Click to expand...


Are you asking people to prove a fallacy? Nice game there.

I'm still waiting to hear your answer for the international law that vested sovereignty 
to any Arab national self determination - in actual law, like ever....


----------



## rylah

*Q. On what basis do Arabs demand exclusive domination over the entire Middle East?*


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Consent
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*FORWARD*:  This is as simple as I can make it give the specificity of the question asked.

*(COMMENT)*

The question is incomplete.  It defaults to ALL rights.  No culture gets all its rights all at once.



P F Tinmore said:


> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> And I get a whole page of non answer.


*(COMMENT)*

••  In 1920, The Allied Powers insured that the (what we call today) Arab Palestinians First Generation (human rights) → civil and religious.

••  By 1941, under the *Atlantic Conference*, it was agreed that everyone would have Second Generation (human rights) → Atlantic Charter determined no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

••  By 1967 (_going into force in 1976)_, two parallel groups of additional rights were articulated.

_◈   _*Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*​​_◈   _*Civil and Political Rights*​
Since you did not specify a time, I outlined First, Second, and Third Generation Rights:



> *First Generation* (human rights) A descriptor for civil and political rights, being the oldest, most widely acknowledged and accepted, and least controversial of the three ‘generations’ of human rights. Archetypically, these rights are enumerated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966.
> 
> *Second Generation *(human rights) A descriptor for economic and social rights, being later in time developing, less widely acknowledged and accepted and more controversial than First Generation human rights (civil and political).
> 
> *Third Generation* (human rights) A descriptor for human rights enjoyed by groups rather than individuals, such as the rights to self-determination and development ( see development, so-called right of ), being, generally (with the exception of self- determination), the most recent, least widely acknowledged and accepted and most controversial of the three ‘generations’ of human rights.
> *SOURCE*:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law / John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.







Most Respectfully,
R
_PS:  Your question was answered.  It was not verbose.  I think you just ignore answers that don't fit the Arab Palestinian Agenda._


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Consent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, the oldest document listed by you is, the UN Charter 1945.  Nothing more binding until when?  *(RHETORICAL)* More than a quarter of a century after Israels Independence.  Of the* 9 core international human rights instruments*, the oldest of these are:
> 
> *◈     International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*; Entered into Force in 1969​​_*◈     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*_*;* Entered into Force in 1976​​*◈    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*; Entered into Force in 1976​​Having said that, I would like to role back to WWII.  There is the*Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America (US) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (UK)* (AKA:  The Atlantic Charter). This Charter has some very specific declarations.  But those declarations are expressly applicable ONLY to the US and UK and only refer to the "desires" of the government and NOT obligations or requirements.  I would like to call your attention to three of the eight passages in the declaration (supra):
> 
> *Second*, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;​​*Third*, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;​​*Fourth*, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> -------------
> _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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> If, as you claim, the Palestinians did not have these rights during the Mandate period. And they did have these rights in 1974 as the UN states.
> 
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It will be exceptionally difficult to define these rights as you have expressed them.  This is because the types and kinds of governments very.  Rights are phased into effect on the acceptance.
> 
> *First Generation* (human rights) → civil and political,​​*Second Generation* (human rights) → economic and social rights,​​*Third Generation* (human rights) → self-determination and development,​
> These three generate groups of rights are exceedingly difficult to define in any universally accepted way.  These groups of rights are in the Core Interments for Human Rights (_supra_).  Without these core instruments, you simply cannot define (in any binding way) what is meant by these Rights that does not become subjective and controversial.
> 
> Certainly, the Arab Palestinian arguments rely heavily on non-binding interpretations that are not universally the custom in the countries of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple question.
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> And I get a whole page of non answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading comprehension skills are non-functioning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, where was the answer?
Click to expand...

Do you really think anyone takes your spamming as anything but nonsense?


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> *Q. On what basis do Arabs demand exclusive domination over the entire Middle East?*


----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Consent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, the oldest document listed by you is, the UN Charter 1945.  Nothing more binding until when?  *(RHETORICAL)* More than a quarter of a century after Israels Independence.  Of the* 9 core international human rights instruments*, the oldest of these are:
> 
> *◈     International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*; Entered into Force in 1969​​_*◈     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*_*;* Entered into Force in 1976​​*◈    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*; Entered into Force in 1976​​Having said that, I would like to role back to WWII.  There is the*Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America (US) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (UK)* (AKA:  The Atlantic Charter). This Charter has some very specific declarations.  But those declarations are expressly applicable ONLY to the US and UK and only refer to the "desires" of the government and NOT obligations or requirements.  I would like to call your attention to three of the eight passages in the declaration (supra):
> 
> *Second*, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;​​*Third*, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;​​*Fourth*, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> -------------
> _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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> If, as you claim, the Palestinians did not have these rights during the Mandate period. And they did have these rights in 1974 as the UN states.
> 
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It will be exceptionally difficult to define these rights as you have expressed them.  This is because the types and kinds of governments very.  Rights are phased into effect on the acceptance.
> 
> *First Generation* (human rights) → civil and political,​​*Second Generation* (human rights) → economic and social rights,​​*Third Generation* (human rights) → self-determination and development,​
> These three generate groups of rights are exceedingly difficult to define in any universally accepted way.  These groups of rights are in the Core Interments for Human Rights (_supra_).  Without these core instruments, you simply cannot define (in any binding way) what is meant by these Rights that does not become subjective and controversial.
> 
> Certainly, the Arab Palestinian arguments rely heavily on non-binding interpretations that are not universally the custom in the countries of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple question.
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> And I get a whole page of non answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading comprehension skills are non-functioning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, where was the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking people to prove a fallacy? Nice game there.
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear your answer for the international law that vested sovereignty
> to any Arab national self determination - in actual law, like ever....
Click to expand...

You don't have the answer either.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The question is incomplete. It defaults to ALL rights. No culture gets all its rights all at once.


Who has the authority to hand out rights  at certain times?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


>


Where is the Jew's BDS calling for the right to return?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> PS: Your question was answered. It was not verbose. I think you just ignore answers that don't fit the Arab Palestinian Agenda.


There is a standard list of inalienable rights for all peoples including the Palestinians per the UN.

The right to self determination without external interference.
When? How?

The right to independence and sovereignty.
When? How?

The right to territorial integrity.
When? How?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Consent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, the oldest document listed by you is, the UN Charter 1945.  Nothing more binding until when?  *(RHETORICAL)* More than a quarter of a century after Israels Independence.  Of the* 9 core international human rights instruments*, the oldest of these are:
> 
> *◈     International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*; Entered into Force in 1969​​_*◈     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*_*;* Entered into Force in 1976​​*◈    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*; Entered into Force in 1976​​Having said that, I would like to role back to WWII.  There is the*Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America (US) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (UK)* (AKA:  The Atlantic Charter). This Charter has some very specific declarations.  But those declarations are expressly applicable ONLY to the US and UK and only refer to the "desires" of the government and NOT obligations or requirements.  I would like to call your attention to three of the eight passages in the declaration (supra):
> 
> *Second*, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;​​*Third*, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;​​*Fourth*, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> -------------
> _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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> If, as you claim, the Palestinians did not have these rights during the Mandate period. And they did have these rights in 1974 as the UN states.
> 
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It will be exceptionally difficult to define these rights as you have expressed them.  This is because the types and kinds of governments very.  Rights are phased into effect on the acceptance.
> 
> *First Generation* (human rights) → civil and political,​​*Second Generation* (human rights) → economic and social rights,​​*Third Generation* (human rights) → self-determination and development,​
> These three generate groups of rights are exceedingly difficult to define in any universally accepted way.  These groups of rights are in the Core Interments for Human Rights (_supra_).  Without these core instruments, you simply cannot define (in any binding way) what is meant by these Rights that does not become subjective and controversial.
> 
> Certainly, the Arab Palestinian arguments rely heavily on non-binding interpretations that are not universally the custom in the countries of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple question.
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> And I get a whole page of non answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading comprehension skills are non-functioning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, where was the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking people to prove a fallacy? Nice game there.
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear your answer for the international law that vested sovereignty
> to any Arab national self determination - in actual law, like ever....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have the answer either.
Click to expand...


The answer is never, 
that's why you can't provide a proof for that in law.

No Arab nation* has or ever had* any legal right to sovereignty in Palestine/E.Y.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the Jew's BDS calling for the right to return?
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

*Sure we return*, doubt not,  only this time in the royal grab,
beware of what you're asking of these dhimmis...



Regarding your bds-hole friends,
here, even volunteering to clean the streets for our parade...
a thing they never do even for themselves, so that part is covered 
.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestinians, Israelis, 1948, & Now: Researching, Teaching, and Asserting the Reality of the Nakba​


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Consent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, the oldest document listed by you is, the UN Charter 1945.  Nothing more binding until when?  *(RHETORICAL)* More than a quarter of a century after Israels Independence.  Of the* 9 core international human rights instruments*, the oldest of these are:
> 
> *◈     International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*; Entered into Force in 1969​​_*◈     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*_*;* Entered into Force in 1976​​*◈    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*; Entered into Force in 1976​​Having said that, I would like to role back to WWII.  There is the*Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America (US) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (UK)* (AKA:  The Atlantic Charter). This Charter has some very specific declarations.  But those declarations are expressly applicable ONLY to the US and UK and only refer to the "desires" of the government and NOT obligations or requirements.  I would like to call your attention to three of the eight passages in the declaration (supra):
> 
> *Second*, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;​​*Third*, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;​​*Fourth*, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> -------------
> _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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> If, as you claim, the Palestinians did not have these rights during the Mandate period. And they did have these rights in 1974 as the UN states.
> 
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It will be exceptionally difficult to define these rights as you have expressed them.  This is because the types and kinds of governments very.  Rights are phased into effect on the acceptance.
> 
> *First Generation* (human rights) → civil and political,​​*Second Generation* (human rights) → economic and social rights,​​*Third Generation* (human rights) → self-determination and development,​
> These three generate groups of rights are exceedingly difficult to define in any universally accepted way.  These groups of rights are in the Core Interments for Human Rights (_supra_).  Without these core instruments, you simply cannot define (in any binding way) what is meant by these Rights that does not become subjective and controversial.
> 
> Certainly, the Arab Palestinian arguments rely heavily on non-binding interpretations that are not universally the custom in the countries of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple question.
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> And I get a whole page of non answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading comprehension skills are non-functioning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, where was the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking people to prove a fallacy? Nice game there.
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear your answer for the international law that vested sovereignty
> to any Arab national self determination - in actual law, like ever....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have the answer either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is never,
> that's why you can't provide a proof for that in law.
> 
> No Arab nation* has or ever had* any legal right to sovereignty in Palestine/E.Y.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, Israeli talking point.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
> SUBTOPIC: Consent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*: OK, the oldest document listed by you is, the UN Charter 1945.  Nothing more binding until when?  *(RHETORICAL)* More than a quarter of a century after Israels Independence.  Of the* 9 core international human rights instruments*, the oldest of these are:
> 
> *◈     International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination*; Entered into Force in 1969​​_*◈     International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*_*;* Entered into Force in 1976​​*◈    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*; Entered into Force in 1976​​Having said that, I would like to role back to WWII.  There is the*Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America (US) and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom (UK)* (AKA:  The Atlantic Charter). This Charter has some very specific declarations.  But those declarations are expressly applicable ONLY to the US and UK and only refer to the "desires" of the government and NOT obligations or requirements.  I would like to call your attention to three of the eight passages in the declaration (supra):
> 
> *Second*, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;​​*Third*, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;​​*Fourth*, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;​
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did these various rights the Arab Palestinians come into play?
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> -------------
> _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;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A/RES/3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------
> If, as you claim, the Palestinians did not have these rights during the Mandate period. And they did have these rights in 1974 as the UN states.
> 
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> Hmmm!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> It will be exceptionally difficult to define these rights as you have expressed them.  This is because the types and kinds of governments very.  Rights are phased into effect on the acceptance.
> 
> *First Generation* (human rights) → civil and political,​​*Second Generation* (human rights) → economic and social rights,​​*Third Generation* (human rights) → self-determination and development,​
> These three generate groups of rights are exceedingly difficult to define in any universally accepted way.  These groups of rights are in the Core Interments for Human Rights (_supra_).  Without these core instruments, you simply cannot define (in any binding way) what is meant by these Rights that does not become subjective and controversial.
> 
> Certainly, the Arab Palestinian arguments rely heavily on non-binding interpretations that are not universally the custom in the countries of the Middle East.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simple question.
> When, and under what circumstances, did the Palestinians get these rights?
> 
> And I get a whole page of non answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your reading comprehension skills are non-functioning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, where was the answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking people to prove a fallacy? Nice game there.
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear your answer for the international law that vested sovereignty
> to any Arab national self determination - in actual law, like ever....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't have the answer either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The answer is never,
> that's why you can't provide a proof for that in law.
> 
> No Arab nation* has or ever had* any legal right to sovereignty in Palestine/E.Y.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, yeah, Israeli talking point.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for admitting you have no factual argument.

Yet for the last 10 years you've been demanding us to prove otherwise but can't yourself -
because there was *no Arab nation *that *ever had or can have,*
any legal right to sovereignty in Palestine/E.Y.


Simple.


----------



## rylah

UAE Writer Criticizes Expulsion of Jews From Arab Countries: ‘We Failed to Learn the Lesson of History’
					

"This hatred will therefore continue to exist, so long as our heritage [text]books continue to incite hatred against the Jews."




					jewishjournal.com


----------



## rylah

*Jewish Persecution in Syria*

Jews in Syria suffered some of the worst oppression under Muslim rule of any of the ancient Jewish communities - who existed in the Middle East even before the Muslim conquests in the region. This is their story, a story of struggle and oppression, for which reparations have not been made to this day by Syria or the Arab League.

As we lead up to the memorial day for the Jewish refugees from Arab countries, we share the stories of the ancient Jewish communities who were virtually wiped out by racism, extremism and violence in the Middle East.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Consent
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

*INTRODUCTION*:  When you argue that this UN Document or that UN Document records the Right of This or That, just who are you using as an authority? 

When you wrote in *Posting 1264* that "Understood in the context of international law, such a statement must have meant that a “national home for the Jewish people” who are you stating as an authority.

When you wrote in Posting 1264 "The ICJ described the League of Nations mandates as “created, in the interests of the inhabitants of the Territory" who are you using as an authority.

*(THE SHORT ANSWER)*

Customary and International Law, Legal Citations, and the legal force of such agreements and conventions *concluded between States in written form* and governed by international law, is an unscripted and decentralized process derivative of the entirety of the International Community.  The Authority may even be an unwritten but accepted practices.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is incomplete. It defaults to ALL rights. No culture gets all its rights all at once.
> 
> 
> 
> Who has the authority to hand out rights  at certain times?
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*
.
In the case of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law are recorded and archived for general "future" use.  But it must be remembered that the *Core Rights* are given by the Conventions that the nations agree to be bound.




			
				International Court of Justice said:
			
		

> The *Statute of the International Court of Justice* (ICJ, Chapter II Competence of the Court, Article 38) identifies five sources law:
> 
> a.  International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;​​b.  International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;​​c.  The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations ;​​d.  Subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.​



.
I find it amusing that you have cited so many documents pertaining to Arab Palestinians, yet challenge the recognition of rights.  You have even cited the Resolutions _(of which there are several)_ that allow the Palestinians to use "any and all means" to justify their terrorist acts.  And there are some Rights that you disavow such as the Right to Self-Defense.  Sticking the prefix or suffix of "Right" does not make it a "Right" under the Rule of Law.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

Given this, Kurz’s celebration of the Israeli flag in the Austrian capital bears a unique and profound poetry. For it can be said that it was Vienna where the roots of Nazism can first be found; moreover, it was the unique anti-Semitism of Vienna that was part of what inspired Zionism in the first place. By all accounts, it is Austria’s history that drives Kurz’s pro-Israel posture today, and we too must understand his country’s past if we are to appreciate the meaning of what he has done in the present.

In 1895, Theodore Herzl, working as a journalist in Paris, returned home to Vienna and found the city in the midst of a mayoral election that would be won by the charismatic Karl Lueger, known to his admirers as “Der Schone Karl.” Lueger would come to be seen as the man who would change Vienna, reconfigure it into an embodiment of modernity, technology, and beautiful gardens, which is why he is celebrated to this day in the city’s Karl Lueger Square.

But Lueger would herald the coming 20th century in another, more ominous manner: He demagogically described the Jews as a cabal controlling Europe and as the central threat facing European civilization. “The influence of the masses,” Lueger inveighed in one speech, “is in the hands of the Jews, the greater part of the press is in their hands, by far the largest part of all capital and, in particular high finance, is in Jewish hands, and in this respect the Jews operate a terrorism that could hardly be worse.” Austria’s goal, Lueger argued, must be “liberating Christian people from the hegemony of Jewry.”
​Lueger’s anti-Semitic diatribes earned him the adulation of the Austrian masses, among them a young man by the name of Adolf Hitler who studied in Vienna during the mayor’s administration. Hitler would cite Lueger as his role model and make special mention of Der Schone Karl in his own memoir, _Mein_ _Kampf_: “I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all time. If Dr. Karl Lueger had lived in Germany, he would have been ranked among the great minds of our people.” Knowing this lends an extraordinarily eerie perspective to Herzl’s own description in his diary of Karl Lueger on the hustings:
-----
Thus it can be said that, in 1895, Vienna’s leader taught Hitler his insidious craft and also inspired Herzl’s Zionist dream. Others had already written of a restored Jewish society, but Herzl became convinced that only as a genuinely political movement could Zionism succeed. “What,” Herzl wrote immediately after Lueger’s election, “is a flag? A pole and a piece of cloth? No Sir. A flag is greater than this. With a flag people are led to where you want, even to the chosen land. For a flag, people live and die. It is the one thing people are willing to die for.”

(full article online)









						How Chancellor Kurz Redeemed Vienna
					

As Hamas fired missile after missile into Israel, the Internet was inundated with celebrity condemnations of the Jewish state and misinformation from the media. Yet one pro-Israel image strikingly stood




					www.commentarymagazine.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

One of the el-Husseinis, Haj Amin, who emerged as the leading figure in Palestinian politics during the mandate period, first began to organize small groups of suicide groups, _fedayeen_ (“one who sacrifices himself”), to terrorize Jews in 1919 in the hope of duplicating the success of Kemal in Turkey and drive the Jews out of Palestine, just as the Turkish nationalists were driving the Greeks from Turkey. The first large Arab riots took place in Jerusalem in the intermediary days of Passover, April 1920. The Jewish community had anticipated the Arab reaction to the Allies’ convention and was ready to meet it. Jewish affairs in Palestine were then being administered from Jerusalem by the _Vaad Hatzirim_ (Council of Delegates), appointed by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) (which became the Jewish Agency in 1929). The Vaad Hatzirim charged Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky with the task of organizing Jewish self-defense. Jabotinsky was one of the founders of the Jewish battalions, which had served in the British Army during the First World War and had participated in the conquest of Palestine from the Turks. Acting under the auspices of the Vaad Hatzirim, Jabotinsky lead the Haganah(self-defense) organization in Jerusalem, which succeeded in repelling the Arab attack. Six Jews were killed and some 200 injured in Jerusalem in the course of the 1920 riots. In addition, two Americans, Jakov Tucker and Ze’ev Scharff, both WWI veterans, were killed resisting an Arab attack on the Jewish settlement of Tel Hai in March 1920. Had it not been for the preliminary organization of Jewish defense, the number of victims would have undoubtedly been much greater.

---------------
The Arabs found rioting to be a very effective political tool because the British attitude toward violence against Jews, and their response to the riots, encouraged more outbreaks of violence. In each riot, the British would make little or no effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking the Jews. After each incident, a commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the riot. The conclusions were always the same: the Arabs were afraid of being displaced by Jewish immigrants. To stop the disturbances, the commissions routinely recommended that restrictions be made on Jewish immigration.

(full article online)





__





						Arab Riots of the 1920's
					

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.




					www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> One of the el-Husseinis, Haj Amin, who emerged as the leading figure in Palestinian politics during the mandate period, first began to organize small groups of suicide groups, _fedayeen_ (“one who sacrifices himself”), to terrorize Jews in 1919 in the hope of duplicating the success of Kemal in Turkey and drive the Jews out of Palestine, just as the Turkish nationalists were driving the Greeks from Turkey. The first large Arab riots took place in Jerusalem in the intermediary days of Passover, April 1920. The Jewish community had anticipated the Arab reaction to the Allies’ convention and was ready to meet it. Jewish affairs in Palestine were then being administered from Jerusalem by the _Vaad Hatzirim_ (Council of Delegates), appointed by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) (which became the Jewish Agency in 1929). The Vaad Hatzirim charged Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky with the task of organizing Jewish self-defense. Jabotinsky was one of the founders of the Jewish battalions, which had served in the British Army during the First World War and had participated in the conquest of Palestine from the Turks. Acting under the auspices of the Vaad Hatzirim, Jabotinsky lead the Haganah(self-defense) organization in Jerusalem, which succeeded in repelling the Arab attack. Six Jews were killed and some 200 injured in Jerusalem in the course of the 1920 riots. In addition, two Americans, Jakov Tucker and Ze’ev Scharff, both WWI veterans, were killed resisting an Arab attack on the Jewish settlement of Tel Hai in March 1920. Had it not been for the preliminary organization of Jewish defense, the number of victims would have undoubtedly been much greater.
> 
> ---------------
> The Arabs found rioting to be a very effective political tool because the British attitude toward violence against Jews, and their response to the riots, encouraged more outbreaks of violence. In each riot, the British would make little or no effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking the Jews. After each incident, a commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the riot. The conclusions were always the same: the Arabs were afraid of being displaced by Jewish immigrants. To stop the disturbances, the commissions routinely recommended that restrictions be made on Jewish immigration.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Riots of the 1920's
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org





Sixties Fan said:


> After each incident, a commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the riot. The conclusions were always the same: the Arabs were afraid of being displaced by Jewish immigrants.


Indeed, the Palestinian's actions have always been defensive.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the el-Husseinis, Haj Amin, who emerged as the leading figure in Palestinian politics during the mandate period, first began to organize small groups of suicide groups, _fedayeen_ (“one who sacrifices himself”), to terrorize Jews in 1919 in the hope of duplicating the success of Kemal in Turkey and drive the Jews out of Palestine, just as the Turkish nationalists were driving the Greeks from Turkey. The first large Arab riots took place in Jerusalem in the intermediary days of Passover, April 1920. The Jewish community had anticipated the Arab reaction to the Allies’ convention and was ready to meet it. Jewish affairs in Palestine were then being administered from Jerusalem by the _Vaad Hatzirim_ (Council of Delegates), appointed by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) (which became the Jewish Agency in 1929). The Vaad Hatzirim charged Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky with the task of organizing Jewish self-defense. Jabotinsky was one of the founders of the Jewish battalions, which had served in the British Army during the First World War and had participated in the conquest of Palestine from the Turks. Acting under the auspices of the Vaad Hatzirim, Jabotinsky lead the Haganah(self-defense) organization in Jerusalem, which succeeded in repelling the Arab attack. Six Jews were killed and some 200 injured in Jerusalem in the course of the 1920 riots. In addition, two Americans, Jakov Tucker and Ze’ev Scharff, both WWI veterans, were killed resisting an Arab attack on the Jewish settlement of Tel Hai in March 1920. Had it not been for the preliminary organization of Jewish defense, the number of victims would have undoubtedly been much greater.
> 
> ---------------
> The Arabs found rioting to be a very effective political tool because the British attitude toward violence against Jews, and their response to the riots, encouraged more outbreaks of violence. In each riot, the British would make little or no effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking the Jews. After each incident, a commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the riot. The conclusions were always the same: the Arabs were afraid of being displaced by Jewish immigrants. To stop the disturbances, the commissions routinely recommended that restrictions be made on Jewish immigration.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Riots of the 1920's
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> After each incident, a commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the riot. The conclusions were always the same: the Arabs were afraid of being displaced by Jewish immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinian's actions have always been defensive.
Click to expand...


Except that lie doesn't work to excuse the Arab pogroms
against local Jews prior to that.

By using the term _"Palestinians"_ to exclude all Jews and everything on them
- *indeed, you have perfectly revealed your racist bias,
and the exact cause of Arab defeat.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the el-Husseinis, Haj Amin, who emerged as the leading figure in Palestinian politics during the mandate period, first began to organize small groups of suicide groups, _fedayeen_ (“one who sacrifices himself”), to terrorize Jews in 1919 in the hope of duplicating the success of Kemal in Turkey and drive the Jews out of Palestine, just as the Turkish nationalists were driving the Greeks from Turkey. The first large Arab riots took place in Jerusalem in the intermediary days of Passover, April 1920. The Jewish community had anticipated the Arab reaction to the Allies’ convention and was ready to meet it. Jewish affairs in Palestine were then being administered from Jerusalem by the _Vaad Hatzirim_ (Council of Delegates), appointed by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) (which became the Jewish Agency in 1929). The Vaad Hatzirim charged Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky with the task of organizing Jewish self-defense. Jabotinsky was one of the founders of the Jewish battalions, which had served in the British Army during the First World War and had participated in the conquest of Palestine from the Turks. Acting under the auspices of the Vaad Hatzirim, Jabotinsky lead the Haganah(self-defense) organization in Jerusalem, which succeeded in repelling the Arab attack. Six Jews were killed and some 200 injured in Jerusalem in the course of the 1920 riots. In addition, two Americans, Jakov Tucker and Ze’ev Scharff, both WWI veterans, were killed resisting an Arab attack on the Jewish settlement of Tel Hai in March 1920. Had it not been for the preliminary organization of Jewish defense, the number of victims would have undoubtedly been much greater.
> 
> ---------------
> The Arabs found rioting to be a very effective political tool because the British attitude toward violence against Jews, and their response to the riots, encouraged more outbreaks of violence. In each riot, the British would make little or no effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking the Jews. After each incident, a commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the riot. The conclusions were always the same: the Arabs were afraid of being displaced by Jewish immigrants. To stop the disturbances, the commissions routinely recommended that restrictions be made on Jewish immigration.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Riots of the 1920's
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> After each incident, a commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the riot. The conclusions were always the same: the Arabs were afraid of being displaced by Jewish immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinian's actions have always been defensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that lie doesn't work to excuse the Arab pogroms
> against local Jews prior to that.
> 
> By using the term _"Palestinians"_ to exclude all Jews and everything on them
> - *indeed, you have perfectly revealed your racist bias,
> and the exact cause of Arab defeat.*
Click to expand...

Palestinian meant everybody. It was the Jews who wanted to cut themselves out into a separate category.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the el-Husseinis, Haj Amin, who emerged as the leading figure in Palestinian politics during the mandate period, first began to organize small groups of suicide groups, _fedayeen_ (“one who sacrifices himself”), to terrorize Jews in 1919 in the hope of duplicating the success of Kemal in Turkey and drive the Jews out of Palestine, just as the Turkish nationalists were driving the Greeks from Turkey. The first large Arab riots took place in Jerusalem in the intermediary days of Passover, April 1920. The Jewish community had anticipated the Arab reaction to the Allies’ convention and was ready to meet it. Jewish affairs in Palestine were then being administered from Jerusalem by the _Vaad Hatzirim_ (Council of Delegates), appointed by the World Zionist Organization (WZO) (which became the Jewish Agency in 1929). The Vaad Hatzirim charged Ze’ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky with the task of organizing Jewish self-defense. Jabotinsky was one of the founders of the Jewish battalions, which had served in the British Army during the First World War and had participated in the conquest of Palestine from the Turks. Acting under the auspices of the Vaad Hatzirim, Jabotinsky lead the Haganah(self-defense) organization in Jerusalem, which succeeded in repelling the Arab attack. Six Jews were killed and some 200 injured in Jerusalem in the course of the 1920 riots. In addition, two Americans, Jakov Tucker and Ze’ev Scharff, both WWI veterans, were killed resisting an Arab attack on the Jewish settlement of Tel Hai in March 1920. Had it not been for the preliminary organization of Jewish defense, the number of victims would have undoubtedly been much greater.
> 
> ---------------
> The Arabs found rioting to be a very effective political tool because the British attitude toward violence against Jews, and their response to the riots, encouraged more outbreaks of violence. In each riot, the British would make little or no effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking the Jews. After each incident, a commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the riot. The conclusions were always the same: the Arabs were afraid of being displaced by Jewish immigrants. To stop the disturbances, the commissions routinely recommended that restrictions be made on Jewish immigration.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arab Riots of the 1920's
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> After each incident, a commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the riot. The conclusions were always the same: the Arabs were afraid of being displaced by Jewish immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, the Palestinian's actions have always been defensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that lie doesn't work to excuse the Arab pogroms
> against local Jews prior to that.
> 
> By using the term _"Palestinians"_ to exclude all Jews and everything on them
> - *indeed, you have perfectly revealed your racist bias,
> and the exact cause of Arab defeat.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Palestinian meant everybody. It was the Jews who wanted to cut themselves out into a separate category.
Click to expand...


At least you're not denying - the use of the term _'Palestinian' _is to exclude Jews collectively.

It's just a question as to who actually didn't want others to be equal that remains,
and who used violence as means to keep it that way initially.

Q .So the Jews WANTED to be expelled from all their holly cities by the Arabs,
is that how you explain the Jihad prior to Zionism?


----------



## rylah

*UAE Writer: The Arab Expulsion Of Jews
Was A Disastrous Mistake*







Emirati writer Salam Hamid, founder and head of the Al-Mezmaah Studies and Research Center in Dubai, published an article titled "The Cost of the Expulsion of the Arab Jews" in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, in which he lamented the expulsion of the Jews from the Arab countries following the establishment of Israel in 1948.

This expulsion, he said, was a grave mistake, since the Arab countries thereby "lost an elite population with significant wealth, property, influence, knowledge, and culture," which could have helped them, including against Israel, and lost the potential contribution of the Jews in many spheres, especially in the financial sphere.

The Arabs, he added, should have learned a lesson from the expulsion of the Jews of Spain in 1492, and from Hitler's expulsion of the Jews of Europe, which eventually harmed the countries that lost their Jews.

He stated further that antisemitism, which is deeply entrenched in Arab societies, stems from the books that teach Islamic heritage, studied in schools throughout the Arab world, and therefore called for an overhaul of the curricula in order to strengthen tolerance and banish extremism.









						UAE Writer Criticizes Expulsion of Jews From Arab Countries: ‘We Failed to Learn the Lesson of History’
					

"This hatred will therefore continue to exist, so long as our heritage [text]books continue to incite hatred against the Jews."




					jewishjournal.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

In May, in the wake of the latest Gaza war, 210 doctors signed a letter to The BMJ medical journal saying that Israel was the source of all evil.

It included this line:



> The root cause of this cycle of violence is ultimately the Israeli military occupation and restrictions placed upon the Palestinian population.


This is repeated often, especially by J-Street, but also by scores of "pro-peace" groups and anti-Israel groups.

It is utter garbage, and everyone knows it - because the Arab desire to wipe out Israel pre-dates the "occupation".

I just found an article from 1929 in the Canadian Jewish Chronicle where the Arabs (no one called them Palestinians, of course - those were the Jews) declared, to Great Britain, their prerequisite for peace with Jews:






> "That there can be no peace in Palestine as long as the Balfour Declaration stands" will be the representation of an Arab deputation to the parliamentary Commission of Inquiry, it was decided at the conference on October 27 called by the Arab Executive.
> 
> ...The conference, attended by several hundred Moslem and Christian Arab leaders from all sections of the country as well as twenty-five representatives from Syria and a number from Tiansjordania, presented demands for the immediate abrogation of the temporary regulations existing at the Wailing Wall. Declaring that the temporary regulations have existed too long and disclaiming all responsibility for the consequences if their demands are not heeded, the Arab conference threatened to prevent the Jews from visiting the Wailing Wall altogether.



(full article online)









						It isn't the "occupation" that precludes peace. It is Palestinian refusal to accept the reality of a Jewish state and Jewish human rights
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Soviet ambassador to the UN, Andrei Gromyko, said during his speech: “The Jewish people have been connected with Palestine throughout a long historical period.” This contravened the Arab viewpoint that the creation of Israel was unjust. The USSR was the first country to officially recognize Israel, two days after it declared independence on May 14, 1948.

Socialist guns for Zionists​The U.S., which also supported the creation of Israel, officially banned weapon supplies to the Middle East. Unlike the Americans, however, Moscow sent arms to the Zionists, though unofficially and through other countries, such as Czechoslovakia. The USSR used German weapons captured at the end of the war.





Israeli infantry making a full assault on Egyptian forces in the Negev area of Israel during the War of Independence.
Getty Images 
Israel got rifles, mortars and even several Messerschmitt fighter planes from Czechoslovakia, of course, with Soviet permission and consent. This wasn’t the only source of weapons for the Jewish state. Basically, they were getting arms from around the world any way possible, but the USSR definitely played a major role in Israel’s victory in 1948.

End of honeymoon​Stalin’s support for the Israeli cause didn’t last long. As Julius Kosharovsky, a Russian-born Israeli historian, said in his book on the Zionist movement in the USSR, bilateral relations deteriorated soon after Golda Meir, Israel’s envoy to Russia, raised the issue of the emigration of Soviet Jews to Israel.

(full article online)









						Why did the USSR help to create Israel, but then became its foe
					

Joseph Stalin strongly supported the creation of Israel in 1947 because he hoped the Jewish state would be a Soviet ally in the Middle East. But when...




					www.rbth.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

(Continuing in the British tradition)


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> (Continuing in the British tradition)


IOW, we don't want them here so let's dump them on Palestine.


----------



## Sixties Fan

I am curious as to what people think about this which happened in September of 1948.  Could any other way to stop the Internationalization of Jerusalem have been found, via talks, etc, between the Jewish groups and the British, and the Muslims ?  

I do not condone the assassination of Count Bernadotte, as he did save over 30,000 Jews from the concentration camps.

But one thing is true, the British did not help in any way in the immigration of the Jewish people into the Mandate for Palestine, which was to re create their homeland on their ancestral homeland.  On the contrary, once the Muslims started with their terrorism against the Jews and the British, the Mandate capitulated and cut down the number of Jews allowed to immigrate from 1939 on, exactly the time when Jews needed to escape Europe and return to their homeland.  Ships with Jewish immigrants kept being turned away, many being returned to Europe and the Jews ending up in concentration camps.

The reality is, that the Mandate for Palestine is the only one of the Four Mandates, to give land to a people who had no history on that land, 78% of it went to the Hashemites in 1922.  The rest of the Mandate, the British seemed to eye it for themselves, instead of the Jewish people it had been promised to after the Balfour Declaration.

Below is what Jewish history tells about the incident:

During the fight for Jewish statehood, extremist military groups sometimes resorted to the use of terrorist tactics. One such instance occurred in 1948 when members of the Jewish  undergroundorganization LEHI killed UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte to protest his diplomatic efforts to modify the Palestine partition plan.






						The Partition Plan Table of Contents
					

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.




					www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
				




Bernadotte, a Swede with family ties to the Swedish King, gained international recognition through his work as head of the Swedish Red Cross during World War II. Bernadotte used his position to negotiate with Heinrich Himmler and save thousands of Jews from concentration camps, although many argue that he could have done more had he been less cautious in negotiations.

On June 11, Bernadotte succeeded in arranging a 30-day cease-fire. After visiting Cairo, Beirut, Amman and Tel Aviv, he came to the conclusion that the UN partition plan was an “unfortunate” resolution and proposed his own plan to unite the two feuding peoples. Instead of establishing individual states, he suggested that Arabs and Jews form a “union” consisting of a small Jewish entity and an enlarged Transjordan. Haifa and Lydda (Lod) airport would become free zones. Israel would receive the Western Galilee and unlimited immigration for two years, after which the UN would take control of the issue. Between 250,000 and 300,000 Arab refugees would be permitted to return to Arab territory with compensation and Transjordan would control the Negev and, despite Israeli claims, Jerusalem.

The Arab world rejected the Bernadotte plan on the grounds that, as Syrian officer Muhammad Nimr al-Khatib said, “Most of these mediators are spies for the Jews anyway.” The Israeli government, hating the idea of giving up Jerusalem and bent on military victory, quickly followed suit. Fighting resumed on July 8 and the Israeli army gained strength and succeeded in pushing back the Arabs until a second UN cease-fire was declared on July 18, this time with no time limit and a threat of economic sanctions against any country that broke it.

One organization that saw Bernadotte’s efforts as a threat was LEHI, a Jewish underground group that, under the leadership of Yitzhak Shamir, Dr. Israel Scheib and Nathan Friedman-Yellin, had waged a campaign of “personal terror” to force the British out of Palestine. LEHI called Bernadotte a British agent who had cooperated with the Nazis in World War II. The organization considered his plan to be a threat to its goal of Israeli independence on both banks of the Jordan River.





__





						The Assassination of Count Bernadotte
					

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.




					www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Exodus 1947: How It became Israel’s first Ship of State
					

74 years ago, on July 11th, loaded with Holocaust survivors, the Exodus 1947 left France for the Holy Land- But the British attacked. Op-ed.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## RoccoR

*RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate*​SUBTOPIC: Post War ExoDus
⁜→ Sixties Fan, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  As much as I Appreciate the British People, no people _(most of all Americans)_ are with their flaws.


Sixties Fan said:


> The Exodus 1947: How It became Israel’s first Ship of State
> 
> 
> 74 years ago, on July 11th, loaded with Holocaust survivors, the Exodus 1947 left France for the Holy Land- But the British attacked. Op-ed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.israelnationalnews.com


*(COMMENT)*

When I served at SHAPE in the mid-1980's - I took notice of the open racist attitudes.  I remember a particular time when they made a remark about my supervisors (CW4) who happened to be "black."  Something to the effect that they would never have (slur) over white soldiers.  I soon found myself defending the respect that must be shown to American Black Officers.  And they have readily shown their disdain for Jewish people.  When I went to Baghdad during the conflict, it had diminished considerably, but the Australian's still has demonstrated a deep need for growth in that area.

The reason for the *Balfour Declaration* (1917) and the decisions made during the *San Remo Convention* (1920) adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.  They were remarkably futuristic in their political thinking and saw the need for a time when the Jewish National Home would become an imperative. 





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## teddyearp

Here it is in a nutshell.  The British *conquered* that piece of land from the Ottoman empire in WWI.  You know what *conquered* means, right?  During the war, Britain made promises of an independent country to both the Jews and the Arabs.  After all the details were ironed out, the British kept their promise to the Arabs by splitting off Jordan from the Mandate.  The Arabs wanted more.  They wanted it all.

And here we are today.


----------



## P F Tinmore

teddyearp said:


> Here it is in a nutshell.  The British *conquered* that piece of land from the Ottoman empire in WWI.  You know what *conquered* means, right?  During the war, Britain made promises of an independent country to both the Jews and the Arabs.  After all the details were ironed out, the British kept their promise to the Arabs by splitting off Jordan from the Mandate.  The Arabs wanted more.  They wanted it all.
> 
> And here we are today.


The Palestinians wanted all of Palestine?
Oh my!!!


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate​SUBTOPIC: Post War ExoDus
⁜→. P f Tinmore, teddyearp, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  You are NOT comprehending what "teddyearp" is saying...



> teddyearp said:
> Here it is in a nutshell. The British conquered that piece of land from the Ottoman empire in WWI. You know what conquered means, right? During the war, Britain made promises of an independent country to both the Jews and the Arabs. After all the details were ironed out, the British kept their promise to the Arabs by splitting off Jordan from the Mandate. The Arabs wanted more. They wanted it all.
> 
> And here we are today.


₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​


P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians wanted all of Palestine?
> Oh my!!!


*(COMMENT)*

This communicative tone of voice projecting you are that "whom" → the one who claims to know everything on the subject should not confuse the tenant (_habitual residence_) with the owner (_the power that exercises sovereign control and is ultimately the self-governing authority_).  The Arab Palestinians DID NOT have a pre-existing valid claim to the territory.  They base the intial point of contention on the "name" alone.  The Arab Palestinians had no pre-existing claim of self-governing institutions necessary to exersize a true government.


			
				Under-Secretary-General said:
			
		

>


There is a possibility for the argument that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), as a singlular entity, has more of a claim to the name "Palestine" than any other Arab organization.  It was the PLO who were designated the sole representative of the Palestinian People (1974).  It was the PLO that that declared independent (1988), , it was the PLO that signed the the Oslo Accords, AND it was the PLO the UN tied to the name "Palestine" (1998).

Sit back and take a deep breath.  Take stock of what you are saying.  Then ask yourself again, who are the Palestinians.  And give an honest answer.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Sit back and take a deep breath. Take stock of what you are saying. Then ask yourself again, who are the Palestinians. And give an honest answer.


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



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


----------



## Sixties Fan

His straightforward testimony shows how poorly Jews were treated by their Arab and Muslim neighbors. 

Here he describes the situation of Jews in Palestine, whom he visited in 1847. He notes that their plight was in some ways the worst that he had seen among Jews anywhere. (Bolded highlights are mine, italics are his.)




> The State of the Jews in Palestine
> 
> Deep misery and continual oppression are the right words to describe the condition of the Children of Israel in the land of their fathers. — 1 comprise a short and faithful picture of their actual state under the following heads.
> 
> 1) They are entirely destitute of every legal protection and every means of safety. Instead of the security afforded  the law, which is unknown in these countries, they are solely under the orders of the sheiks and pachas, men, whose character and feelings inspire but little confidence from the beginning, It is only the European Consuls who frequently take care of the oppressed, and give them some protection.
> 
> 2) With unheard of rapacity, tax upon tax is levied on them. With the exception of Jerusalem, every where the taxes demanded are arbitrary. Whole communities have been impoverished by the exorbitant claims of the sheiks, who, under the moat trifling pretenses, without any control, oppress the Jews with fresh burdens. It is impossible to enumerate all these oppressions.
> 
> 3) In the strict sense of the word they are not even masters of their own property. They do not even venture to complain when they are robbed and plundered; for. the vengeance of the Arabs would follow each complaint.
> 
> 4) Their lives are taken into as little consideration as their property; they are exposed to the caprice of any one; for even the smallest pretext, even a harmless discussion, a word dropped in conversation; is enough to cause bloody reprisals. Violence of every kind is of daily occurrence, When; for instance in the contests of Mahomet Ali with the Sublime Porte, the City of Hebron was besieged by Egyptian troops and taken by storm, the Jews where murdered and plundered, and the survivors scarcely even allowed to retain a few rags to cover them. No pen can describe the despair of these unfortunates. The women were treated with brutal cruelty; and even to this day, many are found who from that time became miserable cripples. With truth can the Lamentations of Jeremiah be employed here. Since that great misfortune up to the present day, the Jews of Hebron languish in the deepest misery, and the present Sheik is unwearied in his endeavours, not to better their condition, but on the contrary to make it worse.
> 
> 5) The chief evidence of their miserable condition is the universal poverty which we remarked in Palestine, and which is here truly characteristic; for nowhere else in our long journeys, in Europe, Asia and Africa did we observe it among the Jews. It even causes leprosy among the Jews of Palestine, as in former times. Robbed of their means of subsistence from the cultivation of the soil and trade, they only exist upon the charity of their brethren in the faith in foreign parts.
> 
> ... In a word the state of the Jews in Palestine, body as well as mind, is an unbearable one; and yet there the land yields most abundantly. If the possession of it were not to _completely _in the hands of the Arabs, — if one could only secure for the Jews some little portion of it and give them the means for its cultivation - sufficient sources of industry would be open to them; wherewith to obtain a livelihood. But what does it benefit them to cultivate the ground, if the Arabs rob them of the harvest?



(full article online)









						A eyewitness to Arab antisemitism in Palestine, 1847
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate​SUBTOPIC: Post War ExoDus
⁜→. P f Tinmore, teddyearp, _et al,_

*BLUF*:  Who are you trying to kid here.  I just gave you that link and discussed this in *Posting #20,121* in the "Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2" thread.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

If you go to Posting #20,121 You'll see that I discussed this with the link to the Citizenship Order.  And the 1925 Citizenship Order was modified a couple of times, I think the last time in the early 1930s.

Your comment is not 100% correct, but the nuances to the 1925 Citizenship Order (as amended) are NOT an _ipso facto_ (by itself) applicable • because of because decisions have to be made.

The 1925 Citizenship Order is only applicable to those that are still living and were qualified under Article 1.  As discussed perviously, since the creation of the  _International Covenant on Civil and Political Right_s (CCPR), the perceived inequities and limitations of that British 1925 Order have been largely corrected.  And the CCPR is what is applicable in most cases.

I don't think it is necessary to comment on your misinterpretations in both threads.  You cannot use either the 1925 Citizenship Order or Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne _(the Order implementing the Treaty Article)_ as evidence for the establishment of a Palestinian State.  The Government of Palestine _(alla 1920 under UK Civil Administration)_ and the State of Palestine_ (either the 1988 or the 2012 versions)_ are not the same things.  One disappears on the termination of the Mandate, and the others were recognized after the Mandate.

But the differences are not under the discussion here.





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


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


You cut and paste that single sentence continuously across multiple threads knowing it is a misrepresentation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate​SUBTOPIC: Post War ExoDus
> ⁜→. P f Tinmore, teddyearp, _et al,_
> 
> *BLUF*:  Who are you trying to kid here.  I just gave you that link and discussed this in *Posting #20,121* in the "Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2" thread.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> If you go to Posting #20,121 You'll see that I discussed this with the link to the Citizenship Order.  And the 1925 Citizenship Order was modified a couple of times, I think the last time in the early 1930s.
> 
> Your comment is not 100% correct, but the nuances to the 1925 Citizenship Order (as amended) are NOT an _ipso facto_ (by itself) applicable • because of because decisions have to be made.
> 
> The 1925 Citizenship Order is only applicable to those that are still living and were qualified under Article 1.  As discussed perviously, since the creation of the  _International Covenant on Civil and Political Right_s (CCPR), the perceived inequities and limitations of that British 1925 Order have been largely corrected.  And the CCPR is what is applicable in most cases.
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to comment on your misinterpretations in both threads.  You cannot use either the 1925 Citizenship Order or Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne _(the Order implementing the Treaty Article)_ as evidence for the establishment of a Palestinian State.  The Government of Palestine _(alla 1920 under UK Civil Administration)_ and the State of Palestine_ (either the 1988 or the 2012 versions)_ are not the same things.  One disappears on the termination of the Mandate, and the others were recognized after the Mandate.
> 
> But the differences are not under the discussion here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_


The Citizenship order states that there is a Palestine, and that Palestine has territory, and that Palestine has citizens. 

What do you have that says different?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate​SUBTOPIC: Post War ExoDus
⁜→. P f Tinmore, teddyearp, _et al,_

*BLUF:*  And once again, you are desperately trying to conjure a "state" where there was none.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Citizenship order states that there is a Palestine, and that Palestine has territory, and that Palestine has citizens.
> 
> What do you have that says different?


*(COMMENT)*

◈  Palestine was the abbreviated form for The Civil Administration and Government of Palestine.   "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."  See the *Palestine Order in Council*. (1922)​​◈  *Statement of Policy in Palestine* • _Secretary of State for the Colonies to Parliament by Command of His Majesty January _1938​6. The terms of reference of the technical Commission will be as follows:-​(a) *afford a reasonable prospect of the eventual establishment, with adequate security, of self-supporting Arab and Jewish States *​
◈ Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. *Memorandum "A" - Legal Meaning of the "Termination fo the Mandate"* (25 February 1948).​​◈  "Palestine was not identified as a State or country nor could its authorities be identified as a government."  *Memorandum from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs (December 2012)*.​
In 1945, when the UN Charter was adopted, the oversight for the territories now held under mandate (League of Nations) was formally applied to the International Trusteeship System pursuant to _*Chapter XII - Article 77a UN Charter*_.





_Most Respectfully,
R_

*Excerpt Attachment:*

*Report by His Majesty's Government in the United*
*Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
to the Council of the League of Nations on the
Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan*
*for the year 1932*


*PALESTINE.

INTRODUCTORY.
Position, etc.*​

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.

On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.

The boundaries are described as follows:--

_South._--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.

_East._--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.

_North._--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.

_West._--The Mediterranean Sea.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Here is a list of boycott actions of Arabs against Jews - not Zionists, but Jews - between 1891 and 1945. 

1891: Arabs request the Ottoman Empire not sell land to Jews.

January 1915: The American Jewish Yearbookreports "At Hebron, Jewish storekeepers are boycotted
by Mohammedan women."

April 2, 1920, AJC: "Rosh Pinah: Thirty Arabs attack Arab workmen in fields belonging to Jewish inhabitants in endeavor to bring about boycott by Arabs against Jews."

June 4, 1921: "Haifa: Arabs issue proclamation urging the populace to boycott the Jews and drive them out of their villages."

1922: Arab Congress calls on Arabs to boycott Jewish businesses in Palestine.

1924:
MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION.—AS in the past, the Muslim-Christian Association again expressed its opposition to the Mandate and to the very idea of the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine, and voiced its demands for the independence of Palestine. It conducted an anti-Zionist and also anti-Jewish propaganda. In a publication which it widely distributed in the past year, the Association repeatedly refers its sympathizers to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", as a book which should be read by every-one who still doubts the pernicious motives of the Jews. ...It voted to authorize the Executive Committee to boycott the forthcoming elections and to promulgate an economic boycott against the Jews. The economic boycott, however, was later abandoned.

1925: 
ARAB ASSOCIATIONS.—The Moslem-Christian Union during the past year continued its policy of obstruction—not only in political matters but it also tried to interfere with the economic development of the country. Early in the year under review, a congress adopted a resolution urging the boycotting of the Ruttenberg Electrification Plan.


1929: Arab Congress vows to compel Arabs to boycott Jewish merchandise. Syria prohibits import of merchandise produced by Jewish businesses in Palestine. 

1931: World Islamic Congress passes resolution requesting Muslim countries to boycott trade with Jewish businesses in Palestine. Arab Labor Federation pickets Jewish businesses in Palestine. 

1945: Arab League Council adopts Resolution 70, recommending that all Arab states establish national boycott offices. 









(full article online)









						A brief history of Arab boycotts of Jews. (Not Zionists - Jews.)
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ *Statement of Policy in Palestine* • _*Secretary of State for the Colonies *to Parliament by Command of His Majesty January _1938


Indeed, the colonial project.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians wanted all of Palestine?
> Oh my!!!



Yeah sure, if you say so habibi,

not to count Spain, half of Africa and then some...


----------



## Sixties Fan

(More of how Jews were treated well and lived in peace with Muslims before the Mandate for Palestine)

In the same year Rabbi Perachia, a deputy of the Portuguese Jews at Jerusalem, who was commissioned to receive the charitable alms for the poor Jews of Jerusalem, died at Erbil, and was buried with all the honours belonging to his sacred office. The night following the burial the Musselmans tore the body out of the grave, cut off a hand, and threw the remains into an open ditch, without even a covering. The Jews repaired to the burial ground, and filled up the empty grave; that was all they ventured to do. The daily occurrence of such oppression has crushed them to such a degree, and the fear of still greater misfortune is so great, that they submit to anything without a murmur...

(full article online)









						19th century Muslim Jew-hatred in Erbil, Kurdistan
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

From the New York Times, July 24, 1948:





The Palestine National Olympic Committee had been a member in good standing since 1933, and it represented the Jewish National Home even though it had athletes of all religions. Obviously the only thing that changed was the name. Just as obviously, the IOC used a technical excuse to avoid a walkout by the Arabs - so, then as now, Israel pays the price.









						In 1948, the International Olympic Committee caved to Arab threats and banned Israel
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

( Another reason why it was time for Jews to rebuild their sovereign Nation on their Ancient homeland )

Continuing on with my summary of portions of the book, "Eight years in Asia and Africa from 1846-1855" by Jewish explorer Israel Joseph Benjamin, this was what he had to say about the Jews of Shiraz, Persia, present-day Iran:


> Shiraz. — Deplorable condition of the Jews.
> Only about twenty years since, nearly 3000 Jews lived in this once magnificent and flourishing city. By persecutions, oppressions and odium of all kinds more than 2500 of them were compelled to go over to the Mussulman sect of Ali. Although outwardly apostate, a great number of these families still preserve in their hearts the faith of their fathers, and even find means of having their children circumcised in secret. Nine synagogues in the town testify to the former greatness of the Jewish community ; now unfortunately, they are almost all laid waste.



Benjamin then goes on to describe how the Jewish women manage to remain true to their religion even after being forced to convert, and then describes how one of the Jewish leaders in the town was tortured mercilessly when he refused to convert.

He ends off with another story:
-----------
Shiraz continued to be viciously antisemitic in the decades after this. Wikipedia summarizes: "There has been a significant Jewish population in Iran for 2,500 years. Pogroms have not been unknown. In 1892, several Jews were murdered in Shiraz. Twenty Jews were murdered and three synagogues were burned down in 1897. Pogroms, forced conversion and expulsion swept Zarqon, Lar, Jahrom, Darab, Nobendigan, Sarvestan and Kazerun.Jamshid Sedaghat, a historian in Shiraz, has said attacks happened annually during the late 19th century, finally ending as a result of pressure from Europe. The last of these occurred in 1910" - which was a blood libel that resulted in the murder of 12 Jews and the entire Jewish quarter devastated.

(full article online)









						Persecution of Jews by Muslims in Shiraz, Persia in the 1850s
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

In that same issue of the B'nai Brith Messenger was this article on antisemitism by Dr. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, a German Jewish immigrant who founded the Jewish Spectator magazine. Her essay on antisemitism could have been written today.




> You Can't Argue With Bigots
> 
> By DR . TRUDE WEISS-ROSMARIN
> 
> Can anti-Semitism be fought with reason ? No , says Dr . Rosmarin. The only defense is in reforging the armor of Judaism.
> 
> IF JEWISH history has proved anything ; surely it is the impossibility of fighting anti-Semitism with reason . The hatred of Jews is a primitive antagonism that sprouts from the aboriginal fear of the different , the nonconforming . Jew-hatred has never needed logical justification for enlisting followers . The triumphs of antisemitic agitators prove that the slogan "kill the Jews" is all that is needed to rally the masses . Those who would fight antisemitism with reason meet their most formidable obstacle in the nonsensical , illogical and contradictory charges they are expected to disprove . Simultaneously , antisemites charge Jews with being Communists and capitalists, internationalists and rabid Jewish nationalists , diabolically imaginative and utterly uncreative . There is no trait and its very opposite which have not been ascribed to| the same Jew . Where , then , is refutation to start , and what should be refuted ? Is there even a possibility of debating with Jew-haters ?
> 
> The question arises whether some of the resources expended on fighting anti-Semitism should not be diverted to efforts to compensate for the psychological effects of the hatred , by strengthening the spiritual stamina of our people , so that we may be able better to withstand the corroding impact of antisemitism . This theory does not imply resignation and submission to our enemies . Rather , we must insist on our constitutional rights and fight individuals and movements that would infringe upon them . The resources used to convince our enemies of the absurdity of their anti-Semitism are spent in vain, for as three thousand years of Jewish history has verified , there is no possibility of achieving this goal . The eradication of antisemitism is a dream beyond the realm of possibility , as long as the Jews live as a minority , distinct and different , scattered among nations . In the words of Theodore Herzl , the nations in whose midst Jews live are all either overtly or secretly antisemitic .
> 
> The Jews of history took antisemitism in their stride . They were sufficiently realistic to recognize the impossibility of outrooting it with the spades of reason and enlightenment , they investigated what lay beyond antisemitism. The Jew of the past was virtually immune to the psychological ravages of antisemitism . Medieval chronicles report of Jewish martyrs who died for Judaism , but there is no mention of Jews who choose death because they were Jews , as did Stefan Zweig and other Jewish intellectuals of our time . The Jew of the ghetto found Judaism satisfying and a compensation for the sufferings he had to endure for its sake .
> 
> But the modern Jew who no longer fulfills himself in Judaism , nervously concentrates all his efforts on fighting anti-Semitism , or he tries to escape from the Jewish community .
> 
> Although it sounds paradoxical , it is true that the survival of Judaism and the Jewish people was never threatened by anti-people , their philosophy and way and expulsions were tragedies for those directly affected and a heavy drain on the resources of the Jewish people as a whole , but they did not weaken nor even touch the core of the Jewish people , their philosophy and way of life , because those bases of Judaism always were beyond antisemitism . There is no power that can remake antisemites . Even in free America we are all but helpless before the politer forms of antisemitism . There is little we can do to turn anti-Semites Into philo-semites . Rather , we must arm ourselves so that their sting will not poison us . Instead of being concerned primarily with the negative of antisemitism , its prevention , treatment and cure , Jews should concentrate on the positive aspects of Jewishness , the eternal verities of our existence and survival . An observer of the contemporary American-Jewish scene easily could be led to believe that Judaism is a fight against rather than an effort for .
> 
> Jewish self-hatred has been popularized recently in our literature . But little is done to prevent and cure it . In the essay Hatzi Nechamah ( A Half-Consolation ) written in 1893 , Ahad HaAm . the Zionist philosopher , offered a novel and correct analysis of the impact of anti-Semitism on Jewish psychology by pointing out that if an accusation is hurled long enough at a person who is completely innocent , the victim ultimately may doubt his guiltlessness and be swayed to agree with his accusers . Jews constantly plagued by antisemitism eventually may reach the point where hatred by the majority will raise doubts of tha justice of their own cause and the merit of their people and their culture .
> 
> This state of mind Ahad HaAm . diagnosed correctly as the real threat of anti-Semitism . Its grave peril lies in its propensities for breeding Jewish self-hatred .
> 
> History attests that while the success of the fight against antisemitism is never commensurate with the effort , prophylactic measures against the spread of Jewish self-hatred are highly effective . These steps include the strengthening of Jewish self-respect and of psychological resistance by teaching what Judaism  really represents . That the Jew who is ignorant of the Jewish legacy and the meaning of Judaism is singularly vulnerable to Jewish self-hate is evident , for this type of Jew has nothing to compensate for the hurt of anti-Semitism . The intelligent and effective attack on anti-Semitism should be concentrated primarily on strengthening the inner Jewish bulwark . It is here that defense is needed most .
> 
> Not anti-Semitism . but what lies beyond it in the Jewish sphere , is the challenge of the hour , the emergency which must be met if our people is to survive in creative vigor



(full article online)









						1946 advice on fighting antisemitism that works today
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

( More witness proof as to why Jews needed to re construct their nation on their Ancient Homeland )

Continuing on my excerpts from Eight years in Asia and Africa from 1846-1855 by Jewish explorer Israel Joseph Benjamin, the author summarizes the plight of the Jews of Persia, not withstanding that some of them were very successful in business.

1) Throughout Persia the Jews are obliged to live in a part of the town separated from the other inhabitants; for they are considered aa unclean creatures, who bring contamination with their intercourse and presence.
2) They have no right to carry on trade in stuff goods,
3) Even in the streets of their own quarter of the town they are not allowed to keep any open shop. —They may only sell there spices and drugs or carry on the trade of a jeweler, in which they have attained great perfection.
4) Under this pretext of their being unclean they are treated with the greatest severity, and should they enter a street inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mob with stones and dirt.
5) For the same reason they are forbidden to go out when it rains; for it is said the rain would wash dirt off them, which would sully the feet of the Mussulmans.
6) If a Jew is recognized as such in the streets, he is subjected to the greatest insults. The passers by-spit in his face, and sometimes beat him so unmercifully, that he falls to the ground, and is obliged to be carried home.
7) If a Persian kills a Jew, and the family of the deceased can bring forward two Mussulmans as witnesses to the fact, the murderer is punished by a fine of 12 tumauns (600 piastres) ; but if two such witnesses cannot be produced, the crime remains unpunished, oven though it has been publicly committed, and is well known.
9) If a Jew enters a shop to buy anything, he is forbidden to inspect the goods, but must stand at a respectful distance and ask the price. Should his hand incautiously touch the goods, he must take them at any price the seller chooses to ask for them.
10) Sometimes the Persians intrude into the dwellings of the Jews and take possession of whatever pleases them. Should the owner make the least opposition in defence of his property, he incurs the danger of atoning for it with his life.
----


> 15) Daily and hourly new suspicions ore raised against the Jews, in order to obtain excuses for fresh extortions; the desire of gain is always the chief incitement to fanaticism.


As we've seen, the entire book is a damning rebuttal to the Muslim claim that Jews lived in peace among them before Zionism. No, Muslim antisemitism has always been systemic. 


(full article online)









						How Persian Muslims mistreated Jews in the 19th century
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

Continuing with my excerpts of the journeys of Israel Joseph Benjamin he wrote about in "Eight years in Asia and Africa from 1846-1855," here are some of his observations about Jewish life in Tripoli and Tunis, what is now Libya and Tunisia.




> In all the above mentioned villages the houses are most wretched. In the apartments, mats of palm twigs are spread over the bare floor, and upon these the inhabitants repose ; carpets are nowhere to be seen. Their dress is dirty; it consists of a fez bound round with a kerchief, a garment reaching to the knees, and trousers of the same length. They continue to wear the same articles of clothing until they drop into rags ; on Saturday, however, they change their linen. ... Their holiday attire is but seldom washed; their every day clothes _never, _it can easily therefore be imagined that they are very dirty.





> I took a suitable opportunity to make inquiries of some of my fellow-worshippers, how it was that so little importance was attached to either cleanliness of person or of dress; for besides -the disagreeable impression their uncleanliness made on every one, they were moreover acting against the law, as the Bible in several places gives directions respecting the cleansing and washing of apparel. In answer to this, I was told that it was caused by fear of the Arabs, who, if they saw them different would imagine they were rich, and plunder them daily. This excuse seemed plausible.





> [In Djerba, Tunisia], The synagogue has no windows, as is the case with all synagogues in all places in Tripoli. I was informed that this arrangement had been made, in order that the Arabs should be prevented from throwing fire into the building from the outside.


Abuse of Jews in Arab and Muslim countries is relayed in a matter-of-fact manner throughout the book, as if this is the most normal thing in the world.


(full article online)









						Arab abuse of the Jews of north Africa, in the mid-1800s
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


>





> that they desire ti exist *in Palestine*



Indeed, that is the problem.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Many of the wounded could have been saved.


Apparently, information about the unprovoked and bestial murder spree against the Jewish residents of Hevron, perpetrated by the Arab neighbors with whom they had had friendly relations for decades, on Shabbat, the 18th of Av (August 1929) including the relocated Slabodka Yeshiva, had reached Jerusalem on the fateful day itself.

Mr. Harbater, a wealthy American who lived in the Kiryat Moshe section of Jerusalem at the time, had a son learning in Hevron. He begged the British to start a convoy toward Hevron in order to stop the carnage and to save the critically wounded. He offered to pay for the expenses involved in arranging such a convoy. The British refused. 67 people died.

(full article online)









						New information emerges about the 1929 Hevron Massacre
					

A wealthy American begged the British to send a convoy to save the wounded in the Hevron massacre, offering to pay, but to no avail. Op-ed.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


>


Just like TInmore and many others, brainwashed revisionist history which turns the "Indigenous Arabs" into victims of the vile "Foreign Europeans" turned Jews. 

Neither Tinmore, nor this young man can show any proof of a Palestinian People before the Mandate for Palestine (where all were Palestinians during that Mandate)

They never will.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, that is the problem.



What is your problem?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, the colonial project.


Sure, that's your problem...

And you think the Hashemite colonization of Jordan
is acceptable as long as Arab-Muslim supremacy is kept?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Similarities developed over differences
⁜→ rylah, et al,


rylah said:


> Sure, that's your problem...
> 
> And you think the Hashemite colonization of Jordan
> is acceptable as long as Arab-Muslim supremacy is kept?


*(COMMENT)*

Last week I was on the Nature Stone porch appreciating a few Canadian Whiskeys with a couple of friends.   We were celebrating Lammas _(Harvest Eve)_ July 31st _(First Harvest)_.  In some cultures _(and particularly Landowners)_, it is celebrated as the "Feast of the First Fruits."  And the ancient Israelite crop harvests (Deuteronomy 8:8) approximately at the same time.  Many major cultures had, one time or another, celebrated or performed ceremonies pertaining to the Planting and Harvest Seasons for their crops.  The Egyptians also have a ceremony and blessing with prayers to the God of the Nile in mid-August.  

The reason I mention this is only to keep in mind the the five of us from different descents, came from ancesters that celebrated the same things for much the same reason. Well, except for my cousin who is Wiccan.  But no one holds that against her because she is so very good looking and everyone wants to dance with her.





So, let's remember, this is the time of the year when we should put our differences aside and celebrate something in common.





_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## Sixties Fan

In 1921, prominent lawyer and former ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau Sr., wrote an article describing why Zionism is foolishness and a Jewish state is simply impossible.

Here are some excerpts, reported in the Bnai Brith Messenger, August 5, 1921. 

It is interesting in retrospect that while Morgenthau spends a lot of further space describing how successful Jews have been in the West, he still has a diaspora mentality that indicates that Jews are only successful because the gentiles allow it. It certainly doesn't occur to him that Jews can fight for their rights in Palestine - because the Muslims will never allow it. To him, it is perfectly natural that Muslims should bar Jews from their holiest spots.He says (in a section I didn't excerpt) that Zionism would prompt antisemitism in the same Western nations that he claims Jews have achieved equal rights - but if Jews truly had equal rights, they wouldn't be worried about being attacked by the majority gentiles. 

Morgenthau (and other anti-Zionist Jews of the era) were really concerned about the possibility that a Jewish state would threaten their own financial and political gains by turning Americans against Jews. But they created more seemingly scientific arguments to buttress their opinions, about how the land of Israel could not support more than a million people, how agriculture and industry is impossible. 

When you read an expert opinion, it is very often as based on incorrect assumptions and wishful thinking as that of Henry Morgenthau.  

Of course, this is also a reminder of Ben Gurion's quote: "In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles."

(full article online)









						100 years ago: A prominent Jewish "expert" describes why a Jewish state is impossible
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, is a major obstacle to peace between Israel and its neighbors. UNRWA was formed in 1949 to help Arabs who fled and left Israel, assimilate into surrounding Arab states. Instead, it has prolonged the Israeli-Palestinian dispute by refusing to help refugees integrate into their host countries, and has perpetuated the false hope of a Palestinian “right of return.”

As others have pointed out, “less than 5% of five million people deemed ‘Palestinian refugees’ [by UNRWA] meet the criteria for this status.” And UNRWA has admitted to cooperating with Hamas.

Nonetheless, President Biden has resumed funding to UNRWA, in spite of its ongoing cooperation with terrorist groups.

My four grandparents were driven out of Palestine in the 1920s by Arab terrorism.


This week, as I was flipping through the various Olympic channels, my eye caught the blue and white stripes of...
During that time, Arab pogroms were precipitated by Haj Amin al-Husseini, who claimed that Jews were going to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque. My mom’s parents, and my dad’s parents, fell victim to Arab violence and murderous mobs in their home city of Jerusalem. As penniless Jewish Palestinian refugees, they were forced to flee, and sought safety and security in New York.

My mom’s mother, Sarah, remembered how her father, Chaim Hirsch Eisenbach, saved the life of a rabbi at the Western Wall by shielding his bloodied body from Arab attackers. Violent mobs roamed the alleyways of Jerusalem, responding to exhortations of local imams to drive the Jews from the land.

Sarah married Shimon, who traced his ancestry back to the Shlah Ha’Kadosh, the scion of the Horowitz and Gotlieb families. These families lived in Jerusalem long before 95% of the Arab Bedouins and fellahin immigrated from Syria, Egypt, and Arabia.

My mom’s parents lived in the Sheikh Jarakh neighborhood of Jerusalem, and were often terrified by Arab mobs and attackers. Similarly, my wife and her family were driven out of Sheikh Jarrah in 1948, when the Jordanian Army occupied parts of Jerusalem.

My dad’s family, the Rivlins and Reichmans, lived in Palestine for centuries, primarily in Safad and Jerusalem. My grandfather was the grandson of Joseph Rivlin, who founded 11 Jerusalem neighborhoods, including Meah Shearim and Nahlat Shivah (“the settlement of seven”). In 1869, he and six friends joined together to build a community outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem.

Joseph Rivlin’s grandfather Hillel came from Vilna in 1809. His first cousin, the Gaon of Vilna, encouraged his students to come to Israel. They joined ancient Jewish communities in Safad, Tiberias and Jerusalem. Hillel’s descendants became leaders of the Ashkenazi Jewish community in Israel.

Under UNRWA’s definition, many of my family members could be considered “refugees.” But they all built successful lives without UNRWA subsidies, and without being fed lies that they could one day return to Israel and reclaim houses and property that now belonged to others.

UNRWA is not helping solve the refugee problem; it is stirring up grievances, and prolonging Palestinian suffering.

(full article online)









						UNRWA and a Jewish Palestinian Refugee Family
					

Palestinian schoolchildren sit inside a classroom at an UNRWA-run school, on the first day of a new school year, in …




					www.algemeiner.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, is a major obstacle to peace between Israel and its neighbors. UNRWA was formed in 1949 to help Arabs who fled and left Israel, assimilate into surrounding Arab states. Instead, it has prolonged the Israeli-Palestinian dispute by refusing to help refugees integrate into their host countries, and has perpetuated the false hope of a Palestinian “right of return.”
> 
> As others have pointed out, “less than 5% of five million people deemed ‘Palestinian refugees’ [by UNRWA] meet the criteria for this status.” And UNRWA has admitted to cooperating with Hamas.
> 
> Nonetheless, President Biden has resumed funding to UNRWA, in spite of its ongoing cooperation with terrorist groups.
> 
> My four grandparents were driven out of Palestine in the 1920s by Arab terrorism.
> 
> 
> This week, as I was flipping through the various Olympic channels, my eye caught the blue and white stripes of...
> During that time, Arab pogroms were precipitated by Haj Amin al-Husseini, who claimed that Jews were going to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque. My mom’s parents, and my dad’s parents, fell victim to Arab violence and murderous mobs in their home city of Jerusalem. As penniless Jewish Palestinian refugees, they were forced to flee, and sought safety and security in New York.
> 
> My mom’s mother, Sarah, remembered how her father, Chaim Hirsch Eisenbach, saved the life of a rabbi at the Western Wall by shielding his bloodied body from Arab attackers. Violent mobs roamed the alleyways of Jerusalem, responding to exhortations of local imams to drive the Jews from the land.
> 
> Sarah married Shimon, who traced his ancestry back to the Shlah Ha’Kadosh, the scion of the Horowitz and Gotlieb families. These families lived in Jerusalem long before 95% of the Arab Bedouins and fellahin immigrated from Syria, Egypt, and Arabia.
> 
> My mom’s parents lived in the Sheikh Jarakh neighborhood of Jerusalem, and were often terrified by Arab mobs and attackers. Similarly, my wife and her family were driven out of Sheikh Jarrah in 1948, when the Jordanian Army occupied parts of Jerusalem.
> 
> My dad’s family, the Rivlins and Reichmans, lived in Palestine for centuries, primarily in Safad and Jerusalem. My grandfather was the grandson of Joseph Rivlin, who founded 11 Jerusalem neighborhoods, including Meah Shearim and Nahlat Shivah (“the settlement of seven”). In 1869, he and six friends joined together to build a community outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem.
> 
> Joseph Rivlin’s grandfather Hillel came from Vilna in 1809. His first cousin, the Gaon of Vilna, encouraged his students to come to Israel. They joined ancient Jewish communities in Safad, Tiberias and Jerusalem. Hillel’s descendants became leaders of the Ashkenazi Jewish community in Israel.
> 
> Under UNRWA’s definition, many of my family members could be considered “refugees.” But they all built successful lives without UNRWA subsidies, and without being fed lies that they could one day return to Israel and reclaim houses and property that now belonged to others.
> 
> UNRWA is not helping solve the refugee problem; it is stirring up grievances, and prolonging Palestinian suffering.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UNRWA and a Jewish Palestinian Refugee Family
> 
> 
> Palestinian schoolchildren sit inside a classroom at an UNRWA-run school, on the first day of a new school year, in …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.algemeiner.com


UNRWA is an aid agency only. It has no authority to seek a solution to the problem. That agency is the UNCCP. The UNCCP is the agency charged to find solutions. That agency must be revitalized.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> UNRWA is an aid agency only. It has no authority to seek a solution to the problem. That agency is the UNCCP. The UNCCP is the agency charged to find solutions. That agency must be revitalized.


----------



## Sixties Fan

(Another pogrom which shows why Israel needed to be re constructed )


The Constantine riot of 1934, which erupted between 3 and 5 August, demonstrates how false accusations against the Jews of North Arica could escalate rapidly into mob violence. The fact that the French forces of law and order  were dilatory in quelling the violence shows that they were negligent,  complicit, or silently approved of the disturbances. Article in _Terre Promise _(with thanks: Nelly) 

-------

The origins of this pogrom, as we have seen, are manifold. One thing is certain, it is necessary to dispel the myth according to which the atrocities against Jews committed in Arab countries were the consequence of Zionism: it was not Zionism that provoked Arab anti-Semitism, but rather the reverse:  Arab anti-Semitism provoked Zionism.

Let us remind you that other pogroms took place in the region between 1900 and 1948:  Casablanca in 1907, Fez in 1912, Iraq in 1941, Tripoli in 1945, Aden in 1946, and finally that of ‘Oujda in 1948.

And it cannot be repeated enough that the testimony of the Jews born in these countries has never been heard.

(full article online)









						Constantine pogrom erupted in August 1934 • Point of No Return
					

The Constantine riot of 1934, which erupted between 3 and 5 August, demonstrates how false accusations against the Jews of North Arica could escalate rapidly into mob violence. The fact that the French forces of law and order  were dilatory in quelling the violence shows that they were...




					www.jewishrefugees.org.uk


----------



## Sixties Fan

Tracking down statements can be difficult at times. Everyone "heard"/"read" it but years later, no one can find its source. 

One such issue is, did Arabs threaten to throw the Jews into the sea, and when? 

EOZ had this published tracing the history whether in 1948 or during the 1950s or on the eve of the 1967 war.






Of course, the "Palestine from the River to the Sea" chant basically means destroying Israel but it is not the same as actually throwing Jews into the sea. I noted previously a caricature of Israel as a ship sinking. Still, not exactly the same. 

Well, we now have a testimony in real time, from August 1948*. 

In this academic article on the machinations of British Intelligence Services during the 1940s, I read, on page 14, that England's Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, "After being notified that the Arab leaders were blaming Britain for their defeat", instructed his diplomats in the Arab capitals, as well as in Washington and the UN, to respond that:
_It is quite untrue to suggest that we have let the Arabs down or failed in any obligations towards them. We did not urge them to intervene by force in Palestine, nor did we promise them support if they did so. They went in of their own accord, in most cases without telling us beforehand. Very small measure of military successes which they achieved shows that their forces, while capable perhaps of occupying friendly territory, were not prepared for and incapable of undertaking major military operations, which would have been necessary to achieve the announced object of the Arab states, namely to drive the Jews into the sea._ 

I think that should settle matters.









						The Jews to Go into the Sea
					

Tra c king down statements  c an be diffi c ult at times. Everyone "heard"/"read" it but years later, no one  c an find its sour ce . One su...




					myrightword.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

If Jordan annexed areas of western Palestine, that means there must have been an eastern Palestine - on the other side of the Jordan River.The term "West Bank" didn't exist yet, so AP called it the historically accurate "western Palestine."

1950 was less than three decades removed from the original partition of Palestine into western Palestine and Transjordan, so the terms "eastern" and "western" Palestine were still used. In the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the phrases "Eastern Palestine" and "Western Palestine" were capitalized.

Somehow since then the world has forgotten about eastern Palestine, mostly due to Jordan's insistence that it is not Palestine - it is so insecure that its king still insists, even today, that nations assure it that they will not consider Jordan as a Palestinian state.

The only reason Jordan is so touchy on the subject is because it knows that at least parts of Jordan have always been considered part of Palestine - ever since the Israelites settled there.

(full article online)









						Jordan is Palestine - according to AP in 1950
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

(More proof that the British Government never meant to honor the Mandate for Palestine for the Jewish Nation )

 After surviving the Holocaust, trekking the Alps in winter and crossing the Mediterranean in an overcrowded boat, Rose Lipszyc clearly remembers her months incarcerated in harsh British camps in Cyprus.

“After all that, we were back behind barbed wire again,” 92-year-old Lipszyc said, speaking 75 years after British soldiers began imprisoning Jews on the eastern Mediterranean island, dark events whose legacy resonates today.

Lipszyc’s family, from the Polish city of Lublin, were among the six million Jews the Nazis massacred during World War II.

She was taken 250 kilometers (155 miles) northwest to Cyprus, also then under British rule.

Between August 1946 and February 1949, more than 52,000 Jews taken off 39 boats were detained in a dozen camps in Cyprus, according to Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial and education center.

“The English weren’t starving us, and they weren’t killing us like the Germans,” Lipszyc said. “But it was so traumatic, that the very same people who had freed me just a short time ago now incarcerated me.”

The British wanted the cramped camps to be a “deterrent” aimed at “breaking the power of the ‘Hebrew resistance movement’ in Palestine,” Yad Vashem said. More than 400 people died of sickness in the camps.

(full article online)









						75 years on, harsh British detention of Holocaust survivors in Cyprus remembered
					

One of the last remaining metal huts that housed thousands of Jewish prisoners attempting to reach Israel will be the centerpiece of a new Jewish Museum in Larnaca




					www.timesofisrael.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> (More proof that the British Government never meant to honor the Mandate for Palestine for the Jewish Nation )
> 
> After surviving the Holocaust, trekking the Alps in winter and crossing the Mediterranean in an overcrowded boat, Rose Lipszyc clearly remembers her months incarcerated in harsh British camps in Cyprus.
> 
> “After all that, we were back behind barbed wire again,” 92-year-old Lipszyc said, speaking 75 years after British soldiers began imprisoning Jews on the eastern Mediterranean island, dark events whose legacy resonates today.
> 
> Lipszyc’s family, from the Polish city of Lublin, were among the six million Jews the Nazis massacred during World War II.
> 
> She was taken 250 kilometers (155 miles) northwest to Cyprus, also then under British rule.
> 
> Between August 1946 and February 1949, more than 52,000 Jews taken off 39 boats were detained in a dozen camps in Cyprus, according to Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust memorial and education center.
> 
> “The English weren’t starving us, and they weren’t killing us like the Germans,” Lipszyc said. “But it was so traumatic, that the very same people who had freed me just a short time ago now incarcerated me.”
> 
> The British wanted the cramped camps to be a “deterrent” aimed at “breaking the power of the ‘Hebrew resistance movement’ in Palestine,” Yad Vashem said. More than 400 people died of sickness in the camps.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 75 years on, harsh British detention of Holocaust survivors in Cyprus remembered
> 
> 
> One of the last remaining metal huts that housed thousands of Jewish prisoners attempting to reach Israel will be the centerpiece of a new Jewish Museum in Larnaca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.timesofisrael.com


The Zionists had a different vision for the Jewish National Home than did the British.

The Zionists fucked everything up.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> The Zionists had a different vision for the Jewish National Home than did the British.
> 
> The Zionists fucked everything up.


The British saw a Mandate for Palestine WITHOUT a Jewish National Home, proven by them giving 78% of it to the foreign Hashemites in 1922 and then doing everything not to help the Jews achieve the Mandate with the rest of it.

Hatred of Jews F...d everything.  Just like your hatred for Jews which is no different.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> The British saw a Mandate for Palestine WITHOUT a Jewish National Home, proven by them giving 78% of it to the foreign Hashemites in 1922 and then doing everything not to help the Jews achieve the Mandate with the rest of it.
> 
> Hatred of Jews F...d everything.  Just like your hatred for Jews which is no different.


The problem was that the Zionists did not follow the program.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The problem was that the Zionists did not follow the program.



They kicked too much Arab ass........


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> The problem was that the Zionists did not follow the program.


You were never given "The Program", you do not know what "The Program" was, and most of all you COULD NOT CARE LESS ABOUT IT......

Because it was .....shhhhhhh.......The Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> You were never given "The Program", you do not know what "The Program" was, and most of all you COULD NOT CARE LESS ABOUT IT......
> 
> Because it was .....shhhhhhh.......The Jews.


The "program" was in the Mandate document and the LON Covenant.

Perhaps you should read them.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> The "program" was in the Mandate document and the LON Covenant.
> 
> Perhaps you should read them.


You have never read them.  There isn't one document about the Mandate, Balfour, San Remo, etc that you have been able to understand to this day.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Film: Remember Baghdad - Jewish Music Institute
					

Available to rent here Thursday 12 AugustRemember Baghdad: Iraq’s Last Jews Tell the Story of Their CountryWe have a screening of Fiona Murphy’s captivating documentary Remember Baghdad. Released in 2017, the film follows five Jewish families as they remember a time in Baghdad before war and...




					www.jmi.org.uk


----------



## Sixties Fan

Richard Pollack writes in JNS:




> I recently stumbled upon a photography book shot by the acclaimed Life magazine wartime photographer John Phillips. The large, innocuous-looking book was simply titled, A Will to Survive. After flipping through the pages, I realized I entered a time capsule that memorializes the Arab destruction of Jerusalem’s ancient Jewish Quarter in 1948.
> 
> Not only is it a dramatic firsthand account of the fall of the Jewish Quarter in 1948, but it documents the Arab Legion’s scorched-earth tactics that razed and burned to the ground every structure there, including all its synagogues and yeshivahs. The Arabs expelled all of the city’s residents, mainly defenseless, old Orthodox Jews. They were given about an hour to vacate homes that most extended families had lived in for centuries.
> 
> And there never has been a reckoning by any international body about the Arab Legion’s barbaric actions after it captured the Quarter.
> 
> To get his shots in May 1948, Phillips posed undercover in Jerusalem as a British officer in the Arab Legion. He also smuggled out his photos to avoid Arab censors who were eager to keep the sacking of the Jewish Quarter secret.
> 
> Phillips faced personal danger to do the shoot. He entered the Middle East undercover and wore the uniform of the Arab Legion, a British-created Arab army led by British officers, many of whom stayed on with their units to fight the Jews. “Mistaking me for a British officer, the Arab populace left me alone,” he wrote.
> 
> He was appalled about the Arab censorship. “Aware that the sack of the Jewish Quarter would shock the western world, Arab authorities across the Middle East tried to prevent the news from leaking out. Jerusalem could not be mentioned under any circumstances,” he wrote.
> 
> “I knew my pictures of the agony of the Jewish Quarter would end up in a censor’s wastepaper basket. I did not want this to happen and decided to smuggle them out of the Middle East.”



I found a copy of the book online. The photographs in the book are stunning.

Here is the Hurva synagogue in ruins.






A view of the destruction of the Jewish Quarter from what is now the Kotel plaza, with the Porat Yosef synagogue and yeshiva in the center.




Jews gathering for deportation in front of the destroyed Tiferet Israel synagogue.





More photos of Jews as they rush to leave - they had one hour to gather their belongings.

Here are Arabs looting the remains - including taking the Torah covers from a Sephardic synagogue, and a woman with a box of matzohs on her head.

This is what ethnic cleansing looks like.

Phillips returned in 1976 and interviewed dozens of Jews who had lived or fought in the final battle for the Old City in 1948. 

(full article online)









						A 1976 book documents the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Jerusalem in 1948 with stunning photographs
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Even a cursory glance at contemporaneous Arab and Muslim newspapers and other Muslim media makes clear that it was Arab leaders who commanded the local Arab population to “flee” their homes in anticipation of the genocide of the Jews:


On April 3, 1949 the Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station reported: “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem”.


On October 12, 1963 the Egyptian daily “_Akbar el Yom_” reported that : “The 15th May, 1948 arrived…On that day the Mufti of Jerusalem (the Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini) appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead”.


On April 9, 1953 the Jordanian daily “_Al Urdan_” reported: “For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumours exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs… By spreading rumours of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy”.


Even the contemporaneous reporting of “_The Economist_” makes clear that the alleged “Nakba’ was self inflicted. On October 3, 1948 “The Economist” reported: “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit…It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades”.


On August 19, 1951 the Beirut weekly “_Kul-Shay”_ opined: “Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor not conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their homes? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it”.


The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the Arab Higher Committee’s March 8, 1948 orders, instructed women, children, and the elderly living in Jerusalem to leave their homes: “Any opposition to this order … is an obstacle to the holy war … and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts.”


Furthermore, the Jordanian newspaper “_Filastin_” on February 19, 1949 stated: “The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees”


The Syrian Prime Minister in 1948–49, Haled al Azm, also openly acknowledged the Arabs’ role in persuading the refugees to leave: “Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave.”
Anti Israel fanatics in the main stream media, on college campuses and in political circles cannot change the reality of what contemporaneous Muslim and Arab media reported.

(full article online)









						Past time for ‘Telling The Truth’ about Palestinian lies
					

The Israelis expelled them in 1948? It is confounding that Jews fail to challenge these kinds of lies in any substantial way. Op-ed.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## P F Tinmore

The Sub-Committee stated that “the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine” and that “the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine ...” The Sub-Committee, in its report to the _Ad Hoc_ Committee, further stated that “partition involves the alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of *the State of Palestine. *The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country ...”[14]



			Palestinian-Israeli Conflict


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> “partition involves the alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of *the State of Palestine. *The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country ...”[14]


Indeed, partition was the _'destruction of integrity'_

of who's *National Home*?


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yeah, just another attack on the General Assembly's "competence."



P F Tinmore said:


> The Sub-Committee stated that “the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine” and that “the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine ...” The Sub-Committee, in its report to the _Ad Hoc_ Committee, further stated that “partition involves the alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of *the State of Palestine. *The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country ...”[14]
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-Israeli Conflict


*(COMMENT)*

The problem with this is → that it is a double-edged sword. * IF* the General Assembly (GA) is not competent to even make a "recommendation,"* THEN* all the condemnations the GA issued against Israel are also questionable.  And all the GA advocate for the conduct of the conflict by "Any Means" is dangerous.  How can the GA make any recommendation of any consequence?

No, I really don't think you want to hang your hat on this "*Sovereignty as the Crucial Issue of a Peaceful Settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict**."*




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The problem with this is → that it is a double-edged sword. * IF* the General Assembly (GA) is not competent to even make a "recommendation,"


The problem was with resolution 181. Britain would not implement it. The Security Council would not implement it. It was widely condemned around the world.

Not so with other GA Resolutions.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> No, I really don't think you want to hang your hat on this "*Sovereignty as the Crucial Issue of a Peaceful Settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict**."*


It is Israel who rejects this.




> Whether the United Nations, or any of its Member States, is competent to enforce or recommend the enforcement of any proposal concerning the constitution and future government of Palestine, in particular any plan of partition which is contrary to the wishes, or adopted *without the consent, of the inhabitants of Palestine ...” *


*
IOW, *the Palestinians are the sovereigns of the territory just like the UN has stated in subsequent resolutions.



> Such demarcations can only be made through bilateral agreement between the states concerned



All border arrangements must be with the Palestinians concent.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  The A/RES/181 (II)  was a "RECOMMENDATION" and not a binding agreement requiring implementation.



P F Tinmore said:


> The problem was with resolution 181. Britain would not implement it. The Security Council would not implement it. It was widely condemned around the world.
> 
> Not so with other GA Resolutions.


*(COMMENT)*
.
The National Council for the Jewish State established the State of Israel under the Right of Self-Determination.  The UN did not execute any authority in the matter.  The approval by the General Assembly was not "required" when Self-Determination is exercised.

Remember, the Jewish population was "Palestinian" under Citizenship Law in the same way as the Arab Palestinian.  The UN did not grant Sovereignty to anyone.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Remember, the Jewish population was "Palestinian" under Citizenship Law in the same way as the Arab Palestinian.


And now they are Israeli. Different animal.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Remember, the Jewish population was "Palestinian" under Citizenship Law in the same way as the Arab Palestinian.


I will disagree with that. The "immigration policy" was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against the wishes and best interest of the majority of the people.

The settlers had no intention of being Palestinian. They led separate lives and had no allegence to the country. Their stated goal was colonialism and conquest.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> I will disagree with that. The "immigration policy" was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against the wishes and best interest of the majority of the people.
> 
> The settlers had no intention of being Palestinian. They led separate lives and had no allegence to the country. Their stated goal was colonialism and conquest.


Allegiance to what country?  The country you invented as being invented earlier by the Treaty of Lausanne?


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>


So.... no "country", thus no need or requirement for allegiance.  Inventing a history you would prefer as opposed to accepting the facts is sometimes called a maladjusted personality.


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> I will disagree with that. The "immigration policy" was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun against the wishes and best interest of the majority of the people.


Disagree all you want, but international law is not a popularity contest.

there's a point of a gun behind every policy,
and that gun was imposed in no less a consequence
of the Arab choice to side with Britain and its military campaign.

That immigration nevertheless, with its community organization and talent brought
drastic improvement in quality of life of all involved already prior to British involvement. Infrastructure, sanitation and economy improved, life expectancy raised  above any country.



P F Tinmore said:


> The settlers had no intention of being Palestinian. They led separate lives and had no allegence to the country. Their stated goal was colonialism and conquest.



Intention to build and re-constitute the native civilization, as required by law,
or submit to  Arab supremacists who can't even pronounce the name of the place?

Separate life is not how you revive the land,
expand central cities and revive the local language.

Want to talk about allegiance, and even connection to the country,
then how Arab arguments about colonialism and conquest even make sense,
fighting on the side of the Brits, instead of independence, demanding to cede all
territory to the rule of an Arabian prince from Mecca as today, declaring it an Arab colony.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Talks about _'being Palestinians' _and allegiance,
posts a video of the Hagag family picking up
Ethrogs for the Jewish festival of Sukkot...


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Disagree all you want, but international law is not a popularity contest.
> 
> there's a point of a gun behind every policy,
> and that gun was imposed in no less a consequence
> of the Arab choice to side with Britain and its military campaign.
> 
> That immigration nevertheless, with its community organization and talent brought
> drastic improvement in quality of life of all involved already prior to British involvement. Infrastructure, sanitation and economy improved, life expectancy raised  above any country.
> 
> 
> 
> Intention to build and re-constitute the native civilization, as required by law,
> or submit to  Arab supremacists who can't even pronounce the name of the place?
> 
> Separate life is not how you revive the land,
> expand central cities and revive the local language.
> 
> Want to talk about allegiance, and even connection to the country,
> then how Arab arguments about colonialism and conquest even make sense,
> fighting on the side of the Brits, instead of independence, demanding to cede all
> territory to the rule of an Arabian prince from Mecca as today, declaring it an Arab colony.


All that fluff is well and good, however, Israel's biggest problem is that it has never legally acquired any territory.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:   P F Tinmore - It does not matter one little bit what you think is "This or That."   Especially when it comes to a nation that is more than a half-Century old (Israel).  The audacity to challenge what is "legally acquired territory" and what is not, is incredulous • if not • just plain incredible.



P F Tinmore said:


> All that fluff is well and good, however, Israel's biggest problem is that it has never legally acquired any territory.


*(COMMENT)*
.
No one is going to roll back the clock and let an alternative history play out - in favor of the incapable Arab Palestinians who could not engage one decision that would turn out in their favor (not one) on the side of peace and prosperity.  There is no instant replay.  If you want to help make a better world for the Arab Palestinians, then look in the toolbox for today.  Constantly being part of a culture that is forever stuck in the past is a losing proposition.  You have to start today and look into the future.  It. is not about pursuing a conflict; but, rather focusing on a future.

The Arab Palestinians have to begin rebuilding their culture - starting on a foundation of peace and stability.  You cannot stop the clock.  Every day the Arab Palestinians waste, only instills the image that all they can do is be a disruptive influence.

Quit the nonsense of always looking in the past at what could have been --- look at today and build a better tomorrow.  If it is just one step at a time - the future is infinite.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:   P F Tinmore - It does not matter one little bit what you think is "This or That."   Especially when it comes to a nation that is more than a half-Century old (Israel).  The audacity to challenge what is "legally acquired territory" and what is not, is incredulous • if not • just plain incredible.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> No one is going to roll back the clock and let an alternative history play out - in favor of the incapable Arab Palestinians who could not engage one decision that would turn out in their favor (not one) on the side of peace and prosperity.  There is no instant replay.  If you want to help make a better world for the Arab Palestinians, then look in the toolbox for today.  Constantly being part of a culture that is forever stuck in the past is a losing proposition.  You have to start today and look into the future.  It. is not about pursuing a conflict; but, rather focusing on a future.
> 
> The Arab Palestinians have to begin rebuilding their culture - starting on a foundation of peace and stability.  You cannot stop the clock.  Every day the Arab Palestinians waste, only instills the image that all they can do is be a disruptive influence.
> 
> Quit the nonsense of always looking in the past at what could have been --- look at today and build a better tomorrow.  If it is just one step at a time - the future is infinite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


Well, that was a commendable duck of my post.

Crimes* always *happen in the past.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The settlers had no intention of being Palestinian.



Kind of like the entire Arab world today..............


----------



## John T. Ford

Coyote said:


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


*Anti-Semitism will ALWAYS be recognized by NORMAL THINKING AMERICANS !!!*


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> All that fluff is well and good, however, Israel's biggest problem is that it has never legally acquired any territory.



But really that's the problem of the Arab supremacists ,
who think intentional law is a popularity contests.

Now tell us - between the river and the sea, what territory 
was ever legally defined by any other sovereign
than the re-constitution of the Jewish nation?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> But really that's the problem of the Arab supremacists ,
> who think intentional law is a popularity contests.
> 
> Now tell us - between the river and the sea, what territory
> was ever legally defined by any other sovereign
> than the re-constitution of the Jewish nation?


Good question. Israel does not have any defined territory.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Good question. Israel does not have any defined territory.



Is that why the borders of Palestine
are defined by re-constitution of the Jewish nation?

See, the main problem with the Arab narrative, is that it tries
to compensate for its own weaknesses, that are exactly Israel's strength.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Is that why the borders of Palestine
> are defined by re-constitution of the Jewish nation?
> 
> See, the problem with the Arab narrative is that it focuses
> in compensating for weaknesses that are exactly Israel's strength.


More Israeli bullshit.

Palestine's international borders were defined by 1922.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> Palestine's international borders were defined by 1922.



Indeed, borders defined explicitly
with the re-constitution of the Jewish nation.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Good question. Israel does not have any defined territory.


That's another of the silly slogans you have been dumping into threads for a decade.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:  I use to give you partial credit on the issue when you said this.  Not any more.  This is an incomplete statement that is used to intentional deceive the audience.



P F Tinmore said:


> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> Palestine's international borders were defined by 1922.


*(COMMENT)*
.
The "facts" → the Allied Powers had not yet agreed upon hard "borders" yet.  In August 1922, the Allied Powers worded the set this way:

"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*;"​
"Palestine was an undefined legal entity."   But it was not self-governing.  The Government of Palestine was an entity under the administration of the United Kingdom.  The final agreement was not reached until the completion of the Paulet-Newcombe Survey was finalized.

*◈ French-British Convention:*  Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for the Syria and Lebanon, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, 1924 Legue of Nations Treaty Series pp355 Registry No 564​
*◈ French-British Border Agreement of 1923*, 1924 League of Nations Treaty Series pp365 Registry No #565​
No.564 was the Convention agreed upon by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo (April 1920).  An additional factor was the decision of the British Government to grant and establish the Emirati east of the Jordan River and ending with the Mesopotamia Mandate.  "On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah." (*Jordan History*)

*(Ω)*

The boundary for the territory, formerly under the Mandate, varied along the timeline between the 1920 San Remo Agreement until 1946 when the British Government released Transjordan from the Mandate and it transitioned from a protectorate to a self-governing nation.  However, the remainder of the territory west of the Jordan River, was still a legal entity under the Administration of the British Government.  There was no country or nation of Palestine and no government from by the Arab Palestinians.
.



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*:  I use to give you partial credit on the issue when you said this.  Not any more.  This is an incomplete statement that is used to intentional deceive the audience.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> The "facts" → the Allied Powers had not yet agreed upon hard "borders" yet.  In August 1922, the Allied Powers worded the set this way:
> 
> "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*;"​
> "Palestine was an undefined legal entity."   But it was not self-governing.  The Government of Palestine was an entity under the administration of the United Kingdom.  The final agreement was not reached until the completion of the Paulet-Newcombe Survey was finalized.
> 
> *◈ French-British Convention:*  Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for the Syria and Lebanon, Palestine, and Mesopotamia, 1924 Legue of Nations Treaty Series pp355 Registry No 564​
> *◈ French-British Border Agreement of 1923*, 1924 League of Nations Treaty Series pp365 Registry No #565​
> No.564 was the Convention agreed upon by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo (April 1920).  An additional factor was the decision of the British Government to grant and establish the Emirati east of the Jordan River and ending with the Mesopotamia Mandate.  "On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah." (*Jordan History*)
> 
> *(Ω)*
> 
> The boundary for the territory, formerly under the Mandate, varied along the timeline between the 1920 San Remo Agreement until 1946 when the British Government released Transjordan from the Mandate and it transitioned from a protectorate to a self-governing nation.  However, the remainder of the territory west of the Jordan River, was still a legal entity under the Administration of the British Government.  There was no country or nation of Palestine and no government from by the Arab Palestinians.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


Now you are splitting hairs. There was a little tweaking of the borders with Syria and Lebanon. However, the borders were essentially complete with the border between Palestine and Transjordan in 1922.



RoccoR said:


> the territory west of the Jordan River, was still a legal entity under the Administration of the British Government.


Indeed, Palestine has always been a non self governing territory (NSGT) under foreign rule. It needs to be decolonized.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Now you are splitting hairs. There was a little tweaking of the borders with Syria and Lebanon. However, the borders were essentially complete with the border between Palestine and Transjordan in 1922.
> 
> 
> Indeed, Palestine has always been a non self governing territory (NSGT) under foreign rule. It needs to be decolonized.


Indeed not. For much of Ottoman rule, there was no Pal'istan. 

Indeed, your Disney'fied version of this fairyland that never existed is a concerning delusion.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*: Now look at who is splitting hairs.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, Palestine has always been a non self governing territory (NSGT) under foreign rule. It needs to be decolonized.


*(COMMENT)*

The territory could have gradually gone self-governing.  But the Arab Palestinians simply did not accept any invitation to take part in developing self-governing institutions.




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *BLUF*: Now look at who is splitting hairs.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The territory could have gradually gone self-governing.  But the Arab Palestinians simply did not accept any invitation to take part in developing self-governing institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


Indeed, the Palestinians did not want sign on to the colonial project.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, the Palestinians did not want sign on to the colonial project.



That's awful!

So what?


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

‘First Friends’ Tells Story of Truman’s Jewish Best Pal on Eve of Israel’s Independence
					

Former President Harry S. Truman (right) standing in front of a building with Eddie Jacobson (left), in what appears to …




					www.algemeiner.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Yom Kippur in British Mandate Palestine and the Irgun
					

Ever since the November 1928 White Paper, the blowing of the shofar, the ram’s horn, among other customs, had been prohibited at the Western Wall — Much to the chagrin of the Irgun.




					www.jpost.com


----------



## rylah

Signature by Rabbi Shalom Alshech with leaders of the Yemenite Torah Council,
already from Jerusalem, in a letter of appreciation to Arthur Rupin, Jerusalem Feb. 7, 1909.


----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

Even though the modern State of Israel is 73 years old, Jews represented Palestine in World's Fairs way before 1948. In fact, the first time was 125 years ago.

This Jewish New Year's postcard is from the Great Industrial Exposition of Berlin of 1896 - and the story behind it  is remarkable.








> Portrayed in the photograph are Heinrich Loewe, Moshe David Șuv and others at the entrance to a building bearing the sign "Exposition of Sons of Israel in the Holy Land" (In Hebrew and German), with palm trees and a mosque





> A Colonial Exhibition was held as part of the Great Industrial Exposition of Berlin in 1896, with grand displays replicating towns and villages in Africa, New Guinea and other places (for which purpose the organizers brought natives from these places, dressed them in traditional costumes and presented them to the public, in sets portraying indigenous life). The town of Cairo was "built" in one of the exhibition compounds where a Palestinian booth was erected (under the name "Exhibition of Sons of Israel Colonies in the Holy Land"). The pavilion offered for sale products from Palestine: "Carmel" wines, olive wood artefacts, books and booklets printed in Palestine, and more.





> The person in charge of organizing the Palestinian pavilion was Moshe David Șuv (one of the leaders of founders of the colonies Rosh Pina, Yessod Hama'ala and Mishmar HaYarden). In his book "Zichronot LeBeit David […]" he describes the exhibition: _"Among the general exhibition displays, a miniature city was built in the form of Cairo… with shops, hotels and Arab cafes, with the Nile flowing…. Our exhibition, the Palestinian one, was arranged in Cairo, within one of the great mosques. When I sat in this exhibition I felt as if I was in an Arab town…Thousands visited the exhibition, Jews and non-Jews and almost all bought wine and other products"_



(full article online)









						Jews represented Palestine at the 1896 Berlin Expo
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Even though the modern State of Israel is 73 years old, Jews represented Palestine in World's Fairs way before 1948. In fact, the first time was 125 years ago.
> 
> This Jewish New Year's postcard is from the Great Industrial Exposition of Berlin of 1896 - and the story behind it  is remarkable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jews represented Palestine at the 1896 Berlin Expo
> 
> 
> Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elderofziyon.blogspot.com





> where a Palestinian booth was erected (under the name "Exhibition of Sons of *Israel Colonies* in the Holy Land"
> 
> Moshe David Șuv (one of the leaders of founders of the *colonies *Rosh Pina,



Indeed.


----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Was there really?

 Then you should be able to answer:


----------



## Sixties Fan

Wikipedia adds:




> Arab rioters killed 19 Jews in Tiberias, 11 of whom were children. During the massacre, 70 armed Arabs set fire to Jewish homes and the local synagogue. In one house a mother and her five children were killed. The old beadle in the synagogue was stabbed to death, and another family of 4 was killed.
> 
> A representative of the British mandate reported that: "It was systematically organized and savagely executed. Of the nineteen Jews killed, including women and children, all save four were stabbed to death."



The targets weren't the Haganah or even "Zionists" - Tiberias was settled by Jews multiple times before modern Zionism. The targets were Jews - Jewish families, Jewish women, Jewish children, and a synagogue.

The massacre seems to have been the handiwork of Abu Ibrahim al-Kabir, a disciple of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam. 

Al-Kabir is still considered a hero to Palestinians  - here is a Fatah page dedicated to him that compliments him on a 1932 bombing in Nahalal that killed a Jewish father and son. Here's a video praising him that includes a song in his honor.

Palestinian nationalism and antisemitism are two sides of the same coin.

(full article online)









						83 years ago: A massacre at Tiberias, Arabs murder 19 Jews - 11 of whom were children
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Even now, scholars haven't determined the reason for the rampage.  The Muslim version was that a Jew was drunk and insulted Islam.  The Jewish community disputed that.  What is undeniable is that the Arabs hated the Jews and any excuse was enough for them to massacre their innocent Jewish neighbors. 

What is also undeniable is that this attack had nothing to do with Zionism. 

The JTA quotes here were incomplete and whitewashed the real horror: "A scene of utter desolation and horror, of Jewish girls with their breasts cut off, of little children with numerous knife wounds and of whole families locked in their homes and burned to death."

Arabs and Muslims love to claim that Jews lived in peace and harmony with them until Zionism. That is garbage.  The Jews always knew that they were second class citizens and that one wrong move could spark a pogrom like this one.

Notice also that even in 1934, the media would "both sides" a massacre of Arabs to Jews, claiming it was fighting between two sides and not a one sided massacre.

This was not the only Muslim pogrom of Jews in 1934. Only two months earlier, in the Thrace region  of Turkey, Jews were attacked mercilessly and some 15,000 were forced to flee the area.


(full article online)









						Arabs didn't blame their Algerian pogrom of 1934 on Zionism
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Palestinian Wafa news agency reports:




> The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates and the Chief Islamic Justice, Mahmoud Habbash, today condemned the intention of American Zionist groups to hold a ceremony at Mammilla cemetery in West Jerusalem, considering it a desecration of the Islamic graveyard and a flagrant violation of international law and conventions.
> 
> They said in two separate statements that the historic cemetery includes the remains of Muslim leaders and residents of Jerusalem who have been buried there for more than a thousand years.


The ceremony is for the Museum of Tolerance. 

Iranian media is already trying to turn this into major incitement.

I looked at this issue 11 years ago, and unearth this Palestine Post article from November 22, 1945::

-------



> An area of over 450 dunams in the heart of Jerusalem, now forming the Mamilla Cemetery, is to be converted into a business centre. The townplan is being completed under the supervision of the Supreme Moslem Council in conjunction with the Government Town Planning Adviser. A six-storeyed building to house the Supreme Moslem Council and other offices, a four-storeyed hotel, a bank and other buildings suitable for it, a college, a club and a factory are to be the main structures. There will also be a park to be called the Salah ed Din Park, after the Moslem warrior of Crusader times.
> 
> ...In an interview with "Al-Wihda." the Jerusalem weekly, a member of the Supreme Moslem Council stated that the use of Moslem cemeteries in the public interest had many precedents both in Palestine and elsewhere....





> The member added that the Supreme Moslem Council intended to publish a statement containing dispensations by Egyptian, Hejazi and Damascene clerics sanctioning the building programme.




The Supreme Muslim Council said that building on the cemetery was perfectly halal in 1945, and they even received support from Muslim clerics in Egypt and Saudi Arabia to build on top of these supposedly thousand year old graves. 

Of course, the Museum of Tolerance was not built on top of a single grave. Court rulings consistently found that the graves had been moved years before. 

There are few examples of Palestinian Arab hypocrisy more stark than how they themselves wanted to treat Mamilla Cemetery and their hysterical reactions to how Jews treat it in a far more respectful way.

One final piece of hypocrisy is how the Mufti himself acted when he built his own Palace hotel across the street from the cemetery. 

He redirected hotel sewage on the graves. 

(full article online)









						Palestinians upset over Jews having a ceremony on a former cemetery that Muslims deconsecrated in the 1940s
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Yair Rosenberg points to a 2011 Jewish Telegraphic Agency article that shows one reason the Western world didn't know about the Holocaust.

In JTA's words:




> At no time in history were JTA correspondents more needed than during the 12 long years of the Hitler regime. The JTA reported on the persecution and then the annihilation of Europe’s Jews, often providing the first, and sometimes the only, reports on the unfolding Holocaust. And at no time did its correspondents face more peril to their livelihood and lives.
> 
> As soon as Hitler came to power in 1933, problems began for the agency. It was, after all, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in a country that was determined to deprive all Jews of their rights. The agency faced the Nazi regime’s physical attacks on its operations and rhetorical attacks on its journalistic integrity. “Much of the JTA’s superb reporting from Germany … was labeled Jewish anti-Nazi propaganda,” JTA’s founder and editor, Jacob Landau, explained years later in a report to the JTA board.
> 
> The German government was not the agency’s only problem.
> 
> “About 1933 …a resistance began to develop in the world press to acceptance of news involving Jews and others from what was considered a partisan (Jewish) source,” Landau wrote.
> 
> The New York Times dropped the service in 1937 despite repeated entreaties from JTA editors. The Associated Press followed suit. So many non-Jewish newspapers canceled that the agency felt compelled to form the Overseas News Agency so it could report from Europe under a non-Jewish moniker.
> 
> Still, JTA maintained its mission of serving as “the eyes and ears of world Jewry.” To the rest of the press, the destruction of Europe’s Jews was a secondary story, buried deep within newspapers. To the JTA, the extermination campaign was the story. As Germany marched into Austria and then into Czechoslovakia and other European countries, JTA correspondents chronicled the ensuing anti-Semitic legislation, property confiscations, sporadic violence, work formations, round-ups, and deportations.



 At the very time that the US and the world needed accurate reports about the impending genocide of Jews in Europe, the major news agencies decided to no longer trust the Jewish news agency that they had used for decades - because it couldn't be unbiased.

That decision is based on antisemitism, saying that Jews cannot accurately report about other Jews.

Who knows how many lives could have been saved if Americans could have been reading about the Holocaust a year or two earlier than they did?

I found an example of the media's skepticism of JTA's objectivity in this January 1940 article about how difficult it was for Western reporters to know what Germany had done to Poland, because the only sources were from Polish, Catholic and Jewish sources.

(full article online)









						Another kind of antisemitism: Not believing Jewish media can be objective. It happened in 1937 by @AP and the @NYTimes.
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

At the turn of the last century, every few years, Arabs in Morocco decided to kill their local Jews.

March 7, 1898:




July 29, 1903:






August 9, 1907, articles from Casablanca and Mazagan:

(full article online)









						Arabs habitually murdered Jews in Morocco 1898-1907
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


>


Was this family in the middle of fighting the Jews after Israel declared Independence?

If they were, and fought and killed Jews in order to destroy Israel, which was re constructed legally ON the Jewish homeland, then they.....and all the other Arabs who participated in attacking and attempting to destroy Israel and murdering all the Jews.....have no one but themselves to blame for listening to their Arab leaders in attacking, or being told by their leaders to leave until the Jews were destroyed.

The "Nakba" occured because Arabs listened to the Husseini clan and started riots and attacking and murdering Jews and refusing a Jewish sovereign State 
ON Jewish land.

78% had already been stolen by the British to give to the Hashemite Arab clan, now they were fighting to steal the rest from the Jews and make them homeless or dead.  As dead as the 6 Million Jews in Europe who could have been saved had it not been by Husseini and the British not allowing Jews to return to their homeland.

Shame on you and JVP for your worthless re writing of  History.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Israel - Palestine Conflict, explained​


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> The Israel - Palestine Conflict, explained​


Zach Foster cannot explain the Israel -Palestine conflict because he washes out any and all Jewish history on the land, from it.


----------



## Sixties Fan

In _Jude the Obscure_, Hardy affirms the Jewish connection to Jerusalem when he details a trip by schoolchildren to see a model of the holy city. “It happened that the children were to be taken to Christminster to see an itinerant model of Jerusalem, to which schools were admitted at a penny a head in the interests of education.”
After walking around the model a few times, the pupils were bored. Realizing that this was the case, their school mistress Sue Bridehead commented, “I fancy we have had enough of Jerusalem,” she said, “considering we are not descended from Jews.”
Jerusalem, it was clear to Hardy, was Jewish indigenous territory. The Jews--and not Christians--were the inheritors of the Holy City. And in 1895, at least, there was no such thing as the West Bank. Places were apparently still known by their actual geographic designations:


> “[They] expressed their thoughts so strongly to the meeting that a blackboard was split, three panes of the school-windows were broken, an inkbottle was spilled over a town-councillor’s shirt-front, [and] a church-warden was dealt such a topper with the map of Palestine that his head went right through Samaria . . .”


Samaria! How do you like them apples? No "West Bank." No "Occupied Palestinian Territory," but Samaria: Jewish indigenous territory.

(full article online)









						Jude the Obscure: Thomas Hardy Affirms that Jerusalem Belongs to the Jews (Judean Rose)
					

Who knew? Thomas Hardy was a Zionist.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel, Palestine and the myth of the 'generous peace offers'​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel, Palestine and the myth of the 'generous peace offers'​



LOL!


----------



## Sixties Fan

Original documents belonging to Yemenite immigrants to Israel from the 1880s who lived in the Kfar HaShiloach neighborhood of Jerusalem were recently discovered and brought to light. The documents are thrilling testimonies of Jewish life in the neighborhood – known as Silwan in Arabic – situated right outside the walls of Jerusalem’s Old City.

The Jewish presence in Kfar HaShiloach dates back to 1881, when Yemenite Jews came to Jerusalem and established a community, and at its height ran five synagogues and numbered some 160 families.

Encountering Arab violence and attacks for several years, the community was forced to finally abandon the area in 1939, and the synagogues were desecrated by Muslim attackers.

Israel reunited its capital in 1967, and the Jews began to return to the area some 20 years ago, reacquiring one property after another, including some of the synagogues.

The newly discovered documents were part of an estate left by Mazal Cohen, a member of the Tabib family, a Palmach fighter who was a candidate to light a beacon in 2017 during Israel’s 69th Independence Day ceremony. They were handed over by her son Ronen Cohen to Gadi Bashari, chairman of the Kfar HaShiloach Public Council and member of the board of directors of the Zionist Archives.

Cohen recalled that while taking care of his late mother in her last months, he came across “a swollen bag of yellowing documents folded together.”

“Slowly, I separated the pile of documents, which included pictures that shed light on the story of the Tabib family in the Jewish village of Shiloach and the community life there. This revelation connected me and my family to my grandparents and the Yemenite community of Olim, who came among the pioneers of the First Aliyah and settled in the Shiloach village,” he explained.

(full article online)









						Uncovered Historical Documents Testify to Vibrant Jewish Life in Eastern Jerusalem Neighborhood | United with Israel
					

The Jewish presence in Kfar HaShiloach dates back to 1881, which at its height ran five synagogues and numbered some 160 families.




					unitedwithisrael.org


----------



## rylah

On This Day: Ottoman defeat in WWI | Battle of Beersheba​


October 31, 2021 marks 104 years since the Battle of Beersheba, a decisive victory in World War I for the British Army, consisting largely of Australian and New Zealand troops, marking an end to centuries of Ottoman rule in the country.

The battle saw the British forces coming off of multiple defeats against the Ottomans, specifically the disastrous Gallipoli campaign, a humiliating loss in the Battle of Kut in modern-day Iraq and then two losses in Gaza.

The commanding general of what had been dubbed the "Egyptian Expeditionary Force," Gen. Sir Archibald Murray, was replaced with Gen. Edmund Allenby, who had been given instructions to recapture Jerusalem by Christmas.

Read more:








						On This Day: Ottomans defeated in World War I's Battle of Beersheba
					

The  Battle of Beersheba broke the stalemate in the Middle East, helped fuel the Balfour Declaration and saw Australian troops launch one of history's last great cavalry charges.




					www.jpost.com


----------



## rylah

Happy Cyrus Day​*Remembering the Persian king who carried out God's promise to the Jews at the 1st Temple destruction and allowed them to return to Israel**.




*
October 29th has been designated as the international day of Cyrus the Great. It is indeed fascinating that after 2500 years, people still remember this trailblazer King for his actions which were revolutionary during his time.

Cyrus’s fame reached beyond his territory for his tolerance towards the countries and nations he subdued. It is cited time and again that he allowed people in his kingdom freedom of religion, freedom of worship and freedom to do as they please.

Read more - 








						Happy Cyrus Day
					

Remembering the Persian king who carried out God's promise to the Jews at the 1st Temple destruction and allowed them to return to Israel.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Zaquot then goes on to list the specific Arabs who sold large tracts of land to the Jews in the years after the Balfour Declaration. 

The Sursock family (Michel Sursock and his brothers) sold  400,000 dunams to the Jews.

The Salam family sold 165,000 dunams to the Jews,

The Tians, Qabbanis, Bayhem, Sabbagh, Al-Quwatli, Al-Jaza’iri and Mardini families, most of them from Lebanon, are listed as having sold thousands of dunams to the Jews. 

Given that Arabs like this author are steeped in an honor/shame mentality, why would he bring up this topic of shame that is rarely discussed in the Arab world? 

Because some of his fellow Arabs behaved in a way he considers honorable.

The author takes it as a given that those who sell lands to Jews should be killed. He brings a story of some of those heroes who murdered land sellers:



> Honorable Palestinians were strict in the issue of selling land, and they punished by death anyone who sold his land or worked as a broker to sell land. They exposed them to the public. The Arab press mentions the story of a broker from Jaffa who was shot dead while on his way to his house at night, and he was famous for brokering and selling land to the Jews. In the Muslim cemeteries, they transferred his body to the village of Qalqilya, his original town, and there was a reluctance to bury him in the Muslim cemetery. It was said that he was buried in a Jewish settlement called "Benjamina", and that his grave was exhumed at night and his body was dumped 20 meters away.


What a heartwarming story of Jew-hatred, vengeance and....honor!
Perhaps the current mainstream Arab anger at Lebanon is being manifested by trying to call the entire country traitors for having its richest people sell lands at a handsome profit to Jews in the 1910s-20s.

He doesn't  mention that most of the lands sold were considered uncultivable. Last year I noted that maps of swamp areas in 1920s Palestine largely coincided with the areas Jews built up.




The land was not only legally bought by the Jews, but they worked hard to make it livable - which the "honorable Arabs" didn't consider important enough to do.

(full article online)









						Arab writer admits Arab "traitors" sold land to the Jews in the 1920s (and he's proud of Arabs that murdered them)
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

The right to self-determination is an inalienable right enjoyed by all peoples indiscriminately. It has been confirmed as such in Art. 1 (2) of the United Nations Charter and in numerous other international documents. The many resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly and the establishment of the UN “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” by the Assembly in 1975[1] are clear proof of the general recognition of this right in regard to the people of Palestine.[2] The Palestinians have enjoyed this right – as a natural right – not just since the time after the Second World War, but since a time well before the collapse of the 19th century order in the course of the First World War. As rightly stated by the eminent Palestinian scholar Henry Cattan, the Palestinians already existed as a distinct Arab people with inalienable rights during the Ottoman rule over Palestine.[3] According to Article 22 (4) of the Covenant of the League of Nations, at the end of World War I and in the course of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian people was seen as a community whose existence as an independent nation could be “provisionally recognized.”[4] The drafters of the Covenant of the League of Nations based their legal notion of the _mandate_, especially in regard to the territories formerly under Turkish rule, on the assumption of national sovereignty of peoples “not yet able to stand by themselves” (Art. 22 [1]).[5]



			Palestinian-Israeli Conflict


----------



## RoccoR

RE:   The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Self-Determination and the Inalienable Right → what does it all mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

*BLUF*:   The pro-Arab Palestinian Contingent periodically brings these closely dependent issues up for discussion.  And the state these issues as if some external power took aright away from them.



P F Tinmore said:


> The right to self-determination is an inalienable right enjoyed by all peoples indiscriminately. It has been confirmed as such in Art. 1 (2) of the United Nations Charter and in numerous other international documents.


*(COMMENT)*

While the "numerous other international documents" are not binding, the UN Charter is a binding agreement between the members.  And the UN Charter does NOT mention "self-determination of the people" as an INALIENABLE RIGHT. This is an exaggerated claim by the Arab Palestinians as → inflation (_misinformation that leads the reader to believe that there is a violation of some sort_) of what the "binding" aspect actually imparts.

​

			
				Chapter I • Article 1(2) said:
			
		

> Article 1 (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;
> SOURCE LINK:  UN Charter




The references below are examples of the 

*References*
----------------------------------------
A/RES/35/169(A-E). 15 December 1980
A/RES/49/148. 7 February 1995
A/RES/37/43. 3 December 1982


P F Tinmore said:


> As rightly stated by the eminent Palestinian scholar Henry Cattan, the Palestinians already existed as a distinct Arab people with inalienable rights during the Ottoman rule over Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

As discussed on numerous occasions, the actual designation for the region claiming to be "a distinct Arab people with inalienable rights during the Ottoman rule" is again, misinformation (intended to deceive) and a mistake in facts.



​As anyone can plainly see, the designation of "Palestine" is not on the Ottoman Empire Map of administrative divisions.  This is, in part, the Territory to which the Mandate Applied (Short Title Palestine) was a British Government delineation "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them."

Again, don't let the pro-Arab Palestinians fool up with their nonsense.  It is like a child writing a term paper without doing any fact-checking.



P F Tinmore said:


> According to Article 22 (4) of the Covenant of the League of Nations, at the end of World War I and in the course of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian people was seen as a community whose existence as an independent nation could be “provisionally recognized.”


*(COMMENT)*

Yet again, no fact-checking, and this is definitely an intentional misrepresentation of the facts.  Article 22 of *The League of Nations Covenant* (1919) is composed of nine separate and distinct ideas.  Not only is Palestine NOT mentioned in Article 22, Palestine was NOT mentioned anywhere in the entire Covenant.

What the writer here is trying to pass off as fact, is probably based on the phrase found in Article 22 (4):  ("_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._")

But this doesn't apply to the Arab Palestinians.  In the time between the Covenant being written and the Treaty of Lausanne being signed, the Arab Palestinians declined to "be brought into cooperation with the government."  (_Paragraph 22,_
_A/AC.14/8. 2 October 1947_)



P F Tinmore said:


> The drafters of the Covenant of the League of Nations based their legal notion of the _mandate_, especially in regard to the territories formerly under Turkish rule, on the assumption of national sovereignty of peoples “not yet able to stand by themselves” (Art. 22 [1]).


*(COMMENT)*

In the over 100 years since the League of Nations Covenant was signed, the Arab Palestinians are still very much dependent on donor nations to remain afloat as a government.  In that time, the consequence of the poor choices made by the Arab Palestinians had a direct impact on their plight today.  You can draw a direct line between the decisions made in the 1920s and the outcomes we see today in the corruption of the Ramallah and Gaza Governments.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

“The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which *sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] *This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]



			Palestinian-Israeli Conflict


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which *sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] *This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-Israeli Conflict



The Arabs really fucked it up, didn't they?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The right to self-determination is an inalienable right enjoyed by all peoples indiscriminately. It has been confirmed as such in Art. 1 (2) of the United Nations Charter and in numerous other international documents. The many resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly and the establishment of the UN “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” by the Assembly in 1975[1] are clear proof of the general recognition of this right in regard to the people of Palestine.[2] The Palestinians have enjoyed this right – as a natural right – not just since the time after the Second World War, but since a time well before the collapse of the 19th century order in the course of the First World War. As rightly stated by the eminent Palestinian scholar Henry Cattan, the Palestinians already existed as a distinct Arab people with inalienable rights during the Ottoman rule over Palestine.[3] According to Article 22 (4) of the Covenant of the League of Nations, at the end of World War I and in the course of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinian people was seen as a community whose existence as an independent nation could be “provisionally recognized.”[4] The drafters of the Covenant of the League of Nations based their legal notion of the _mandate_, especially in regard to the territories formerly under Turkish rule, on the assumption of national sovereignty of peoples “not yet able to stand by themselves” (Art. 22 [1]).[5]
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-Israeli Conflict





P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians have enjoyed this right – as a natural right – not just since the time after the Second World War, but since a time well before the collapse of the 19th century order in the course of the First World War. As rightly stated by the eminent Palestinian scholar Henry Cattan, the Palestinians already existed as a distinct Arab people with inalienable rights during the Ottoman rule over Palestine.[3]



If Arabs claim to have enjoyed self-determination under the rule of the Ottoman Caliphate -
then their vision of self-determination has never been of independence or sovereignty,
as they had none under that foreign feudal rule.

Then what is their goal really,
independence or Arab-Muslim supremacy?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which *sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] *This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
> 
> 
> 
> Palestinian-Israeli Conflict



It's your classic colonialist argument - because you change the inhabitants and claim they're sovereign,
rather than a specific nation with the historic and legal title.

Question rather - how do you decolonize a country
arguing to remain another colony of Arab - Muslim imperialism?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Self-Determination and the Inalienable Right → what does it all mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The International Progress Organization (IPO) Research Paper IS NOT LAW.  It does not override the decisions made by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920).



P F Tinmore said:


> “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which *sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] *This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]


*(COMMENT)*

First, the determination of "who is an inhabitant" is temporally subjective.  In 1945, the inhabitants of the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was the summation of all those people having permanent residents.  That included the Jewish People.

Secondly, those same Jewish People established a successful state under the Right of Self-Determination which is extended to all people.  And this was not inconsistent with the decisions of the Allied Powers in 1920.

Today's interpretations of what has now become the Arab Palestinian mantra cannot be retroactively applied to a time when such theories (or principles) were not commonly accepted.  These same theories (or principles) cannot be considered acceptable if there was no chance of the Jewish National Home objective would have surely been destroyed by a dominant Arab Population.  And, it is a mentally deficient set of logical principles that considered rolling back the decisions made a century ago to accommodate the poor political decisions made by an inept Arab Palestinian leadership in the early years of the 20th Century.

You can call up all the research you want.  It does not change the reality that no political decision made today will be accepted if it destabilizes the most successful nation in the Middle East Region is creating a regional war.  And the Israeli people are not going to just roll over and allow the Jewish National Home to be overrun by the least successful and most corrupt people (with the possible exception of the Syrians) in the region.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Self-Determination and the Inalienable Right → what does it all mean?
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF: The International Progress Organization (IPO) Research Paper IS NOT LAW.  It does not override the decisions made by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920).
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, the determination of "who is an inhabitant" is temporally subjective.  In 1945, the inhabitants of the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was the summation of all those people having permanent residents.  That included the Jewish People.
> 
> Secondly, those same Jewish People established a successful state under the Right of Self-Determination which is extended to all people.  And this was not inconsistent with the decisions of the Allied Powers in 1920.
> 
> Today's interpretations of what has now become the Arab Palestinian mantra cannot be retroactively applied to a time when such theories (or principles) were not commonly accepted.  These same theories (or principles) cannot be considered acceptable if there was no chance of the Jewish National Home objective would have surely been destroyed by a dominant Arab Population.  And, it is a mentally deficient set of logical principles that considered rolling back the decisions made a century ago to accommodate the poor political decisions made by an inept Arab Palestinian leadership in the early years of the 20th Century.
> 
> You can call up all the research you want.  It does not change the reality that no political decision made today will be accepted if it destabilizes the most successful nation in the Middle East Region is creating a regional war.  And the Israeli people are not going to just roll over and allow the Jewish National Home to be overrun by the least successful and most corrupt people (with the possible exception of the Syrians) in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Your usual smear piece



RoccoR said:


> Today's interpretations of what has now become the Arab Palestinian mantra cannot be retroactively applied to a time when such theories (or principles) were not commonly accepted.


The right to self determination is an inalienable right in Palestine. (A territory defined by international borders.) Neither the Mandate nor anyone else can alienate it.
.


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Self-Determination and the Inalienable Right → what does it all mean?
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> BLUF: The International Progress Organization (IPO) Research Paper IS NOT LAW.  It does not override the decisions made by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920).
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> First, the determination of "who is an inhabitant" is temporally subjective.  In 1945, the inhabitants of the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was the summation of all those people having permanent residents.  That included the Jewish People.
> 
> Secondly, those same Jewish People established a successful state under the Right of Self-Determination which is extended to all people.  And this was not inconsistent with the decisions of the Allied Powers in 1920.
> 
> Today's interpretations of what has now become the Arab Palestinian mantra cannot be retroactively applied to a time when such theories (or principles) were not commonly accepted.  These same theories (or principles) cannot be considered acceptable if there was no chance of the Jewish National Home objective would have surely been destroyed by a dominant Arab Population.  And, it is a mentally deficient set of logical principles that considered rolling back the decisions made a century ago to accommodate the poor political decisions made by an inept Arab Palestinian leadership in the early years of the 20th Century.
> 
> You can call up all the research you want.  It does not change the reality that no political decision made today will be accepted if it destabilizes the most successful nation in the Middle East Region is creating a regional war.  And the Israeli people are not going to just roll over and allow the Jewish National Home to be overrun by the least successful and most corrupt people (with the possible exception of the Syrians) in the region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R



All this marry go round with people like P F Tinmore
is only meant to detract us here from any real discussion,
for a variety of selfish motives as greed and group approval.

The question remains - of quantity vs quality, conformity vs critical thinking,
and the potential of using our individuality and talents constructively.
I think we should not underappreciate that.

At the end of the day - our critical mass and individualism,
with the nonconformist nature of Israel are more influential than their Populism.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Self-Determination and the Inalienable Right → what does it all mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> The right to self determination is an inalienable right in Palestine. (A territory defined by international borders.) Neither the Mandate nor anyone else can alienate it.
> .


*(COMMENT)*

There is no record of a nation of Palestine.  No Palestinian Government has staked out a territory in its name.

And never forget!  The Israeli People have the very same rights as the Palestinians claim.  There is no special provision that makes the Arab Palestinian a notch above the Israeli's.

And of course, any right can tag the adjective "inalienable" to it.  It doesn't make it special.  Rights are defined by man → not supernaturally.  There are many "rights" defined by man.  But the rights in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and the US are different in each case.  They may have all signed the covenant, but then don't all interpret it or apply it the same way.

Show me the law that enforces "inalienable."





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> No Palestinian Government has staked out a territory in its name.


Rights belong to the inhabitants not to any state or government.

Look it up.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Rights belong to the inhabitants not to any state or government.
> 
> Look it up.



Inhabitants are individuals,
but the rights are as well national.

Does an individual lose national rights
when inhabiting another country?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Your usual smear piece
> 
> 
> The right to self determination is an inalienable right in Palestine. (A territory defined by international borders.) Neither the Mandate nor anyone else can alienate it.
> .



Who's _"inalienable self-determination"_,
do Arabs have a right to their Caliphate,
or Kurds the right to Kurdistan in Palestine?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Civil and Political Rights
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> Rights belong to the inhabitants not to any state or government.
> 
> Look it up.


*(COMMENT)*
.
I do not believe anyone argued against that point.  

What was stated in my own words was derived from:


			
				CCPR said:
			
		

> The States Parties  (





			
				CCPR said:
			
		

> _ie States and Governments_) to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and *shall respect that right*, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.




The  "*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*" (CCPR) is an agreement that enjoins the signatories to respect the Rights of the Israelis to exercise their CCPR and to form their own self-governing institutions to include the Jewish State.  The Israelis today are inhabitants of the territory over which they have established "sovereignty."  They have:

◈ ) a permanent population; ​◈ ) a defined territory; ​◈ ) government; and ​◈) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​
No matter what the argument raised, there is nothing that the Arab Palestinian can put forth that can take their nation away.  N O T H I N G *!*

And the Arab Palestinians have, for over 100 years, attempting to obstruct the reconstituting the national home for the Jewish people within the territory formerly under the mandate.

It is done.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The "*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*" (CCPR) is an agreement that enjoins the signatories to respect the Rights of the Israelis to exercise their CCPR and to form their own self-governing institutions to include the Jewish State.


Israel was not mentioned.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> ◈ ) a permanent population; ◈ ) a defined territory; ◈ ) government;


Israel's "permanent" population was recent colonial settlers.
Israel still has no defined territory.
Israel's government was foreign imposed against the wishes of the majority of the population.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's "permanent" population was recent colonial settlers.
> Israel still has no defined territory.
> Israel's government was foreign imposed against the wishes of the majority of the population.



You float these same phony claims despite the fact that they’re demonstrably false.

Phony Islamist propaganda doesn’t become true with multiplied instances of cutting and pasting the same phony propaganda.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Civil and Political Rights
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



RoccoR said:


> ◈ ) a permanent population; ​◈ ) a defined territory; ​◈ ) government; and ​◈) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​





P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's "permanent" population was recent colonial settlers.
> Israel still has no defined territory.
> Israel's government was foreign imposed against the wishes of the majority of the population.


*(COMMENT)*
.
The Israelis are recognized around the world.  



​Israel has defined it territory by borders markers. I have no doubt that the Arab Palestinians have notice the "_by means of cairns of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on_."



			
				Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law said:
			
		

> delimitation ‘It is common practice to distinguish delimitation and demarcation of a boundary. The former denotes description of the alignment in a treaty or other written source, or by means of a line marked on a map or chart. Demarcation denotes the means by which the described alignment is noted, or evidenced, on the ground, by means of cairns of stones, concrete pillars, beacons of various kinds, cleared roads in scrub, and so on. The principle of the distinction is clear enough, but the usage of the draftsman of the particular international agreement or political spokesman may not be consistent. In fact the terms are sometimes used to mean the same thing’: Brownlie, African Boundaries. A Legal and Diplomatic Encyclopaedia ( 1979 ).


The Israelis have had democratic governments regime changes seven times by free elections.  It makes no difference how you describe the Israeli government.  It only means something to the Israelis.
.


P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was not mentioned.
> 
> 
> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "_International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights_" (CCPR) is an agreement that enjoins the signatories to respect the Rights of the Israelis to exercise their CCPR and to form their own self-governing institutions to include the Jewish State.
Click to expand...

*(COMMENT)*

No government (state or nation) is mentioned in the CCPR.  The CCPR applies all signatories equally; which Israel is.   However, Countries which have both Signed and Ratified this document do not include Palestine.  So, while Israel is obligated, the Arab Palestinians are not.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> You float these same phony claims despite the fact that they’re demonstrably false.
> 
> Phony Islamist propaganda doesn’t become true with multiplied instances of cutting and pasting the same phony propaganda.


What is not true?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> What is not true?



That your exact definition of colonialism
does not fit Arabs with their political goals...


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Israel has defined it territory by borders markers.


Israel's "defined borders" are the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were *specifically not *to be political or territorial boundaries.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's "defined borders" are the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were *specifically not *to be political or territorial boundaries.


That’s the same phony argument you cut and paste in multiple threads.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's "defined borders" are the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were *specifically not *to be political or territorial boundaries.



First is a misconception.
Second is correct,  regrading the political and territorial borders,
defined by international law with *re-constitution* of the Jewish nation remain intact.

Question rather the supremacist demand for exclusive Arab domination
help decolonize Africa and various Mediterranean countries?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> That’s the same phony argument you cut and paste in multiple threads.


It's true. Read the Armistice Agreements.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> That your exact definition of colonialism
> does not fit Arabs with their political goals...


Deflection.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> It's true. Read the Armistice Agreements.


It’s not true. Read the Armistice agreements.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's "defined borders" are the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were *specifically not *to be political or territorial boundaries.


I find it hilarious to watch you contradict your own cut and paste arguments.

How is it that Israel’s “defined borders” are the 1949 armistice lines when you claim that those armistice lines were *specifically not *to be political or territorial boundaries.

What is a “defined border”?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Deflection.



And yet your definition of colonialism
fits Arabs and their exact goals
in the Levant and Africa.

What is not true?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Israelis have had democratic governments regime changes seven times by free elections.


Israel was established by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. The project was funded by foreign money.

Of the 37 people who signed Israel's Declaration of Independence, only one was born in country and he was the son of settlers.

One third of the people wanted a Jewish state. Two thirds did not. It is amazing what you can do at the point of a gun.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> I find it hilarious to watch you contradict your own cut and paste arguments.
> 
> How is it that Israel’s “defined borders” are the 1949 armistice lines when you claim that those armistice lines were *specifically not *to be political or territorial boundaries.
> 
> What is a “defined border”?





Hollie said:


> What is a “defined border”?


Something Israel does not have.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> It's true. Read the Armistice Agreements.



That not a single Palestinian signed? LOL!


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Something Israel does not have.


Nice dance.

It’s still funny watching you dismantle the argument you cut and paste.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel was established by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. The project was funded by foreign money.
> 
> Of the 37 people who signed Israel's Declaration of Independence, only one was born in country and he was the son of settlers.
> 
> One third of the people wanted a Jewish state. Two thirds did not. It is amazing what you can do at the point of a gun.



The *Arab Congress of 1913* (also known as the "Arab National Congress,[1]" "First Palestinian Conference," the "First Arab Congress,[2]" and the "Arab-Syrian Congress[3]") met in a hall
of the French Société de Géographie on June 18–23* in Paris *









						Arab Congress of 1913 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> Something Israel does not have.








I rest my case.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> I rest my case.



If this is your case then you've just contradicted it -
admitting these are neither territorial nor political lines.

What remains intact are the international borders defined for Jewish re-constitution.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> I rest my case.


What case did you rest?

What you cut and pasted was: Israel's "defined borders" are the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

Did you not realize the contradiction?

Do you not read what you cut and paste?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Civil and Political Rights
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> It's true. Read the Armistice Agreements.


*(COMMENT)*

This is misinformation.

You are trying to imply that the Armistice is used as an authority for the borders.

That is totally incorrect.  The Treaties recognize the international borders.  And the Treaty can use any set of lines it wants.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## rylah




----------



## Mac-7

Coyote said:


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


What is your problem?

Israel is a fact and complaining about it now is just a waste of time


----------



## rylah




----------



## Coyote

Mac-7 said:


> What is your problem?
> 
> Israel is a fact and complaining about it now is just a waste of time


What are you talking about?


----------



## rylah




----------



## rylah

*The Jews of MENA - From Dhimmitude to Independence *

www.MiddleEastStudio.com
They were more than a million Jews. Between 1946 and 1974, this million is the number of forgotten fugitives, expelled from the Arab world, and whom history would like to forget, while the victims themselves have hidden their fate under a veil of modesty. The Jews have been living in Arabic lands for thousands of years and seemed to accept their fate forever, some even considering their survival as a miracle.

But 1948, the beginning of their exodus, was also the birth of the State of Israel. And, while the Arab armies were preparing to invade the young refugee-country, while the survivors of the Shoah were piling up in dangerous boats to fulfill at last the return to the land of their dreams and their prayers, a few hundred thousand Arabs from Palestine were getting ready to flee their home, convinced that they would return as winners and conquerors.

They were soon going to fill up the refugee camps built on their brothers’ land, and – because of their refusal to integrate – pass on their refugee status to the next generations. But the Jews did not get any special status like them. They had just returned to the Land of their fathers

And if they came from Aden, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Morocco, Tunisia or Libya, if they had lost everything and sometimes even relatives, memories and cemeteries, it is in Israel and the west that they were ready to rebuild their lives. Without ever asking for any compensation, any right to return, or even wishing that their story be told…


----------



## rylah

*Mizrahi Heritage Month - Historic Crossroads | Damascus Bloodlibel*

The *Damascus affair* of 1840 refers to the arrest of several notable members of the Jewish community in Damascus on the accusation of murdering Father Thomas, a Christian monk, and his servant for the purpose of using their blood to bake matzo, an anti-semitic accusation also known as the blood libel.

The accused were imprisoned and interrogated under torture by the Egyptian governor of Damascus, after which they confessed to the murder. In the aftermath of the incident, Christian and Muslim violence against the Jewish population increased.

Egyptian YouTuber Tamer Hawas Recounts 19th Century Damascus Blood Libel​

In a new and groundbreaking effort, the American Jewish community of 15,000 protested in six American cities on behalf of their Syrian brethren. "For the first time in American Jewish life, Jews organized themselves politically to help Diaspora Jewry in distress.". With this incident, they became involved in the politics of foreign policy, persuading President Van Buren to protest officially.

According to Hasia R. Diner,  "For the Jews, the Damascus affair launched modern Jewish politics on an international scale, and for American Jews it represented their first effort at creating a distinctive
political agenda.

Read more -








						The Murder in Damascus: The Blood Libel in Modern Times
					






					www.facinghistory.org


----------



## Sixties Fan

In 1936, an Indian Muslim group sent a letter to the British Viceroy there accusing Great Britain of anti-Arab behavior in Palestine.

This Palestine Post article doesn't quote the original letter, but the response summarizes the wild accusations. More importantly, it refutes some lies that have remained even 85 years later.

First of all, although the letter doesn't say it explicitly, it broadly implies that Arab immigration to Palestine - non-existent before 1919 - had exploded after Jews arrived, with the Arab population increasing by over 50% in only 14 years - and most of those Arabs moved to be near Jews and the booming economy that the Jews brought.

Secondly, the response notes that rather than Jewish farming taking away from Arab farming yields, the size of Arab citrus fields more than doubled in four years. Again, this was probably due to improved farming techniques and increased opportunities for export.













						Great Britain answering Muslim lies about Palestine in 1936
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The anti-Israel crowd is going nuts over this tweet:





There have been hundreds of angry responses and quote tweets, most over-the-top but few actually addressing the issue.




No, the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism cannot in any way make it illegal to say the word "nakba." 

Is the word "nakba" itself antisemitic?

Originally, "nakba" in the context of Palestine was coined by Syrian historian Constantin Zureiq to describe Israel's defeat of combined Arab armies. “The defeat of the Arabs in Palestine is not a small downfall – _naksa _… It is a catastrophe – _nakba _– in every sense of the word....Seven Arab countries declare war on Zionism in Palestine….Seven countries go to war to abolish the partition and to defeat Zionism, and quickly leave the battle after losing much of the land of Palestine – even the part that was given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan.”

Nothing about Palestinian Arabs or refugees. The word described the shame of Arab armies losing a war to the Jews after bragging about their inevitable great victory. Zureiq intended to have the Arab world take responsibility for it mistakes.

Certainly, the original meaning of "nakba" could not be considered antisemitic. It was a word of shame and of resolve, but not of hate. It is not tied to Israel or Jews at all.

Over time, though, the term changed. The PLO originally stayed away from using the word, as it wanted to give the impression of victory through revolution and not emphasizing shameful loss. Most Palestinians didn't latch onto that term for decades. 

As time went on, though, and the world started to give brownie points to the oppressed, the PLO decided that this was a role it could enthusiastically take. The meaning of the word changed from "the shameful defeat of the Arab world in 1948" to "the disaster that happened to Palestinians in 1948 as a result of Israel becoming a state."  

Yasir Arafat only declared "Nakba Day" in 1998 - specifically as a response to Israel's 50th anniversary, and specifically choosing the date to coincide with the anniversary of Israel's independence. Thousands of Palestinians fled their homes as early as December 1947, and some (although a minority) were indeed expelled during the war. Other dates could have been considered for Nakba Day, such as the anniversary of the Deir Yassin events. But Arafat chose to commemorate the date that Israel became a state, tying the Nakba to Israel's very existence.

In Arabic, "nakba" is often defined as the birth of Israel without mentioning anything else..

That is indeed antisemitic.

(full article online)





__





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

Israel's "defined borders" are the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.  I find it hilarious to watch you contradict your own cut and paste arguments.  How is it that Israel’s “defined borders” are the 1949 armistice lines...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Civil and Political Rights
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> I do not believe anyone argued against that point.
> 
> What was stated in my own words was derived from:
> 
> 
> The  "*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*" (CCPR) is an agreement that enjoins the signatories to respect the Rights of the Israelis to exercise their CCPR and to form their own self-governing institutions to include the Jewish State.  The Israelis today are inhabitants of the territory over which they have established "sovereignty."  They have:
> 
> ◈ ) a permanent population; ​◈ ) a defined territory; ​◈ ) government; and ​◈) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​
> No matter what the argument raised, there is nothing that the Arab Palestinian can put forth that can take their nation away.  N O T H I N G *!*
> 
> And the Arab Palestinians have, for over 100 years, attempting to obstruct the reconstituting the national home for the Jewish people within the territory formerly under the mandate.
> 
> It is done.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R





> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> Rights belong to the inhabitants not to any state or government.
> 
> Look it up.


*(COMMENT)*
.


> I do not believe anyone argued against that point.



You do all the time. You say that the Palestinians have no rights because they don't have a "state."


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> The anti-Israel crowd is going nuts over this tweet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been hundreds of angry responses and quote tweets, most over-the-top but few actually addressing the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism cannot in any way make it illegal to say the word "nakba."
> 
> Is the word "nakba" itself antisemitic?
> 
> Originally, "nakba" in the context of Palestine was coined by Syrian historian Constantin Zureiq to describe Israel's defeat of combined Arab armies. “The defeat of the Arabs in Palestine is not a small downfall – _naksa _… It is a catastrophe – _nakba _– in every sense of the word....Seven Arab countries declare war on Zionism in Palestine….Seven countries go to war to abolish the partition and to defeat Zionism, and quickly leave the battle after losing much of the land of Palestine – even the part that was given to the Arabs in the Partition Plan.”
> 
> Nothing about Palestinian Arabs or refugees. The word described the shame of Arab armies losing a war to the Jews after bragging about their inevitable great victory. Zureiq intended to have the Arab world take responsibility for it mistakes.
> 
> Certainly, the original meaning of "nakba" could not be considered antisemitic. It was a word of shame and of resolve, but not of hate. It is not tied to Israel or Jews at all.
> 
> Over time, though, the term changed. The PLO originally stayed away from using the word, as it wanted to give the impression of victory through revolution and not emphasizing shameful loss. Most Palestinians didn't latch onto that term for decades.
> 
> As time went on, though, and the world started to give brownie points to the oppressed, the PLO decided that this was a role it could enthusiastically take. The meaning of the word changed from "the shameful defeat of the Arab world in 1948" to "the disaster that happened to Palestinians in 1948 as a result of Israel becoming a state."
> 
> Yasir Arafat only declared "Nakba Day" in 1998 - specifically as a response to Israel's 50th anniversary, and specifically choosing the date to coincide with the anniversary of Israel's independence. Thousands of Palestinians fled their homes as early as December 1947, and some (although a minority) were indeed expelled during the war. Other dates could have been considered for Nakba Day, such as the anniversary of the Deir Yassin events. But Arafat chose to commemorate the date that Israel became a state, tying the Nakba to Israel's very existence.
> 
> In Arabic, "nakba" is often defined as the birth of Israel without mentioning anything else..
> 
> That is indeed antisemitic.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> Israel's "defined borders" are the 1949 armistice lines. The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.  I find it hilarious to watch you contradict your own cut and paste arguments.  How is it that Israel’s “defined borders” are the 1949 armistice lines...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com


The Nakba and the 1948 war were two separate events.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> 
> 
> You do all the time. You say that the Palestinians have no rights because they don't have a "state."


You have difficulty paying attention.


----------



## Sixties Fan

I just found this description of Jerusalem written in 1909 that described an incident earlier that year. 

The author was Frederic J. Haskin, who was a prominent journalist and author, well known for a newspaper feature where people would ask him questions and he and his staff would find the answers.

I find it hard to believe this story is true, but if it is, it is remarkable. (Notice the antisemitism alongside the sympathy for Jews.)



From the Salt Lake Herald-Republican, December 26, 1909:











						Was there a day of religious freedom in Jerusalem in 1909?
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Mandate for Palestine had to conform to what was intended in the San Remo Resolution. This meant that, as the Mandatory over Palestine, Britain was legally obligated with implementing the terms of the Balfour Declaration. The primary purpose of the Mandate for Palestine was to grant political rights to the Jews in Palestine so that reconstitution of their national homeland would be possible.

Although the League of Nations was superseded by the United Nations following WWII, Article 80 of the UN Charter stipulated that the UN would not alter existing states, peoples or mandates. This meant that the UN preserved and recognized the legal right for the establishment of a Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which was the boundary of the Mandate for Palestine.

Additionally, this boundary delineated Israel’s borders; under the customary international law doctrine of uti possidetis juris, newly forming countries acquire their pre-independence administrative borders.

In 1947, Britain resigned as the “mandatory” and gave control over to the United Nations. The UNGA passed Resolution 181 in November of that year, recommending the partition of the land into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem and the areas surrounding it placed under international control.

However, Resolution 181 did not declare statehood, as all UN General Assembly resolutions are non-binding recommendations that carry no force of law. Instead, Resolution 181, as former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold stated, “provided international legitimacy for the Jewish claim to statehood.” Gold stated that what establishes countries is declarations of independence as opposed to actions in the UN. Israel would declare its independence on May 14, 1948.

As of today, the Mandate for Palestine also provides legal rights for any claims Israel has to the disputed West Bank. Eugene Rostow, former US under secretary of state and Yale Law School dean, commented that the West Bank is an “unallocated part of the British Mandate.”

(full article online)









						Did Resolution 181 create the State of Israel? - opinion
					

Israel’s true legal foundation can be traced to the Balfour Declaration and the international documents that it was incorporated into and that are still in effect today with respect to the West Bank.




					www.jpost.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> This meant that the UN preserved and recognized the legal right for the establishment of a Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, which was the boundary of the Mandate for Palestine.


Where does it say that?

Quote with Link?

BTW, Resolution 181 was never implemented. It did not create or authorize anything.

The mandate was not a place. It was an administration. It has no boundary.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Where does it say that?
> 
> Quote with Link?
> 
> BTW, Resolution 181 was never implemented. It did not create or authorize anything.
> 
> The mandate was not a place. It was an administration. It has no boundary.




In the sentence, right before the one you quoted, Article 80 UN charter:








						United Nations Charter (full text) | United Nations
					






					www.un.org
				




Indeed, the mandate was not a place, rather a legal instrument attached to a place.
And since 181 was not implemented, no Arab state was authorized between the
river and the sea, with the sovereignty remaining vested with the Jewish nation.

In other words, this right, to re-constitute the Jewish nation - goes ad infinitum.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> In the sentence, right before the one you quoted, Article 80 UN charter:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations Charter (full text) | United Nations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the mandate was not a place, rather a legal instrument attached to a place.
> And since 181 was not implemented, no Arab state was authorized between the
> river and the sea, with the sovereignty remaining vested with the Jewish nation.
> 
> In other words, this right, to re-constitute the Jewish nation - goes ad infinitum.


The Mandate was assigned to Palestine. It worked inside Palestine's international borders.

They did not need to create an Arab state. Palestine was already there.

Where did the Jewish nation get sovereignty over the territory? Link?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Mandate was assigned to Palestine. It worked inside Palestine's international borders.
> 
> They did not need to create an Arab state. Palestine was already there.
> 
> Where did the Jewish nation get sovereignty over the territory? Link?



The first sentence is correct,
the second is where your narrative falls.

Both the mandate and Palestine's international borders,
were assigned to the Jewish national re-constitution.

Refer to the links above.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> The first sentence is correct,
> the second is where your narrative falls.
> 
> Both the mandate and Palestine's international borders,
> were assigned to the Jewish national re-constitution.
> 
> Refer to the links above.





rylah said:


> Both the mandate and Palestine's international borders,
> were assigned to the Jewish national re-constitution.


Link?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Lin



_The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations)...The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22...within such boundaries, as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers._



			https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/the%20mandate%20for%20palestine.aspx
		





__





						United Nations Maintenance Page
					






					unispal.un.org
				




*Q. Palestine's borders were defined for Jewish re-constitution.
Do you see any reference in law to Arab sovereignty?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Q. Palestine's borders were defined for Jewish re-constitution.


Where does it say that?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> _The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
> 
> The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations)...The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22...within such boundaries, as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers._
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/the%20mandate%20for%20palestine.aspx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United Nations Maintenance Page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unispal.un.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Q. Palestine's borders were defined for Jewish re-constitution.
> Do you see any reference in law to Arab sovereignty?*


*



			Article 5.
		
Click to expand...

*


> 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.



If it isn't Palestinian, it is foreign.

*



			Article 7.
		
Click to expand...

*


> 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.



There was not to be any country but Palestine. The "Jewish National Home" was Jewish citizenship in Palestine.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> If it isn't Palestinian, it is foreign.
> 
> 
> 
> There was not to be any country but Palestine. The "Jewish National Home" was Jewish citizenship in Palestine.


Palestine meant Israel.  The Jewish Homeland.

You do know that.  Always has known that.

Denying it will not turn the Jewish Homeland into an Arab State which never existed and was not going to exist via the Mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Palestine meant Israel.  The Jewish Homeland.
> 
> You do know that.  Always has known that.
> 
> Denying it will not turn the Jewish Homeland into an Arab State which never existed and was not going to exist via the Mandate.





Sixties Fan said:


> Palestine meant Israel. The Jewish Homeland.


Link?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Link?


Go read and re read what you have been taught about by too many of us but refuse to understand because you cannot accept.

You insist in being an endless joke.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Go read and re read what you have been taught about by too many of us but refuse to understand because you cannot accept.
> 
> You insist in being an endless joke.


I can't make it say what it doesn't say no matter how many times I read it.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> I can't make it say what it doesn't say no matter how many times I read it.



It is there.  Your non legal mind cannot see it.

Comprehensive English reading classes.

That will help in reading normal English texts, and any other like Shakespeare, the Law and many other things a normal mind does not understand.

International law, or any kind of law, is not for everyone.

Most do, like you, do not only not understand it, but do not wish to understand it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> It is there.  Your non legal mind cannot see it.
> 
> Comprehensive English reading classes.
> 
> That will help in reading normal English texts, and any other like Shakespeare, the Law and many other things a normal mind does not understand.
> 
> International law, or any kind of law, is not for everyone.
> 
> Most do, like you, do not only not understand it, but do not wish to understand it.


Quote the passage. That might help.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Quote the passage. That might help.


Nothing will help your deep, deep Christian learned hatred of Jews.

Stay hateful of Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Nothing will help your deep, deep Christian learned hatred of Jews.
> 
> Stay hateful of Jews.


Because the aren't any.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> If it isn't Palestinian, it is foreign.



Exactly why Arab sovereignty is illegal.



P F Tinmore said:


> There was not to be any country but Palestine. The "Jewish National Home" was Jewish citizenship in Palestine.



This is a self-contradictory statement-_ "there was not to be a fruit, but an apple"_...
Indeed citizenship, in a country defined for Jewish national re-constitution.

Do you want to explain how citizenship
defies national sovereignty?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Where does it say that?
> 
> Link?



*Palestine's borders were defined for Jewish re-constitution*

_The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations)...The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22...*within such boundaries, as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers.*

The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for* re-constituting* *their *national home in that country."_

https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/the mandate for palestine.aspx
Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference (UK, France, Italy, Japan) - Resolution (Non-UN document) (25 April 1920)

*(QUESTION) 

Do you see any reference in law to Arab sovereignty?*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> *Palestine's borders were defined for Jewish re-constitution*
> 
> _The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations)...The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22...*within such boundaries, as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers.*
> 
> The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for* re-constituting* *their *national home in that country."_
> 
> https://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/the mandate for palestine.aspx
> Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference (UK, France, Italy, Japan) - Resolution (Non-UN document) (25 April 1920)
> 
> *(QUESTION)
> 
> Do you see any reference in law to Arab sovereignty?*





rylah said:


> In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for* re-constituting* *their *national home in that country."


By citizenship in Palestine.

No mention of sovereignty, land transfers, or Jewish state.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> By citizenship in Palestine.
> 
> No mention of sovereignty, land transfers, or Jewish state.



Citizenship in a country defined for Jewish national re-constitution.
with the recognition of the historic title in international law vesting sovereignty.

Now, besides a name Arabs can't even pronounce,
what title do they have to any of the above?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Citizenship in a country defined for Jewish national re-constitution.
> with the recognition of the historic title in international law vesting sovereignty.
> 
> Now, besides a name Arabs can't even pronounce,
> what title do they have to any of the above?


Jewish citizens have sovereignty. The same as the other citizens.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Jewish citizens have sovereignty. The same as the other citizens.


Is this an end of the year distraction ploy?

Why are you spreading the question of citizenship on various threads? 

Question:

What has happened to the State of Palestine citizenship of all the Christians expelled from the PA territories?  Did they even have citizenship to begin with?

You are playing this citizenship card against Israel, except that the proof of the pudding is nowhere to be found.

There was no "State of Palestine" ever.  The League of Nations did not create a "State of Palestine" after the Ottomans lost WWI.  There has never been a citizen of the State of Palestine, or country of Falestine, and you do know that.

You do know that the Arabs of the Mandate for Palestine wanted to become part of Greater Syria.  That is history and you are not going change.

Never, did they dream of creating a country named Palestine, and they never called themselves Palestinians until the Mandate happened and ALL, and I do mean ALL who came to live in that Mandate until 1948, all of them were called Palestinians.
And only because the Jew hating British decided on the name as they meant to keep most of the Mandate for themselves.

Dream on, invent whatever you like.  History is stronger than maniacal Jew haters who absolutely MUST change and reverse history in order to destroy Israel.


You fail again.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Jewish citizens have sovereignty. The same as the other citizens.



Yes citizenship, individual rights in a  Jewish nation state.

For example, as Arabs are citizens of Greece,
where Greek is the national language,
education, naturalization process.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Albert Antebi, forgotten Ottoman Zionist • Point of No Return
					

He is almost forgotten now, but despite his premature death aged 46, Albert Antebi had exceptionally good relations with the Ottoman Turks in the early 20th century. He became an effective intermediary between the Zionists and the Ottoman Turks, obtaining Turkish passports for Palestinian Jews...




					www.jewishrefugees.org.uk


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

Unlike the Holocaust, this earlier wave of antisemitic violence has largely been forgotten by history. Yet at the time, it was front-page news. From 1918 to 1921, more than 1,100 pogroms killed over 100,000 Jews in an area that is part of present-day Ukraine. Such large-scale violence led to fears that six million Jewish lives across Europe were at risk from antisemitic hate. Those who made such dire predictions included writer Anatole France; less than 20 years later, these fears were realized.

The story of these fateful pogroms is chronicled in a new book, “In the Midst of Civilized Europe: The Pogroms of 1918-1921 and the Onset of the Holocaust,” by University of Michigan history and Judaic studies professor Jeffrey Veidlinger.

-----
“It’s terrifying and horrifying,” Veidlinger said. “It takes a toll on you to write [down] that testimony. I’m sure it takes a toll on the reader… It was difficult for me to hear, and probably difficult for them to tell.”

The title phrase comes from France’s fears for the future of European Jewry. The French poet and journalist noted that some of the pogroms occurred at the same time as the peace talks at Versailles tasked with ending World War I. One was perhaps the largest single mass murder of Jews in modern history up to that point — the pogrom of Proskuriv on February 14, 1919, with 911 listed deaths, which Veidlinger estimates is one-third of the actual total.

“I think it was almost genocidal,” Veidlinger said of the Proskuriv pogrom. “It shows how the violence escalated during the very short period of time between November 1918 to February 1919.”

(full article online)









						20 years before the Holocaust, pogroms killed 100,000 Jews – then were forgotten
					

'In the Midst of Civilized Europe' by Jeffrey Veidlinger revisits the brutal violence in 1918-1921 that portended a genocide of Europe's Jews, and was soon overshadowed by it




					www.timesofisrael.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Unlike the Holocaust, this earlier wave of antisemitic violence has largely been forgotten by history. Yet at the time, it was front-page news. From 1918 to 1921, more than 1,100 pogroms killed over 100,000 Jews in an area that is part of present-day Ukraine. Such large-scale violence led to fears that six million Jewish lives across Europe were at risk from antisemitic hate. Those who made such dire predictions included writer Anatole France; less than 20 years later, these fears were realized.
> 
> The story of these fateful pogroms is chronicled in a new book, “In the Midst of Civilized Europe: The Pogroms of 1918-1921 and the Onset of the Holocaust,” by University of Michigan history and Judaic studies professor Jeffrey Veidlinger.
> 
> -----
> “It’s terrifying and horrifying,” Veidlinger said. “It takes a toll on you to write [down] that testimony. I’m sure it takes a toll on the reader… It was difficult for me to hear, and probably difficult for them to tell.”
> 
> The title phrase comes from France’s fears for the future of European Jewry. The French poet and journalist noted that some of the pogroms occurred at the same time as the peace talks at Versailles tasked with ending World War I. One was perhaps the largest single mass murder of Jews in modern history up to that point — the pogrom of Proskuriv on February 14, 1919, with 911 listed deaths, which Veidlinger estimates is one-third of the actual total.
> 
> “I think it was almost genocidal,” Veidlinger said of the Proskuriv pogrom. “It shows how the violence escalated during the very short period of time between November 1918 to February 1919.”
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 20 years before the Holocaust, pogroms killed 100,000 Jews – then were forgotten
> 
> 
> 'In the Midst of Civilized Europe' by Jeffrey Veidlinger revisits the brutal violence in 1918-1921 that portended a genocide of Europe's Jews, and was soon overshadowed by it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.timesofisrael.com


What does that have to do with Israel/Palestine?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> What does that have to do with Israel/Palestine?


People are endlessly saying that Israel only exists because of the Holocaust .

This more than proves that Israel came to exist because 
of massacres like these ones. 

1,100 pogroms in 3 years.  Are those enough for you?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> People are endlessly saying that Israel only exists because of the Holocaust .
> 
> This more than proves that Israel came to exist because
> of massacres like these ones.
> 
> 1,100 pogroms in 3 years.  Are those enough for you?


Palestine had nothing to with that.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> What does that have to do with Israel/Palestine?



The Arab pogroms that earlier initiated Zionism,
were following a very similar ideology
against the minorities.









						Damascus affair - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Arab pogroms that initiated the Zionist response, were no different.


Uhhh, the Zionists went to Palestine.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Uhhh, the Zionists went to Palestine.


Yes. They went to the only place they had an indigenous right to go to and reconstruct their nation. The Jewish Nation ON the Jewish homeland.

See how it worked out?

Jewish People of the Jewish Nation on their Jewish Homeland


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Yes. They went to the only place they had an indigenous right to go to and reconstruct their nation. The Jewish Nation ON the Jewish homeland.
> 
> See how it worked out?
> 
> Jewish People of the Jewish Nation on their Jewish Homeland


You are a hoot.

And start a war that continues for over a hundred years.

Good plan.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> You are a hoot.
> 
> And start a war that continues for over a hundred years.
> 
> Good plan.



They've been kicking Arab ass for a long time.
Is it 100 years already?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They've been kicking Arab ass for a long time.
> Is it 100 years already?


So, do you think Israel should prematurely claim victory when they have not won yet?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> So, do you think Israel should prematurely claim victory when they have not won yet?



Should the Arabs claim victory when they've been getting their asses kicked for so long?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Should the Arabs claim victory when they've been getting their asses kicked for so long?


The Palestinians have never claimed victory in Israel's never ending war.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians have never claimed victory in Israel's never ending war.



That's good of them.

What about the rest of the Arabs?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's good of them.
> 
> What about the rest of the Arabs?


Doesn't matter.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Uhhh, the Zionists went to Palestine



Of course, they awakened to the troubles of the local Jewish community,
how else could they respond to the Arab supremacist aggression?

Arab pogroms spread initiating Zionism all over the Caliphate.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Doesn't matter.



When Arab supremacists fail BIG time

it doesn't matter except for

keeping the daily drama

of the sore losers...


----------



## Sixties Fan

Unbelievable Rare Color Footage of Jerusalem from 1928
					

This is unreal!




					www.israelunwired.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Unbelievable Rare Color Footage of Jerusalem from 1928
> 
> 
> This is unreal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.israelunwired.com


No walls. No goons with guns, Jew praying at the wall.

Then the Zionists invaded.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> No walls. No goons with guns, Jew praying at the wall.
> 
> Then the Zionists invaded.


Idiot.  The useless kind.


----------



## P F Tinmore

‘Previously Unknown Massacres’: Why is Israel Allowed to Own Palestinian History?
					

This is not the first time when an Israeli admission of guilt, though always conditional, has been considered the very validation of Palestinian victimization. , Al-Dawayima, Israel, massacre, Palestinian History, zionism,




					www.mintpressnews.com


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> No walls. No goons with guns, Jew praying at the wall.
> 
> Then the Zionists invaded.



This is 40 years into the 1st Aliyah,
Petah Tikvah was established in 1878.

If anything, you're making the argument for Zionism.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> ‘Previously Unknown Massacres’: Why is Israel Allowed to Own Palestinian History?
> 
> 
> This is not the first time when an Israeli admission of guilt, though always conditional, has been considered the very validation of Palestinian victimization. , Al-Dawayima, Israel, massacre, Palestinian History, zionism,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mintpressnews.com



*No Zionist ever shot a bullet before the Arab pogroms*
*Report from Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:*

_"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...

*On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...

The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_

Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> *No Zionist ever shot a bullet before the Arab pogroms*
> *Report from Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:*
> 
> _"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
> 
> *On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
> 
> The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."*_
> 
> Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873


I wonder why something like that would happen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> I wonder why something like that would happen.



Muslims are savages.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Muslims are savages.


They weren't savages in 1833?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> They weren't savages in 1833?



They've been savages since the 7th century.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They've been savages since the 7th century.


Just wondering why they waited until 1834.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Just wondering why they waited until 1834.



They didn't.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They didn't.


You are not making any sense.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> They weren't savages in 1833?


Indeed, they were, long before 1833. You obviously know nothing of Islamic conquests after the death of the ideologies inventor.

Why do you post here when know so little?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> You are not making any sense.



You're unfamilar with muslims raping, pillaging and plundering their way across the middle east?

That's not a surprise.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> I wonder why something like that would happen.



Arab supremacist hegemony over the Middle East
was always maintained by violence to minorities.









						ELDER: Why don't they teach about the Arab-Muslim slave trade?
					

As for America’s annual Black History Month, actor Morgan Freeman spoke for many during this 2005 exchange with CBS’s Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes”:




					torontosun.com


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC:  What does it all mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

"Not making any sense"​Answer: IRRATIONAL



P F Tinmore said:


> You are not making any sense.


*(COMMENT)*
.
I find it most interesting that you maintain this in your database of unresponsive answers.

YOU ask the question:  "*why they waited until 1834.*" (?)​An answer is given:  They didn't.​YOU retort:  "*You are not making any sense*."​
As is with many of your responses, this answer makes no contribution to the discussion line.  It is innuendo that something is wrong with the denial:  "They didn't." 

I believe it is an attempt to derail the discussion before your flaw in your logic or knowledge of the subject is revealed.
.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> YOU ask the question: "*why they waited until 1834.*" (?)An answer is given: They didn't.YOU retort: "*You are not making any sense*."


But they did wait until 1834.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> But they did wait until 1834.



There was a set date Arab supremacists
are allowed to expel Jews from all their holy cities?

See again, you make the case for Zionism, even admitted it was better 4 decades later.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> There was a set da Arab supremacists
> are allowed to expel Jews from all their holy cities?
> 
> See again, you make the case for Zionism, even admitted it was better 4 decades later.


You are missing the point.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> You are missing the point.



The point is you're wrong,
because Arab supremacist violence
has been the only constant factor regardless of Zionism.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> But they did wait until 1834



No they did not. The wars of the Islamic gee-had tore through the Middle East and into Europe. You have never studied your Islamic history. At the start of the eighth century C.E., much of Spain had already been seized in the Islamic gee-had. Moslems today still refer to Spain as _Al-Andalus_, mistakenly named "the land of the Vandals," when it was actually the land of the Visigoths. You may have heard of an Islamic center proposed in New York that was within walking distance of the twin towers. It was to be called _Cordoba House_. Anyway, much of Spain remained under Islamic rule for the next five centuries afterward, with Islam was given the Bum's Rush coming in 1492. That year marked the expulsion of Islam.

If you look at islamist history, the pseudo-religion invented by muhammud has been destroying every civilization it encountered since the holy warriors spilled out of the Arabian Peninsula after the death of Mo

Egypt was once predominately Christian. Christianity and Judaism both had long histories in the Middle East. Both of those faiths have largely vanished from that portion of the globe due the onslaught of Islamism


----------



## Sixties Fan

Churchill in Jerusalem: Wartime PM visiting British WWI graves in 1921
					

The image, which was taken on March 26, 1921, shows the then Secretary of State for the Colonies at the British War Cemetery in Jerusalem.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Churchill in Jerusalem: Wartime PM visiting British WWI graves in 1921
> 
> 
> The image, which was taken on March 26, 1921, shows the then Secretary of State for the Colonies at the British War Cemetery in Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk





> shows the then *Secretary of State for the Colonies* at the British War Cemetery in Jerusalem.



Indeed!


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed!


All 4 Mandates became colonies of England and France after WWI until each declared Independence.

Indeed !!!!


----------



## Sixties Fan

This past weekend, the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra celebrated its 85th anniversary with a virtual gala describing its illustrious history. The first 40 minutes are pretty much a documentary.

It essentially shows the history of Israel through the Orchestra, with some astonishing and moving footage.



(full article online)









						Great documentary for the 85th anniversary of the Israel Philharmonic
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## rylah




----------



## rylah




----------



## rylah




----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: What does it all mean?
⁜→ rylah, et al,

*You have made another*_* great contribution.  It is food for thought, I am sure*_.​*PREFACE:*  The Brits (_*England, Scotland, and Wales*_) are a very complicated people.  Even unto themselves, there are segments that are very different hold → very different attitudes and values when it comes to the people of different races → as well as, those of the different Christian sub-components.  When you look at the Commonwealth as a whole, I can see how outsiders become confused.  And certainly, when it comes to understanding the Brits relative to the Israelis, like America, there is not one consensus that reflects a unified policy.  One need only look at the current Administration to see how very different they are from most of mainstream America (*although they tend to think of themselves as more enlightened than those outside the White House*).
.


rylah said:


> ~Jachnun Supremacist~ נפתלי בן מתתיהו
> @JachnunEmpire
> 
> Replying to
> @Claire_V0ltaire
> They were essentially the rulers of the mandate and actually did a lot to try and prevent the state from coming to fruition like the operation mentioned in the article. They even abstained in the UN partition vote too lol.


*(COMMENT)*
.
When I was assigned to SHAPE (Mons, Belgium), I can remember taking a continuing training opportunity in Counterterrorism, when it came to that facet of - recognizing terrorists - that they showed us the now infamous Wanted Posters famous Israeli Prime Ministers who were, at one time, considered Terrorists and War Criminals.

The Brits, on their 1948 withdrawal, knew that a conflict was going to erupt.  I think that the Brits were astonished at the eventual outcome → the consequences → and the fallout of the conflict.  I was given the impression that the Brits thought the Arab League Forces would make quick work of the (_*would be*_) Israeli bid for Independence.  And it appeared to me that (*even into contemporary times*) the Brits were quite astonished at how the results of the 1948, 1967, and 1973 engagements turned out.  And I think, to some extent, the Brits still hold some of that animosity against the Israelis.  And I think that even today, the average Brit considers the Israelis as fostering racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide → and being responsible for the development of the modern era of Arab Terrorism as we move into the 21st Century.  Now I am quite sure that the Brits have a perfectly good explanation for their political position and their international interaction at each stage of the Arab - Israeli Conflict in the century since the San Remo Convention (1920).

.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Sixties Fan

( Another reason why Jews needed to  reconstruct their Nation on their Jewish Homeland)









						90 years ago: A Jew is executed in Persia
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

A new book by Eliezer Tauber, a former dean at Bar Ilan University and an expert on the formation of Arab nationalism, has taken on the Deir Yassin story with painstaking attention to detail unmatched by any other study. Tauber’s conclusion is obvious from the title of the book. There was no massacre, he argues, but a hard-fought battle in which Palestinian combatants stationed themselves in residences and among family. Using both Arab and Jewish testimony from combatants on both sides and survivors of the “massacre” (testimony which often offered almost identical accounts), he was able to account for the circumstances of almost every Palestinian death in the village. With a handful of exceptions which he does not seek to paper over, virtually all those killed were killed as part of fighting—either because they were combatants, or because they were situated near combatants. 

Tauber also notes that the level of casualties does not suggest an intentional massacre:

Of the 1,000 residents of the village, he notes, about 70% fled (the attackers permitted that), 20% were taken prisoner and later released, and some 10% were killed in the fighting.​That does not sound like an intentional massacre, he convincingly argues. For the most part, he says, “people in Deir Yassin were killed, not massacred.” 

That distinction, of course, is critically important, particularly given the high profile role Deir Yassin continues to play in oft-made claims about Israel’s having been “born in sin.”

(full article online)









						"The Massacre That Never Was"
					

A recently published book offers a new take on a pivotal battle and an intentional mistruth that changed the course of history forever




					danielgordis.substack.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Of the 1,000 residents of the village, he notes, about 70% fled (the attackers permitted that), 20% were taken prisoner and later released, and some 10% were killed in the fighting.


So the Palestinians were fighting off the attacks by Zionist gangs.

That's good to know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> So the Palestinians were fighting off the attacks by Zionist gangs.
> 
> That's good to know.



They were losing to Jews.
And they kept losing to Jews. 
For decades and decades and decades.
Lose...lose...lose.


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

75 years ago: Zionists helped defeat racial segregation in Baltimore
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Ihud found Fawzi Darwish Hussaini, a labor activist and a cousin of the mufti. He was willing to sign an agreement with his Jewish friends providing for a bi-national state based on the principle of no domination of one nation over the other. He suggested the immediate establishment of political clubs and a daily newspaper to combat the influence of the Arab war party. 

On 11 November 1946, five members of Young Palestine, Fawzi’s group, signed an agreement concerning common political action with Ihud representatives, but this promising initiative came to a sudden and tragic end. Twelve days later Fawzi was killed by Arab terrorists and his group dispersed. ‘My cousin stumbled and received his proper punishment’, Jamal Hussaini, one of the leaders of the extremist party, declared a few days later. 






Laquer goes on and relates that in September 1947, Sami Taha, a prominent Haifa trade resident, was killed. His society had declared itself in favor of a Palestinian, not an Arab state, acknowledging that Jews too had certain rights. He had become a target for extremists. 

(full article online)









						Saluting Two Arab Palestinian Martyrs
					

I found myself  directed  to Walter Laqueur's A History of Zionism , p 267, where he mentions two of the many assassinations of Arabs who op...




					myrightword.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

How Britain Started the Arab-Israeli Conflict | Free Documentary History​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> How Britain Started the Arab-Israeli Conflict | Free Documentary History​



Where's the video about how the Arabs keep losing it over and over and over and over and over.........


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where's the video about how the Arabs keep losing it over and over and over and over and over.........


When did the Palestinians ever lose a war?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> When did the Palestinians ever lose a war?



What are Palestinians?


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

( The British, first they take away 78% of the Jewish land from the Jews, then they cut the ability of Jews to return to their homeland, and then.......and then....
Christian hatred of Jews at its best.  A mere continuation of the Inquisition against the Jews, which simply will not end )

Lord Moyne's successor, Sir James Grigg, echoed that opinion on January 3, 1945:





The assassination truly shocked England and the world. Unlike Lord Moyne's earlier comments, which were clearly antisemitic,  Churchill's and Grigg's comments can be interpreted as being only against the Jewish groups that attacked the British, not against all Zionists. 

Nevertheless, they opened the door for more disgusting uses of the analogy.

 The next British official to compare the entire Zionist movement to the Nazis was Sir Edward Spears, in 1946 well after the full horrors of the Holocaust were well known. From United Press, January 30, 1946:






Arab diplomats took up the slander around the same time, with the "Jew as Nazi" theme that has remained a consistent feature of antisemites ever since.

The Arab League made the analogy on December 6, 1945, again comparing Jewish immigration to the Nazis: (Manchester Guardian, December 7, 1945)





In September 1947, the Arab delegate accused Jews of Nazi behavior at the very same time he threatened that the Arabs would kill them all:







And in October 1947, the head of the Arab delegation to the partition talks in Lake Success said that Zionists weren't interested in Palestine but wanted to use that as a gateway to take over the entire Middle East - just like Nazis, somehow.


----------



## Sixties Fan

In 2015, The New Republic published an article about the etymology of the word "Holocaust" as it is currently used.




> There has long been a rigorous debate among etymologists and historians as to when the lowercased “holocaust,” generically defined as a large-scale calamity usually involving fire, became the proper noun used specifically to name the period of Nazi genocide against European Jews. Yet there is little debate that that formalization occurred years after the war’s end.
> 
> ...According to a 2005 Jewish Forward piece, a top rabbi in what was then Palestine wrote to a colleague in a telegram about the need for a “day of mourning throughout [the] world for holocaust synagogues [in] Germany” after Kristallnacht, a November 1938 night of terror in which Jewish homes were ransacked and windows broken across Germany.
> 
> There were smatterings of usage prior to World War II to refer to mass slaughters, too, including with regard to the Armenian Genocide. And a 1943 New York Times piece about talks regarding Palestine references “the hundreds and thousands of European Jews still surviving the Nazi holocaust.”
> 
> Yet for decades after the war, the genocide lacked any formal title in English except, perhaps, “The Final Solution,” the term the Nazis used. In Hebrew, the calamity quickly became known as “Shoah,” which means “the catastrophe.” But it wasn’t until the 1960s that scholars and writers began using the term “Holocaust,” and it took the 1978 TV film Holocaust, starring Meryl Streep, to push it into widespread use.



The 1938 use of the word is interesting, but this article seems to say that the May 23, 1943 New York Times article is one of the earliest uses of that word specifically to refer to the genocide of Jews in Europe.

I have found an earlier mention. 

The Pensacola Journal, March 13, 1943, had an editorial about a mass meeting by Jews in New York to urge the nascent United Nations to publicly deplore the extermination of Jews. The final statement of the meeting included the word "holocaust:"






(full article online)









						When was the term "holocaust" first used for the Holocaust?
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## rylah

Arab supremacists have nothing original to say,
most simply can't pronounce the name of the land.

Even the slogan_* "Free Palestine"*_ was appropriated from the Jews...


----------



## Sixties Fan

My name is Varda Meyers Epstein and I would like to tell you about my husband’s cousin, Jacob (Yaacov) Wexler, who was murdered in the 1929 Hebron Massacre because of his religious identity as a Jew.


Jacob (Yaacov) Wexler circa 1929
Jackie, as he was known, grew up in Chicago, where he was a promising student at the Hebrew Theological College. During a family visit to British Mandate Palestine, 16-year-old Jackie begged to stay in order to study at the famed Slabodka Yeshiva (seminary) in Hebron. Jackie’s father Richard, after being reassured by American students already at the seminary that Jackie would be safe and well taken care of, consented to allow his son to stay and fully immerse himself in his Torah studies.

During his time at the yeshiva, Jackie was happy. In a letter to his parents he praised the yeshiva and his life in the Land of Israel. "I've never experienced happiness my whole life as in _Simchat Torah_* in Hebron," he wrote.

In August of 1929, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin El Husseini, preached from the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem that the Jews planned to take control of the site. The Jews had no such plans and in any event, had no power. The British were in charge and they favored the Arabs. But the rumor that the Jews planned to take over the Mount was all that was needed to incite the Arab masses to violence.

The Mufti’s words unleashed a wave of pogroms beginning in Jerusalem and spreading to other cities. Angry Arab mobs stormed Safed and Hebron, massacring more than 100 Jews. Jackie Wexler, of Chicago, now 17, was one of the 67 Jews murdered in Hebron. Like the others, Jackie was murdered because he was a Jew.

There is documentation of what happened in Hebron. There were decapitations, gouged-out eyes, rapes, members cut off and stuffed into body cavities, limbs and digits sliced off, the heads of babies bashed against ancient walls. Women, babies, young children, and the elderly were all murdered. Jackie died from an axe blow to the head. All of these people were murdered because of their religious identity. They were murdered because they were Jews.

No one should be murdered because of their religious identity, no matter where they live. No young person should be murdered because of their religious identity while studying abroad at a seminary, no matter where that seminary is located. Jackie Wexler’s story is just one of many. Jews were killed because they were Jews before there was a state called “Israel.” Jews continue to be targeted in their own state in Arab terror attacks, only because they are Jews.

This is tragic. It is systematic discrimination based on religious identity—worse yet, it is _murder_, every time it happens—and it is plainly wrong.

In sharing this true story of a family member who was targeted and murdered in the city of Hebron because of his religious identity, I hope to add to the body of information examined by your “Commission of Inquiry.”

Further information and sources are listed below my signature.
Sincerely,

Varda Meyers Epstein

A Western Union telegram telling Jackie’s parents that they should prepare themselves “for the worst,” can be seen here: Letters of Yaacov Wexler – Murdered in the 1929 Massacre in Yeshivat Hebron | kedem Auction House Ltd.

A list of the 67 murdered Jews of Hebron can be seen here: In Memoriam: Full List of the Victims the 1929 Hebron Massacre

Eyewitness testimonies from survivors regarding the Hebron Massacre can be seen here: THE HEBRON MASSACRE OF 1929:

*Simchat Torah is a Jewish holiday that celebrates the yearly completion of the Torah as the new cycle is begun. The name of the holiday translates to “Rejoicing of the Torah.” See: Simchat Torah | Meaning, Traditions, Symbols, & Facts

(full article online)









						The Jacob Wexler Story: A Submission to the UN "Commission of Inquiry” Kangaroo Court
					

Human Rights Voices is calling on those who care about Israel, to respond to #PillaysPogrom with their own submissions




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

1) Jews are the indigenous people of Palestine, preceding Arab arrival by some two millennia and having maintained a continuous presence and several periods of sovereignty in this land over some 3,000 years, since the Kingdom of David in 1,000 BCE.

2) The Arabs, who did not define themselves as Palestinians until 1964, have never had sovereignty—or even control—over Palestine.

3) The formation of the State of Israel in Palestine was preceded by determined Zionists and Zionist organizing that began officially in 1897 with the first Zionist Congress—45 years before the shame of Wannsee.

4) A distinct ambivalence—and even outright opposition—towards a Jewish state in Palestine predominated in many nations, including Great Britain and the United States.

While Great Britain deserves credit for the 1917 Balfour Declaration, it quickly worked to undo its effects, violating its League of Nations-granted mandate by carving out two-thirds of the land for what became Jordan. Then, it promulgated the infamous 1939 Palestine White Paper which virtually eliminated Jewish immigration to Palestine.

Issued just months before Hitler’s war was launched, the White Paper cut off European Jewry from the only place in the world to which they could flee. Other countries wouldn’t shelter them—much less welcome them. In the ensuing world war, the Jews were trapped in a continental slaughterhouse, which the Wannsee Conference had made far more efficient.



After Germany’s defeat, the Allies created the United Nations, which did nothing to help Jewish survivors to reach Palestine from their squalid refugee camps in Europe. There was no call to Britain to lift the White Paper’s limits on immigration to Palestine, where a civil war erupted between Jews and Arabs—with each also attacking the British.

Britain, exhausted by World War II, announced in early 1947 that it was relinquishing its U.N. Mandate for Palestine. Thus, the 1947 U.N. vote to partition Palestine was just an empty gesture: The only thing clear was that some kind of division of Palestine was certain once the British withdrew.

Most agreed that declaring a Jewish state would create yet another bloodbath for the Jews, who were then a distinct minority in greater Palestine, and were vastly outnumbered by the surrounding Arab nations, all of whom pledged the eradication of the Zionist presence.

Caring more about relations with Arab nations than the survivors of the Holocaust, the Allies all imposed arms embargoes against the Jews of Palestine. The partition plan did nothing to protect a Jewish state in Palestine, and those who ratified it cared not a whit about the survival of the Jewish community.

The State of Israel was declared on May 14, 1948, moments after the last British troops left. The U.N. resolution hadn’t called for Jewish statehood, and many foreign politicians thought it was unwise, including the American Secretary of State, George Marshall.

The European powers, the United States and the United Nations prepared to watch a continuation of the Holocaust as Israel was swarmed by Arab armies.

Israel survived—and has flourished—because of the incredible commitment, leadership and courage of its own population (then just a few hundred thousand), facing millions of Arabs and five invading armies.

In fact, there was no inevitability of Israel resulting from the Wannsee Conference in 1942. And no toothless U.N. General Assembly Resolution birthed Israel in 1947.

The courageous leaders and people of Israel created—and fought at a huge cost of blood and treasure to create—the State of Israel in 1948.

(full article online)









						The Jewish people alone created Israel, not the Holocaust and not the UN
					

Four facts that put the lie to the tidy narrative that the creation of Israel was a result of European guilt. Op-ed.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> 1) Jews are the indigenous people of Palestine, preceding Arab arrival by some two millennia and having maintained a continuous presence and several periods of sovereignty in this land over some 3,000 years, since the Kingdom of David in 1,000 BCE.
> 
> 2) The Arabs, who did not define themselves as Palestinians until 1964, have never had sovereignty—or even control—over Palestine.
> 
> 3) The formation of the State of Israel in Palestine was preceded by determined Zionists and Zionist organizing that began officially in 1897 with the first Zionist Congress—45 years before the shame of Wannsee.
> 
> 4) A distinct ambivalence—and even outright opposition—towards a Jewish state in Palestine predominated in many nations, including Great Britain and the United States.
> 
> While Great Britain deserves credit for the 1917 Balfour Declaration, it quickly worked to undo its effects, violating its League of Nations-granted mandate by carving out two-thirds of the land for what became Jordan. Then, it promulgated the infamous 1939 Palestine White Paper which virtually eliminated Jewish immigration to Palestine.
> 
> Issued just months before Hitler’s war was launched, the White Paper cut off European Jewry from the only place in the world to which they could flee. Other countries wouldn’t shelter them—much less welcome them. In the ensuing world war, the Jews were trapped in a continental slaughterhouse, which the Wannsee Conference had made far more efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> After Germany’s defeat, the Allies created the United Nations, which did nothing to help Jewish survivors to reach Palestine from their squalid refugee camps in Europe. There was no call to Britain to lift the White Paper’s limits on immigration to Palestine, where a civil war erupted between Jews and Arabs—with each also attacking the British.
> 
> Britain, exhausted by World War II, announced in early 1947 that it was relinquishing its U.N. Mandate for Palestine. Thus, the 1947 U.N. vote to partition Palestine was just an empty gesture: The only thing clear was that some kind of division of Palestine was certain once the British withdrew.
> 
> Most agreed that declaring a Jewish state would create yet another bloodbath for the Jews, who were then a distinct minority in greater Palestine, and were vastly outnumbered by the surrounding Arab nations, all of whom pledged the eradication of the Zionist presence.
> 
> Caring more about relations with Arab nations than the survivors of the Holocaust, the Allies all imposed arms embargoes against the Jews of Palestine. The partition plan did nothing to protect a Jewish state in Palestine, and those who ratified it cared not a whit about the survival of the Jewish community.
> 
> The State of Israel was declared on May 14, 1948, moments after the last British troops left. The U.N. resolution hadn’t called for Jewish statehood, and many foreign politicians thought it was unwise, including the American Secretary of State, George Marshall.
> 
> The European powers, the United States and the United Nations prepared to watch a continuation of the Holocaust as Israel was swarmed by Arab armies.
> 
> Israel survived—and has flourished—because of the incredible commitment, leadership and courage of its own population (then just a few hundred thousand), facing millions of Arabs and five invading armies.
> 
> In fact, there was no inevitability of Israel resulting from the Wannsee Conference in 1942. And no toothless U.N. General Assembly Resolution birthed Israel in 1947.
> 
> The courageous leaders and people of Israel created—and fought at a huge cost of blood and treasure to create—the State of Israel in 1948.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jewish people alone created Israel, not the Holocaust and not the UN
> 
> 
> Four facts that put the lie to the tidy narrative that the creation of Israel was a result of European guilt. Op-ed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.israelnationalnews.com


WOW, so many Israeli talking points in one post.

Israel did not get land or state from the Mandate. Israel did not get land or state from the UN.

The Zionists unilaterally declared independence on Palestinian land in 1948. Actually, Israel did not define any territory in 1948.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The Zionists unilaterally declared independence on Palestinian land in 1948.



Palestinians didn't own the land in 1948.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Palestinians didn't own the land in 1948.


Link?

Of course not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Link?
> 
> Of course not.



I know, I've never seen a link that showed the Palestinians owned any land in 1948.


----------



## RoccoR

RE:   The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: What actual step created Israel.
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,

*PREFACE*:  "Self-determination became officially sanctioned after 1945, when it was included in the United Nations Charter, though it applied to existing states, not to peoples or national groups." ...  "
*Still, self-determination applied to territories and not to peoples*."
*SELF-DETERMINATION*
Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession​
_*REPORT FROM A ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF.  *__*See Page V of Summary*_
By  Patricia Carley



P F Tinmore said:


> WOW, so many Israeli talking points in one post.
> 
> Israel did not get land or state from the Mandate. Israel did not get land or state from the UN.
> 
> The Zionists unilaterally declared independence on Palestinian land in 1948. Actually, Israel did not define any territory in 1948.


*(COMMENT)*

*This is the Statment of Self-Determination*.
"We, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world, proclaim the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called Israel."​


> *Paris, 29 November 1948*
> 
> On 14 May 1948, the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish people in Palestine by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people to independence in its own sovereign State and in pursuance of the General-Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947.  Since that date Israel has been consolidated administratively and defended itself successfully against the aggression of neighbouring States.  It has so far achieved recognition by nineteen Powers.
> 
> On behalf of the Provisional Government of Israel, I have now the honour to request the admission of Israel as a Member of the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter.
> 
> In view of the special nature of this application I would request that its consideration should proceed without regard to the deadlines fixed by rule 60, paragraphs 1-4, but in conformity with paragraph 5 of the same rule 60 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council.
> 
> A formal declaration that the Government of Israel accepts all the obligations stipulated in the United Nations Charter is enclosed.
> 
> My Government submits that Israel’s admission to the United Nations will constitute an act of international justice to the Jewish people, fully consistent with United Nations policy on Palestine, and will contribute to the stabilization of the Middle East and to the cause of international peace.
> 
> 
> (Signed) Moshe SHERTOK
> Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
> Provisional Government of Israel
> ​


​Now, you know that the Arab League threw a wrench into the works when they launched a coordinated attack on the four frontiers.  And then, the Arab League would not come to terms over the conflict outcome.

That being the real-world reality, Israel established sovereign control on that territory necessary.  

You may not like the answer, but there it is.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:   The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: What actual step created Israel.
> ※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,
> 
> *PREFACE*:  "Self-determination became officially sanctioned after 1945, when it was included in the United Nations Charter, though it applied to existing states, not to peoples or national groups." ...  "
> *Still, self-determination applied to territories and not to peoples*."
> *SELF-DETERMINATION*
> Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession​
> _*REPORT FROM A ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF.  *__*See Page V of Summary*_
> By  Patricia Carley
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *This is the Statment of Self-Determination*.
> "We, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world, proclaim the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called Israel."​​Now, you know that the Arab League threw a wrench into the works when they launched a coordinated attack on the four frontiers.  And then, the Arab League would not come to terms over the conflict outcome.
> 
> That being the real-world reality, Israel established sovereign control on that territory necessary.
> 
> You may not like the answer, but there it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R





RoccoR said:


> And then, the Arab League would not come to terms over the conflict outcome.


A UN Security Council Resolution called for an armistice. An armistice ends the fighting without calling winners or losers. Israel claims that the Arabs lost that war. Not true.


RoccoR said:


> That being the real-world reality, Israel established sovereign control on that territory necessary.


I have never seen anything that documents that claim.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> A UN Security Council Resolution called for an armistice. An armistice ends the fighting without calling winners or losers. Israel claims that the Arabs lost that war. Not true.



Did the Arabs win that war?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:   The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: What actual step created Israel.
> ※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,
> 
> *PREFACE*:  "Self-determination became officially sanctioned after 1945, when it was included in the United Nations Charter, though it applied to existing states, not to peoples or national groups." ...  "
> *Still, self-determination applied to territories and not to peoples*."
> *SELF-DETERMINATION*
> Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity, and the Right to Secession​
> _*REPORT FROM A ROUNDTABLE HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S POLICY PLANNING STAFF.  *__*See Page V of Summary*_
> By  Patricia Carley
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> *This is the Statment of Self-Determination*.
> "We, the members of the National Council, representing the Jewish people in Palestine and the Zionist movement of the world, proclaim the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, to be called Israel."​​Now, you know that the Arab League threw a wrench into the works when they launched a coordinated attack on the four frontiers.  And then, the Arab League would not come to terms over the conflict outcome.
> 
> That being the real-world reality, Israel established sovereign control on that territory necessary.
> 
> You may not like the answer, but there it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R





RoccoR said:


> "Self-determination became officially sanctioned after 1945, when it was included in the United Nations Charter, though it applied to existing states, not to peoples or national groups." ...


Indeed, it applies to a people inside their defined territory.

Palestine was created as a state according to post war treaties. This was affirmed by the League of Nations, several court cases, and the US who signed a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932.

The UN says that the Palestinuians, in Palestine, have the inalienable right to self determination, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.

I see all of these being violated.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did the Arabs win that war?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


>



Don't be so hard on yourself.

Now run away again.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC:  Armistice - Sovereignty
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,

*PREFACE*:  You have a serious problem WITH terminology and the real world.



P F Tinmore said:


> A UN Security Council Resolution called for an armistice.


*(COMMENT)*

The UN "facilitated" (not called for) the four Armistice Agreements.  However, the Arab Palestinian components (Arab Liberation Army and Holy Way Army) were disbanded by Arab League Forces.



P F Tinmore said:


> An armistice ends the fighting without calling winners or losers.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, it is true that an Armistice calls for a voluntary suspension of military operations, but it is not the end of the conflict.

There is no such thing as a "winner" or a "loser" in an Armed Conflict.  That is determined by either a "capitulation" which encompasses statements surrender or the terms of the peace treaty.  ✪ Article 40 (Hague Regulation) states that Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of recommencing hostilities immediately (ie the Six-Day War).



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel claims that the Arabs lost that war. Not true.


*(COMMENT)*

This is really an unintelligent claim.  

◈    Anyone can look at the peace arrangement and see that the Hashemite Kingdom forfeited the sovereignty of all its holdings west of the Jordan River.​​◈   Anyone can view the arrangement after the 1973 Yom Kipper War, the encirclement of the Egyptian 3d Army: 19-25 October  1973 (Operation Valiant) - and that practically the entire Sinai Desert was in the hands of the Israelis.  How do you think the Egyptian 3d Army got home?​​◈   I don't really see any formal claim by the Israelis concerning the outcome of the Arab-Israeli War.  The *Israeli ended the control of the Sanai Desert (Sovereign Egyptian Territory) in 1982* as part of the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty.​


P F Tinmore said:


> I have never seen anything that documents that claim.


*(COMMENT)*

Show me the IL Government claim and we will discuss it.



P F Tinmore said:


> A UN Security Council Resolution called for an armistice. An armistice ends the fighting without calling winners or losers. Israel claims that the Arabs lost that war. Not true.
> 
> I have never seen anything that documents that claim.


*(COMMENT)*

Putting all these claim elements together is incredible.

◈   UN Facilitate​◈   The Armistice was a temporary halt to Military Operations.​◈   What claim, show me.​





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Armistice - Sovereignty
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,


P F Tinmore said:


> A UN Security Council Resolution called for an armistice. An armistice ends the fighting without calling winners or losers. Israel claims that the Arabs lost that war. Not true.
> 
> I have never seen anything that documents that claim.


*(COMMENT)*

One more thing:  I suppose you do NOT see the physical border.  

But I think is is funny (_maybe even curious_) that YOU would mention that.  While Israel has a mix of border markings, I think the Demarcations are within the traties (_relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip_).

*Hashemite Kingdom:  Annex I(a)*

Arab Republic of Egypt: 

Article 1(2) Annex I:  Egypt will resume the exercise of its full sovereignty over the Sinai​Article II Annex 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, 1 without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip.​___________________________________
*Boundary marker* – a construction consisting of one or more elements, designed to mark out the state boundary on the terrain.

*Boundary pillar *– an element of a boundary marker that has an established coloring, fitted with state symbols and a serial number.

*Center zero-offset monument* – an element of a boundary marker that is emplaced directly on the state boundary line.

*Common geodetic network* – a set of geodetic points located along the state boundary in the territories of adjoining states, whose coordinates and heights are determined in the systems of coordinates and heights used by the adjoining states to fix the spatial position of the state boundary during its demarcation.

*Delimitation of the boundary *– legal formalization in a treaty of the state boundary between adjoining states, whose position is graphically plotted on the topographic map and duly defined in its corresponding written description, whereupon the map and the description may become an integral part of the treaty or its annex.

*Demarcation of the state boundary* – marking out the course of the state boundary between adjoining states on the ground by means of state boundary markers, including compilation of demarcation documents.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Armistice - Sovereignty
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, it applies to a people inside their defined territory.
> 
> Palestine was created as a state according to post war treaties. This was affirmed by the League of Nations, several court cases, and the US who signed a trade agreement with Palestine in 1932.
> 
> The UN says that the Palestinuians, in Palestine, have the inalienable right to self determination, the right to independence and sovereignty, and the right to territorial integrity.
> 
> I see all of these being violated.


*(COMMENT)*

I think you are confusing the UK Administrative Government of Palestine --- with --- a non-existent (1932) State of Palestine






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> *Delimitation of the boundary *– legal formalization in a treaty of the state boundary between adjoining states, whose position is graphically plotted on the topographic map and duly defined in its corresponding written description, whereupon the map and the description may become an integral part of the treaty or its annex.


OK, so where are Israel's boundaries.

Link to the treaties?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC:  Armistice - Sovereignty
> ※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,
> 
> *PREFACE*:  You have a serious problem WITH terminology and the real world.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The UN "facilitated" (not called for) the four Armistice Agreements.  However, the Arab Palestinian components (Arab Liberation Army and Holy Way Army) were disbanded by Arab League Forces.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Well, it is true that an Armistice calls for a voluntary suspension of military operations, but it is not the end of the conflict.
> 
> There is no such thing as a "winner" or a "loser" in an Armed Conflict.  That is determined by either a "capitulation" which encompasses statements surrender or the terms of the peace treaty.  ✪ Article 40 (Hague Regulation) states that Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of recommencing hostilities immediately (ie the Six-Day War).
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> This is really an unintelligent claim.
> 
> ◈    Anyone can look at the peace arrangement and see that the Hashemite Kingdom forfeited the sovereignty of all its holdings west of the Jordan River.​​◈   Anyone can view the arrangement after the 1973 Yom Kipper War, the encirclement of the Egyptian 3d Army: 19-25 October  1973 (Operation Valiant) - and that practically the entire Sinai Desert was in the hands of the Israelis.  How do you think the Egyptian 3d Army got home?​​◈   I don't really see any formal claim by the Israelis concerning the outcome of the Arab-Israeli War.  The *Israeli ended the control of the Sanai Desert (Sovereign Egyptian Territory) in 1982* as part of the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty.​
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Show me the IL Government claim and we will discuss it.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Putting all these claim elements together is incredible.
> 
> ◈   UN Facilitate​◈   The Armistice was a temporary halt to Military Operations.​◈   What claim, show me.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Israel claims that it won Palestinian land by defeating Palestine's neighbors in the 1948 war.

For one, Israel did not defeat Palestine's neighbors.

For two, What did Palestine's neighbors have to do with Palestine's land?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel claims that it won Palestinian land by defeating Palestine's neighbors in the 1948 war.
> 
> For one, Israel did not defeat Palestine's neighbors.
> 
> For two, What did Palestine's neighbors have to do with Palestine's land?



*Israel claims that it won Palestinian land by defeating Palestine's neighbors in the 1948 war.*

They couldn't win Palestinian land, there was no Palestine.

*For one, Israel did not defeat Palestine's neighbors.*

Still claiming the neighbors won? LOL!


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Current Sovereign Boundary Arrangements
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, so where are Israel's boundaries.
> 
> Link to the treaties?


*(ANSWER)*

◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995) Map 6 • 

◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel • 

◈ Golan Heights Law • 

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace  (1979) • 

◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) • 

◈ Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon* •* 






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Current Sovereign Boundary Arrangements
> ※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,
> 
> 
> *(ANSWER)*
> 
> ◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995) Map 6 •
> 
> ◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •
> 
> ◈ Golan Heights Law •
> 
> ◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace  (1979) •
> 
> ◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •
> 
> ◈ Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon* •*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


How do any of those take Israel out of Palestine's borders?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> How do any of those take Israel out of Palestine's borders?



No Palestinian land, no Palestinian borders.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Current Sovereign Boundary Arrangements
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel claims that it won Palestinian land by defeating Palestine's neighbors in the 1948 war.
> 
> For one, Israel did not defeat Palestine's neighbors.
> 
> For two, What did Palestine's neighbors have to do with Palestine's land?


*(COMMENT)*

I have not seen a statement of Conquest (for the Israelis) nor a statement of Capitulation (Any Arab State).  You will have to show me these before I believe that Israel made formal such statements.



P F Tinmore said:


> What did Palestine's neighbors have to do with Palestine's land?



The Principle Arab League Forces (AKA:  "Palestinian Neighbors") entered into the conflict.  NOT any force representing the inhabitants of the territory formerly under the Mandate. 

It was The Arab League Forces (ie Egypt and Jordan) that occupied the territory formerly under the Mandate and called the Gaza Strip and the West Bank including Jerusalem.

It was the Jordanians that Annex the territory formerly under the Mandate and called the West Bank.

There was no true entity called the State of Palestine until December 2012.  And even that is questionable since the Palestinian Authority/Palestinian Liberation Organization and The Islamic Resistance Movement _(the inhabitants not yet able to stand alone under the strenuous conditions of the modern world)_ perform the functions of a government.  For more than a century, the nations of the West have underwritten the territory and stood responsible for these functions.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Current Sovereign Boundary Arrangements
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,



P F Tinmore said:


> How do any of those take Israel out of Palestine's borders?


*(COMMENT)*

Israel was never a component of a self-governing institution called "Palestine."  Israel was created through the self-determination of the Jewish People’s Council for the State of Israel.

Who created any self-determining entiry called "Palestine?"​​What political entity assumed the role of Government in the State of  "Palestine?"​​When was the "State of Palestine" created?​​Where was the "State of Palestine" (not to be cconfused wwdith the Government of Palestine (1922 to 1948)?​​The Arab Palestinians did not participate in the creation of self-government institution.  The Arab Palestinians did not participate (even rejected the invitation) to advise and assist the UK High Commissioner in the administration durirng the entire Mandate Period.  There was no Arab entity participation in the Palestine Govenment; only the High Commissioner.

*(THE TRUE QUESTION)*

What "productive" contribution did the Arab Palestinians make in the creation of a developing nation?  *(RHETORICAL)*   NONE!

They Arab Palestinians whine about everything, but contribute nothing except corruption.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Israel was created through the self-determination


Self determination is a method of acquiring territory?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Current Sovereign Boundary Arrangements
> ※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Israel was never a component of a self-governing institution called "Palestine."  Israel was created through the self-determination of the Jewish People’s Council for the State of Israel.
> 
> Who created any self-determining entiry called "Palestine?"​​What political entity assumed the role of Government in the State of  "Palestine?"​​When was the "State of Palestine" created?​​Where was the "State of Palestine" (not to be cconfused wwdith the Government of Palestine (1922 to 1948)?​​The Arab Palestinians did not participate in the creation of self-government institution.  The Arab Palestinians did not participate (even rejected the invitation) to advise and assist the UK High Commissioner in the administration durirng the entire Mandate Period.  There was no Arab entity participation in the Palestine Govenment; only the High Commissioner.
> 
> *(THE TRUE QUESTION)*
> 
> What "productive" contribution did the Arab Palestinians make in the creation of a developing nation?  *(RHETORICAL)*   NONE!
> 
> They Arab Palestinians whine about everything, but contribute nothing except corruption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


By the time of the armistice agreements, Israel had militarily conquered and occupied 78% of Palestine. As far as I can tell, Israel still occupies that territory.

Do you have any documents to refute that?

Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Self determination is a method of acquiring territory?



How is lack of it working for the Palestinians?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel had militarily conquered and occupied 78% of Palestine.



Who did they occupy and conquer it from?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Current Sovereign - Self-Determination
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,


			
				Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks said:
			
		

> In 1975, the ICJ applied _*terra nullius*_ to a territory in which the *people who inhabited it were not "socially and politically organized.*"_* {INSERT:  That would be the Arab Paleswtinians}*_ The ICJ provided legal sanction to a radically expanded definition of _terra nullius_-from its original meaning as "blank territory," to an understanding that encompassed territory that was not empty or void of inhabitants.
> This broad definition of _terra nullius_ served historically to legitimize the acquisition of large tracts of land throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and had a particularly adverse effect on indigenous communities.   *Once the land was acquired, boundary lines were drawn to demarcate ownership between settlers.*   These boundaries were eventually* recognized as territorial demarcations on the basis of which valid statehood-and its accompanying right of territorial integrity-could be awarded.*   The system was then buffered from a change in a period of transition by the doctrine of _*uti possidetis juris*,_ which sought to maintain order by freezing the boundaries.
> _________________________________________________
> See Tomd§ Bartog, Uti Possidetis.Quo Vadis? 18 AUSTL. Y.B. INT'L L. 37, 44 (1997).
> 
> See CASTELLINO & ALLEN, TITLE TO TERRITORY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: A TEMPORAL ANALYSIS, supranote 31, at 230-33.
> 
> Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, 1975 I.C.J. 12, 39 (Oct. 16).
> 
> See S.J. ANAYA, INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (2d ed. 2004) (locating the position of indigenous peoples within international legal discourse). See, e.g., Michael Asch, From Calder to Van Der Peet: Aboriginal Rights and Canadian law, 1973-96, in INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA & NEW ZEALAND 428 (Paul Havemann ed., 1999) (examining the impact of case law and legislation concerning indigenous people in Canada); Willem Assies, Indigenous Peoples and Reform of the State in Latin America, in THE CHALLENGE OF DIVERSITY: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND REFORM OF THE STATE IN LATIN AMERICA 15 (Willem Assies, Gemma van der Haar & Andr6 J. Hoekema eds., 1998) (examining cases studies concerning indigenous peoples in South America).
> 
> See C.H. Alexandrowicz, The Role of Treaties in the European-African Confrontation in the Nineteenth Century, in AFRICAN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL HISTORY 27 (A.K. Mensah-Brown ed., 1975) (illustrating this process in the African context).
> 
> See, e.g., PARTITIONED AFRICANS: RELATIONS ACROSS AFRICA'S INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES 1884-1984 (A.I. Asiwaju ed., 1985) (examining the implication of territorial divisions on African identities and nations).
> 
> ("The essence of _*uti possidetis*_ is to secure respect for the territorial boundaries of a newly independent State at the moment when independence from a colonial power is achieved.").
> *PRINCIPLE SOURCE: *Recommended Citation → Joshua Castellino, Territorial Integrity and the "Right" to Self-Determination: An Examination of the Conceptual Tools, 33 Brook. J. Int'l L. (2008).
> Available at: *https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol33/iss2/15*
> 
> Article 15 • Volume 33 | Issue 2 • 2008 • Territorial Integrity and the "Right" to Self- Determination: An Examination of the Conceptual Tools.  Joshua Castellino.  pp 510-511



I apologize, I was under the false impression that you had an understanding that made it this far.
_Their mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements (i) the territory subject to a claim must not be under the sovereignty of any state (*terra nullius*) (ii) the state must have *effectively occupied the territory*._


P F Tinmore said:


> Self determination is a method of acquiring territory?
> 
> Link?


*(COMMENT)*

There is no one-step, simple explanation that you seem to seek.  It requires an objective and uncompromised view in order to find the answers to these simple-sounding questions.

I've said this a number of different ways.  But in essense, when you say that the Arab Palestinians declined or rejected the opportunity to organize self-governing institutions - that means the Arab Palestinians intentionally chose not to socially or politically organize to the path of self-determination.  The Arab Palestinians did it twice then the Arab Palestinians rejected participation in the UK Administration of the Government of Palestine.   When they did that (1923), the term "Palestine" from a domestic territorial affiliation, had no meaning.  And again in January 1948, the Arab Palestinians refused to participate in the preparation of self-governing institutions.  This meant, that when the Mandate terminated, they were (yet again) unorganized.  To rub salt into the wound, when the Hashemite Kingdom cut all ties with its holdings west of the Jordan River, that left the West Bank "terra nullius" and effectively placed the territory into the hands of the Israeli Occupation Force because the Arab Palestinian was (one more time) unprepared to assume governmental responsibilities.  Oddly enough, each of these very bad social and political decisions was made on their own - under the principle of (you guessed it) "self-determination."  And it worked against them.

Now, the Arab Palestinians are whining to anyone that will listen about how it is so unfair for the Arab Palestinians to be penalized for their bad decisions.  Well, any number of nations would lie to "do-over" some of the conflicts that did not turn out in their favor.

The longer the Arab Palestinians drag their feet in the hope that some miracle will pull their fat out of the fire, the greater the injury will be.

Again, don't you see the irony?  
Abbas Wants Negotiations with Israel to Begin with Border Demarcation ​Sunday, 12 December, 2021 - 10:00​ 






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Current Sovereign - Self-Determination
> ※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,
> 
> 
> I apologize, I was under the false impression that you had an understanding that made it this far.
> _Their mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements (i) the territory subject to a claim must not be under the sovereignty of any state (*terra nullius*) (ii) the state must have *effectively occupied the territory*._
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There is no one-step, simple explanation that you seem to seek.  It requires an objective and uncompromised view in order to find the answers to these simple-sounding questions.
> 
> I've said this a number of different ways.  But in essense, when you say that the Arab Palestinians declined or rejected the opportunity to organize self-governing institutions - that means the Arab Palestinians intentionally chose not to socially or politically organize to the path of self-determination.  The Arab Palestinians did it twice then the Arab Palestinians rejected participation in the UK Administration of the Government of Palestine.   When they did that (1923), the term "Palestine" from a domestic territorial affiliation, had no meaning.  And again in January 1948, the Arab Palestinians refused to participate in the preparation of self-governing institutions.  This meant, that when the Mandate terminated, they were (yet again) unorganized.  To rub salt into the wound, when the Hashemite Kingdom cut all ties with its holdings west of the Jordan River, that left the West Bank "terra nullius" and effectively placed the territory into the hands of the Israeli Occupation Force because the Arab Palestinian was (one more time) unprepared to assume governmental responsibilities.  Oddly enough, each of these very bad social and political decisions was made on their own - under the principle of (you guessed it) "self-determination."  And it worked against them.
> 
> Now, the Arab Palestinians are whining to anyone that will listen about how it is so unfair for the Arab Palestinians to be penalized for their bad decisions.  Well, any number of nations would lie to "do-over" some of the conflicts that did not turn out in their favor.
> 
> The longer the Arab Palestinians drag their feet in the hope that some miracle will pull their fat out of the fire, the greater the injury will be.
> 
> Again, don't you see the irony?
> Abbas Wants Negotiations with Israel to Begin with Border Demarcation ​Sunday, 12 December, 2021 - 10:00​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Your link does not answer the question.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians did it twice then the Arab Palestinians rejected participation in the UK Administration of the Government of Palestine.


The Palestinians would have had to buy into the colonial project. That is what they rejected.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians would have had to buy into the colonial project. That is what they rejected.



How's that working out for them so far?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians would have had to buy into the colonial project. That is what they rejected.



That would make sense if your definition of "Palestinian"
wasn't to include any non-Jew who happened to reside
in a country whose name they can't even pronounce
properly, and for no longer than 2 years.

Isn't that colonialism?


----------



## themirrorthief

Coyote said:


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


all  nations  are  created  duh


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Current Sovereign - Self-Determination
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,

The "Right of Self-Determination" does not acquire anything.  It is the overt act by the people themselves that is the measure of "self-determination."



> P F Tinmore said:
> Self determination is a method of acquiring territory?
> 
> Link?





P F Tinmore said:


> Your link does not answer the question.


*(COMMENT)*

Self-Determination promises nothing.  But when people stand together and assemble the necessary self-governing institutions and put them to work, that is the product.

While the Arab Palestinians have the "Right to Self-Determination," they were not able to generate sufficient energy to create a nation.  The choices they made (*self-determined*) were counterproductive.  And in saying that, the outside observer can observe the narcissist culture that achieves very little. The Arab Palestinians operate in a fantasy world where they are perfect and everyone who disagrees with them is imperfect.    They blame everyone but themselves, yet the actual outcome of their efforts is _*prima facie*_ evidence of their incompetence (as a collective people) could not put the pieces together.  They were given the exact same opportunities as the Jewish settlers, and had the home-court advantage, yet still could not make a go of it.

The reason the links I give to you do not answer the question is because → you will accept any NO answer that does not support your position.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> They blame everyone but themselves, yet the actual outcome to their efforts is _*prima facie*_ evidence of their incompetence as a collective people could not put the pieces together.


Of course they were up against the world superpower of the time.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Self-Determination promises nothing. But when people stand together and assemble the necessary self-governing institutions and put them to work, that is the product.


That doesn't work in somebody else's country.The French can't go into Britain and claim self determination.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> That doesn't work in somebody else's country.The French can't go into Britain and claim self determination.



And the Arabs can't do it in Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Current Sovereign - Self-Determination
> ※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,
> 
> The "Right of Self-Determination" does not acquire anything.  It is the overt act by the people themselves that is the measure of "self-determination."
> 
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Self-Determination promises nothing.  But when people stand together and assemble the necessary self-governing institutions and put them to work, that is the product.
> 
> While the Arab Palestinians have the "Right to Self-Determination," they were not able to generate sufficient energy to create a nation.  The choices they made (*self-determined*) were counterproductive.  And in saying that, the outside observer can observe the narcissist culture that achieves very little. The Arab Palestinians operate in a fantasy world where they are perfect and everyone who disagrees with them is imperfect.    They blame everyone but themselves, yet the actual outcome of their efforts is _*prima facie*_ evidence of their incompetence (as a collective people) could not put the pieces together.  They were given the exact same opportunities as the Jewish settlers, and had the home-court advantage, yet still could not make a go of it.
> 
> The reason the links I give to you do not answer the question is because → you will accept any NO answer that does not support your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Your usual hit piece.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> That doesn't work in somebody else's country.The French can't go into Britain and claim self determination.


Indeed, but you want Arab supremacists to have exclusive domination
over the entire Middle East and North Africa.

Why are you against self-determination
for minorities in the Middle East?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine by Nur Masalha Book Summary - Review (AudioBook)​


----------



## rylah

*Palestinian Information Center’s Timeline of Jerusalem*
*Admits Their History Begins With Islamic Conquest*​


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> What actual step created Israel.


Military attacks on unarmed civilians.

You can't get any more candy ass than that.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Military attacks on unarmed civilians.
> 
> You can't get any more candy ass than that.



Attacks don't create states.

Curious that Arab supremacists
even suggest that, and all their states failed.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Attacks don't create states.
> 
> Only Arab supremacists would
> suggest such nonsense to justify defeat.


It's true. Look it up.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> It's true. Look it up.



Or...maybe because Arab supremacists believe
that attacks create states, they don't deserve any?

Basically, my solution is simple and just - to do Islam to Muslims.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine by Nur Masalha Book Summary - Review (AudioBook)​



Lies!

Those losers have been whining for at least 5000 years.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Military attacks on unarmed civilians.



The invading Arab armies attacked unarmed civilians?

And still got their asses kicked?

Why are Arabs always getting their asses kicked?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The invading Arab armies attacked unarmed civilians?
> 
> And still got their asses kicked?
> 
> Why are Arabs always getting their asses kicked?


The Palestinians were the unarmed civilians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Zionist Colonization of Palestine PART 1​
​The Zionist Colonization of Palestine PART 2​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians were the unarmed civilians.



By definition,
or you've just excluded the Jews
and pretend Arab supremacists were unarmed?

Quiet a thin line to hold an entire narrative from falling apart.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Military Attacks
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,

This is an incredibly gross misrepresentation of the facts (deception).



P F Tinmore said:


> Military attacks on unarmed civilians.
> 
> You can't get any more candy ass than that.


*(COMMENT)*

I have yet to read about a "deliberate attack" by the IDF on civilians.  I have heard, on rare occasions, inadvertent and accidental casualties in the "Fog of War"  or collateral damage and casualties as a result of Human Error.  But considering the duration of Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) activity, those numbers are small.  That is not to say that each casualty is unimportant; each life does count and is regrettable.  But in the conflict between the Anti-Israeli Forces in Palestine and the Defense Forces of Israel casualties are quite small.

Now!  The Israelis do not initiate combat action against the HoAP (as a general rule).  What YOU fail to take note of is the fact that each and every strike the IDF makes → is against a military target that has presented a threat to Israeli Sovereignty.

So!   How do the Arab Palestinians suffer casualties? *(RHETORICAL)*

Such casualties are a direct result when the HoAP initiates attacks on Israel from → or in close proximity to the Palestinians that deserve protection.  The HoAP launched such attacks attempting to use the dense population as cover and concealment of hostile activities within these densely populated areas.  This happens when they ignore three basic *Customary Rules*:




As usual, this is a direct result of HoAP using their Right of Self-Determination along a path of declared "Armed Struggle."  

And each time you make accusations as you have here, you are failing to accept the consequences of the HoAP Action.

I think it is a despicable practice.  It is the "candy ass" that hides behind the child as a shield and the women for concealment.  But this is an HoAP Policy.

I do not know how you can make such a claim when the HoAP:

When you openly praise role models like Dalal Mughrabi is the female terrorist who led the PLO terrorists responsible for the Coastal Road Massacre in 1978, in which 38 Israelis, 12 of them children, were murdered.

*Fatah chooses the path of violence and encourages Palestinians to die as “Martyrs” for ‎‎“Palestine.”* That message was cemented by Fatah Revolutionary Council member ‎Raed Radwan, who stressed that Palestinians must be prepared “to sacrifice blood”:‎
​



*SOURCE:*  Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) Nan Jacques Zilberdik  | Jan 25, 2021​This is not a new path.  It dates back more than a half-century ago.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Military Attacks
> ※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,
> 
> This is an incredibly gross misrepresentation of the facts (deception).
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I have yet to read about a "deliberate attack" by the IDF on civilians.  I have heard, on rare occasions, inadvertent and accidental casualties in the "Fog of War"  or collateral damage and casualties as a result of Human Error.  But considering the duration of Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) activity, those numbers are small.  That is not to say that each casualty is unimportant; each life does count and is regrettable.  But in the conflict between the Anti-Israeli Forces in Palestine and the Defense Forces of Israel casualties are quite small.
> 
> Now!  The Israelis do not initiate combat action against the HoAP (as a general rule).  What YOU fail to take note of is the fact that each and every strike the IDF makes → is against a military target that has presented a threat to Israeli Sovereignty.
> 
> So!   How do the Arab Palestinians suffer casualties? *(RHETORICAL)*
> 
> Such casualties are a direct result when the HoAP initiates attacks on Israel from → or in close proximity to the Palestinians that deserve protection.  The HoAP launched such attacks attempting to use the dense population as cover and concealment of hostile activities within these densely populated areas.  This happens when they ignore three basic *Customary Rules*:
> View attachment 598542
> As usual, this is a direct result of HoAP using their Right of Self-Determination along a path of declared "Armed Struggle."
> 
> And each time you make accusations as you have here, you are failing to accept the consequences of the HoAP Action.
> 
> I think it is a despicable practice.  It is the "candy ass" that hides behind the child as a shield and the women for concealment.  But this is an HoAP Policy.
> 
> I do not know how you can make such a claim when the HoAP:
> 
> When you openly praise role models like Dalal Mughrabi is the female terrorist who led the PLO terrorists responsible for the Coastal Road Massacre in 1978, in which 38 Israelis, 12 of them children, were murdered.
> 
> *Fatah chooses the path of violence and encourages Palestinians to die as “Martyrs” for ‎‎“Palestine.”* That message was cemented by Fatah Revolutionary Council member ‎Raed Radwan, who stressed that Palestinians must be prepared “to sacrifice blood”:‎
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 598549
> *SOURCE:*  Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) Nan Jacques Zilberdik  | Jan 25, 2021​This is not a new path.  It dates back more than a half-century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


My comment was in reference to the creation of Israel, the Nakba. Military forces attacked unarmed Palestinian civilians to drive them off their land to achieve the demographics needed to create a Jewish majority state. Since Jews were only 1/3 of the population in 1947, it was necessary for them to get rid of as many Palestinians possible.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> My comment was in reference to the creation of Israel, the Nakba. Military forces attacked unarmed Palestinian civilians to drive them off their land to achieve the demographics needed to create a Jewish majority state. Since Jews were only 1/3 of the population in 1947, it was necessary for them to get rid of as many Palestinians possible.


Repeat a lie a Million times and eventually it will become the truth in your mind, Tinmore, this and many other lies you attempt to make others believe.

Nakba was what Jews of TransJordan experienced in 1925 when they were expelled from their homes in their own homeland to give space for the British Indian giving gift to the Hashemites.

Nakba is what the Jews experienced in 1929 in Hebron.

Nakba is what the Jews experienced in 1948 when the Jordanian Army with the British help, expelled all Jews from their Jewish Homeland in Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, which is WHAT now, even after 1967 ?

Nakba is the continued Christian and Muslim intent in killing all Jews so that they can feel at long last.......the Chosen Ones.

You are all a very dangerous joke. Very deadly, sad and pathetic dangerous joke.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Repeat a lie a Million times and eventually it will become the truth in your mind, Tinmore, this and many other lies you attempt to make others believe.
> 
> Nakba was what Jews of TransJordan experienced in 1925 when they were expelled from their homes in their own homeland to give space for the British Indian giving gift to the Hashemites.
> 
> Nakba is what the Jews experienced in 1929 in Hebron.
> 
> Nakba is what the Jews experienced in 1948 when the Jordanian Army with the British help, expelled all Jews from their Jewish Homeland in Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, which is WHAT now, even after 1967 ?
> 
> Nakba is the continued Christian and Muslim intent in killing all Jews so that they can feel at long last.......the Chosen Ones.
> 
> You are all a very dangerous joke. Very deadly, sad and pathetic dangerous joke.


Nice deflection.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Military Attacks
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,

The term "Nakba" is a politically disguised term for propaganda purposes.  Any educated person knows that such combat action, between the Jewish Immigrants and the Arabs of the territory, govern under the Mandate, (*that being prior to May 1948*) was a non-international armed conflict between two domestic factions within the SAME territory. (*See Below*). The territory formerly subject to the Mandate of Palestine did not have any independent and self-governing entities.

The use of that term is a deceptive measure to avoid unveiling the true nature of the conflict (*Civil War)*.  (*See Below*)



P F Tinmore said:


> My comment was in reference to the creation of Israel, the Nakba. Military forces attacked unarmed Palestinian civilians to drive them off their land to achieve the demographics needed to create a Jewish majority state. Since Jews were only 1/3 of the population in 1947, it was necessary for them to get rid of as many Palestinians possible.


*(COMMENT)*

There were no military forces operating in the territory except for the British.





_Most Respectfully,_
R
____________________________________
*QUOTES*
*International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:*

*international armed conflicts*, opposing two or more States, and
*non-international armed conflicts*, between governmental forces and non-
governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.

*civil war*
Semble this is not a term of art in international law and any definition of it is difficult to find in the writings of that discipline. War, in terms of international law, is essentially international war—between entities at least one of which is a State (no other being, strictly, required to be such, provided that the State party treats the conflict as governed by the laws of war). By contrast, therefore, *a civil war appears to be a conflict, no doubt necessarily of a public character, either between entities none of which are States or which is otherwise not governed by international law* (because, as in most cases, it falls within the sphere of intra-State or constitutional rather than inter-State law and relations). But a civil war in this sense of a conflict internal to a State may nevertheless be of concern to international law.  Indeed, the majority of conflicts since 1945 have been intra-State: U.N. Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, Agenda for Peace of 17 June 1992 ( U.N. Doc. A/47/277—S/24111 ), paras. 8–19, and its Supplement of 3 January 1995 ( U.N. Doc. A/50/60—S/1995/1), para. 10.  The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 ( 75 U.N.T.S. 3ff. ) each stipulate (art. 3) for the application of certain minimum provisions of these Conventions ‘in the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the … Parties’; Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions of 8 June 1977 ( 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 ) specifically addresses, in 18 substantive articles, as its title states, the ‘Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts’: the recognition of insurgent or belligerent status of contending factions ( see recognition of belligerency; recognition of insurgency ), whether by the parent State or by third States, may or must elevate a hitherto internal conflict into an international war for purposes of at least that part of international law which has to do with war and neutrality.
*SOURCE*:  
_International law--Encyclopedias_. I. Grant, John P. II. Barker, J. Craig, 1966-III. Parry, Clive. Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law IV. Title V Title: Encyclopaedic dictionary of international law.  Copyright  2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc.  pg 98


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Nice deflection.


Keep rejecting reality.
You have nothing to gain by Israel not existing.
The Arabs in Israel and in Gaza and Judea and Samaria are doing quite well in Israel, working, studying, able to get out of Gaza and never come back.

Keep rejecting history with your "nice deflection" nonsense which continues to harm the ones you want to destroy Israel.

Decency and honor are two words which cannot be attributed to the Arab leaders and people like yourself.

Hatred for Jews is an illness.

Get rid of it.

Jesus does not love Jew haters.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> There were no military forces operating in the territory except for the British.


Not so. The foreign Zionist colonial project had a full army and started conscripting troops in December of 1947.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Not so. The foreign Zionist colonial project had a full army and started conscripting troops in December of 1947.


The Zionists were Jews indigenous to the homeland where they were going to reconstruct their Nation.

ON their own homeland.

They had to arm themselves and fight the enemy just as their ancestors had fought the Greeks, the Persians and the Romans.

No Arab ever fought those invaders.  And then, the Arabs became invaders themselves after defeating the Byzantine which was after the Roman Empire.

In a nutshell, the Jews took back 20 % of their homeland from the Arab Muslims and Christian British invaders who wanted to keep that Mandate for themselves instead of honoring the Mandate for Palestine as they had honored all 3 others.

Nakba is the shame the Christians and Muslims keep bringing on themselves for wanting to keep the Jews homeless, helpless and wondering from land to land without end.

No more.


Am Israel Chai

The People of Israel Live


----------



## Sixties Fan

It is certainly true that the Mufti was marginal to the “final solution.” Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was wrong to remark in 2018 that the Mufti “convinced” Hitler to annihilate the Jews.

However, there were instances when the Mufti, who was known to have visited Nazi camps and hobnobbed with Himmler and von Ribbentrop, proved even more extreme than the Nazis. In 1942, a plan to bring 10,000 Jewish children from Poland to Theresienstadt and exchange them for German civilian prisoners was dropped after fierce protests from the Mufti.

The children were sent to their deaths. The Mufti’s Muslim S.S. units in the former Yugoslavia murdered tens of thousands. According to the Mufti’s memoirs, Hitler had given an explicit undertaking to him at their famous meeting in November 1941 that he would be allowed to solve the Jewish problem. “The Jews are yours,” Hitler said.

The Mufti did not have the satisfaction of exterminating the Jews in his sphere of influence, but his alliance with the Nazis was far more ideological than pragmatic.

It is not the Mufti’s effect on the Nazis that Dayan ignores, but rather his impact on the Arabs. And here he had a massive effect, and—many would argue—still has. Wherever he went in the Arab world, the Mufti stirred up trouble against the local Jews. He was the driving force behind the pro-Nazi coup in Iraq leading to the Farhud massacre of hundreds of Jews in June 1941—proof-positive that anti-Zionism had spilled over into outright anti-Semitism.

Escaping to Berlin when he was Hitler’s lavishly funded wartime guest, the Mufti with a group of Arab exiles pumped out poisonous propaganda from the short-wave transmitter at Zeesen, fusing anti-Jewish verses from the Quran with modern anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.

(full article online )









						The Nazi roots of Arab anti-Semitism must not be denied
					

It is not Haj Amin al-Husseini’s effect on the Nazis that Yad Vashem chair Dani Dayan ignores, but rather, the Mufti’s impact on the Arabs.




					www.jns.org


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Military Attacks
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,





​


P F Tinmore said:


> Not so. The foreign Zionist colonial project had a full army and started conscripting troops in December of 1947.


*(COMMENT)*

Pre-Invasion, both the Arab Palestinians and the Jewish residents established armed organizations.  The Arab Palestinians had the (_*as just one example*_) Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.  The Jewish Community had (_*for example*_) the Haganah.

Your quibbling here is a bit lit the pot calling the kettle →  black.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Pre-Invasion, both the Arab Palestinians and the Jewish residents established armed organizations.


Very misleading statement, of course. Britain assisted the Zionists in creating a "state within a state." (Britain's term not mine.) This included a fully functioning military trained by the British and getting combat experience in WWll. They bagan conscripting troops in December of 1947. Golda Meir went to the US to mooch money for their upcoming war.

Britain eliminated the Palestinian leadership and disarmed the Palestinians by 1939. They only had a couple civilian militias with small arms.

The Zionists rolled their military over Palestine expelling over 300,000 Palestinians before the start of the 1948 war.

This was the Nakba that was different than the 1948 war.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


>


These atrocities were not by Palestinians.

That's good to know.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Very misleading statement, of course. Britain assisted the Zionists in creating a "state within a state." (Britain's term not mine.) This included a fully functioning military trained by the British and getting combat experience in WWll. They bagan conscripting troops in December of 1947. Golda Meir went to the US to mooch money for their upcoming war.
> 
> Britain eliminated the Palestinian leadership and disarmed the Palestinians by 1939. They only had a couple civilian militias with small arms.
> 
> The Zionists rolled their military over Palestine expelling over 300,000 Palestinians before the start of the 1948 war.
> 
> This was the Nakba that was different than the 1948 war.


"State within a State"

Links, not words.

Facts, not words.

Try it.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> These atrocities were not by Palestinians.
> 
> That's good to know.


What an amazingly poor knowledge of history you do have.

The Al Husseini clan had been in Palestine since the 11th Century.  

They led the riots against the Jews in the 20th century.

Do the math between the 11th and 20th century.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> These atrocities were not by Palestinians.
> 
> That's good to know.


And let us not forget the Al Husseini masterpiece in Iraq in 1941.  The Fahrud

How many Jews did he enjoy seeing killed during those riots?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> These atrocities were not by Palestinians.
> 
> That's good to know.



How can you know if you didn't read?

Let's take a look...

1517: 1st Safed Pogrom
1517: 1st Hebron Pogrom,
1577: Passover Massacre
1660: 2nd Safed Pogrom1834: 2nd Hebron Pogrom
1840: Damascus, ritual killings
1847: Dayr al-Qamar Pogrom
1847: Ethnic cleansing of Jews from Jerusalem
1848: 1st Damascus Pogrom
1850: 1st Aleppo Pogrom
1860: 2nd Damascus Pogrom
1862: 1st Beirut Pogrom1874: 2nd Beirut Pogrom
1875: 2nd Aleppo Pogrom
1882: Homs Massacre
1890, 3rd Damascus Pogrom
1920 - 1930: Arab riots (incl. "Palestine is Arab land and the Jews are our dogs")
1921: 1st Jaffa riots
1928: Jewish orphans sold into slavery and forced to convert to Islam by Muslim Brotherhood
1929: 3rd Hebron pogrom and 3rd Safed pogrom
1933: 2nd Jaffa riots
1934: 1st Farhud Massacres
1936: 3rd Jaffa riots
1936: 2nd Farhud Massacres1941: 3rd Farhud Massacres
1942: Jerusalem Grand Mufti openly collaborates with Hitler, plays a part in planning the Final Solution, sends Muslim SS divisions to round up Jews.

*(QUESTION)*

So if these atrocities weren't committed by them,
does it mean those who call themselves 'Palestinians' didn't live there?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 1

*Pre-1948 Conditions in Palestine*

A study of Palestine under Turkish rule reveals that already at the beginning of the 18th century, long before Jewish land purchases and large-scale Jewish immigration started, the position of the Palestinian fellah (peasant) had begun to deteriorate. The heavy burden of taxation, coming on top of chronic indebtedness to money-lenders, drove a growing number of farmers to place themselves under the protection of men of wealth or of the Moslem religious endowment fund _(Waqf), _with the result that they were eventually compelled to give up their title to the land, if not their actual residence upon and cultivation of it.

Until the passage of the Turkish Land Registry Law in 1858, there were no official deeds to attest to a man’s legal title to a parcel of land; tradition alone had to suffice to establish such title—and usually it did. And yet, the position of Palestine’s farmers was a precarious one, for there were constant blood-feuds between families, clans and entire villages, as well as periodic incursions by rapacious Bedouin tribes, such as the notorious Ben Sakk’r, of whom H. B. Tristram _(The Land of Israel: A Journal of Travels in Palestine,_ Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1865) wrote that they “can muster 1,000 cavalry and always join their brethren when a raid or war is on the move. They have obtained their present possessions gradually and, in great measure, by driving out the fellahin (peasants), destroying their villages and reducing their rich corn-fields to pasturage.” (p. 488.)

Tristram goes on to present a remarkable and highly revealing description of conditions in Palestine on both sides of the Jordan River in the middle of the 19th century—a description that belies the Arab claim of a tranquil, normally developing Palestinian rural economy allegedly disrupted by Jewish immigration and settlement.

_A few years ago, the whole Ghor was in the hands of the fellahin, and much of it cultivated for corn. Now the whole of it is in the hands of the Bedouin, who eschew all agriculture, except in a few spots cultivated here and there by their slaves; and with the Bedouin come lawlessness and the uprooting of all Turkish authority. No government is now acknowledged on the east side; and unless the Porte acts with greater firmness and caution than is his wont . . . Palestine will be desolated and given up to the nomads.

The same thing is now going on over the plain of Sharon, where, both in the north and south, land is going out of cultivation, and whole villages [are] rapidly disappearing from the face of the earth. Since the year 1838, no [fewer] than 20 villages have been thus erased from the map and the stationary population extirpated. Very rapidly the Bedouin are encroaching wherever horse can be ridden; and the Government is utterly powerless to resist them or to defend its subjects. (p. 490)_

For descriptions of other parts of the country, we are indebted to the 1937 Report of the Palestine Royal Commission—though, for lack of space, we can quote but the briefest passages. In Chapter 9, para. 43 the Report quotes an eye-witness account of the condition of the Maritime Plain in 1913:

_The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts . . . no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached Yabna village. . . . Not in a single village in all this area was water used for irrigation. . . .Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen. . . .The ploughs used were of wood. . . . The yields were very poor. . . .The sanitary conditions in the village were horrible. Schools did not exist. . . . The rate of infant mortality was very high. . . .

The area north of Jaffa . . . consisted of two distinctive parts. . . . The eastern part, in the direction of the hills, resembled in culture that of the Gaza-Jaffa area. . . . The western part, towards the sea, was almost a desert. . . . The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants._

The Huleh basin, below the Syrian border, is described as “including a number of Arab villages and a large papyrus swamp draining south into Lake Huleh . . . a triangular strip of land some 44 sq. miles in area. . . . This tract is irrigated in a very haphazard manner by a network of small, primitive canals. It is, owing to over-irrigation, now the most malarious tract in all Palestine. It might become one of the most fertile.”

With regard to yet another region in Palestine—the Beisan (Beit Shean) area—we quote from the report of Mr. Lewis French, Director of Development appointed by the British Government in 1931:

_We found it inhabited by fellahin who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria. . . . Large areas of their lands were uncultivated and covered with weeds. There were no trees, no vegetables. The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbor these and other criminals. The individual plots of cultivation changed hands annually. There was little public security, and the fellahin’s lot was an alternation of pillage and blackmail by their neighbours, the Bedouin._

This, then, was the picture of Palestine in the closing decades of the 19th century and up to the First World War: a land that was overwhelmingly desert, with nomads continually encroaching on the settled areas and its farmers; a lack of elementary facilities and equipment; peasants wallowing in poverty, ignorance and disease, saddled with debts (interest rates at times were as high as 60 per cent) and threatened by warlike nomads or neighbouring clans. The result was a growing neglect of the soil and a flight from the villages, with a mounting concentration of lands in the hands of a small number of large landowners, frequently residing in such distant Arab capitals as Beirut and Damascus, Cairo and Kuwait. Here, in other words, was a social and economic order that had all the earmarks of a medieval feudal society.







__





						Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival
					






					lessons.myjli.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 2

*Who Dispossessed the Palestinian Peasant?*

The Palestinian peasant was indeed being dispossessed, but by his fellow-Arabs: the local sheikh and village elders, the Government tax-collector, the merchants and money-lenders; and, when he was a tenant-farmer (as was usually the case), by the absentee-owner. By the time the season’s crop had been distributed among all these, little if anything remained for him and his family, and new debts generally had to be incurred to pay off the old. Then the Bedouin came along and took their “cut”, or drove the hapless fellah off the land altogether.

This was the “normal” course of events in 19th-century Palestine. It was disrupted by the advent of the Jewish pioneering enterprise, which sounded the death-knell of this medieval feudal system. In this way the Jews played an objective revolutionary role. Small wonder that it aroused the ire and active opposition of the Arab sheikhs, absentee landowners, money-lenders and Bedouin bandits.






__





						Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival
					






					lessons.myjli.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 3

*Jewish Land Purchases*

It is important to note that the first enduring Jewish agricultural settlement in modern Palestine was founded not by European refugees, but by a group of old-time families, leaving the overcrowded Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. (According to the Turkish census of 1875, by that time Jews already constituted a majority of the population of Jerusalem and by 1905 comprised two-thirds of its citizens. The _Encyclopaedia Britannica _of 1910 gives the population figure as 60,000, of whom 40,000 were Jews.)

In 1878 they founded the village of Petah Tikva in the Sharon Plain—a village that was to become known as the “Mother of Jewish Settlements” in Palestine. Four years later a group of pioneering immigrants from Russia settled in Rishon le-Zion. Other farming villages followed in rapid succession.

When considering Jewish land purchases and settlements, four factors should be borne in mind:


_Most of the land purchases involved large tracts belonging to absentee owners. (Virtually all of the Jezreel Valley, for example, belonged in 1897 to only two persons: the eastern portion to the Turkish Sultan, and the western part to the richest banker in Syria, Sursuk “the Greek.”)_
_Most of the land purchased had not been cultivated previously because it was swampy, rocky, sandy or, for some other reason, regarded as uncultivable. This is supported by the findings of the Peel Commission Report (p. 242): “The Arab charge that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased . . . there was at the time at least of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” (1937)_
_While, for this reason, the early transactions did not involve unduly large sums of money, the price of land began to rise as Arab landowners took advantage of the growing demand for rural tracts. The resulting infusion of capital into the Palestinian economy had noticeable beneficial effects on the standard of living of all the inhabitants._
_The Jewish pioneers introduced new farming methods which improved the soil and crop cultivation and were soon emulated by Arab farmers. _
The following figures show land purchases by the three leading Jewish land-buying organizations and by individual Jews between 1880 and 1935.





__





						Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival
					






					lessons.myjli.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 4

*Jewish Land Purchases, 1880–1935 (in Dunams1)*

*Organization**Total Land Acquired**Government Concessions**From Private Owners**Large Tracts2Dunams**Large Tract Percent (approx.)*PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association)469,40739,520429,887293,54570Palestine Land Development Co.579,49266,5133512,979455,16990Jewish National Fund4836,396Until 1930270,084239,170901931–1947566,31250Individual Jews432,100432,10050
 
From the above table it will be seen that the proportion of the land purchased from large (usually absentee) owners ranged from about 50 to 90 per cent.
“The total area of land in Jewish possession at the end of June 1947,” writes A. Granott in _The Land System in Palestine _(Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1952, p. 278), “amounted to 1,850,000 dunams, of this 181,100 dunams had been obtained through concessions from the Palestinian Government, and about 120,000 dunams had been acquired from Churches, from foreign companies, from the Government otherwise than by concessions, and so forth. It was estimated that 1,000,000 dunams and more, or 57 per cent, had been acquired from large Arab landowners, and if to this we add the lands acquired from the Government, Churches, and foreign companies, the percentage will amount to seventy-three. From the fellaheen there had been purchased about 500,000 dunams, or 27 per cent, of the total acquired. The result of Jewish land acquisitions, at least to a considerable part, was that properties which had been in the hands of large and medium owners were converted into holding of small peasants.”





__





						Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival
					






					lessons.myjli.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 5

*The League of Nations Mandate*

When the League of Nations conferred the Mandate for Palestine upon Great Britain in 1922, it expressly stipulated that “The Administration of Palestine . . . shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency . . . close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes” (Article 6), and that it “shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.” (Article 11)

British policy, however, followed a different course, deferring to the extremist Arab opposition to the above-mentioned provision of the Mandate. Of some 750,000 dunams of cultivable State lands, 350,000, or nearly half, had been allotted by 1949 to Arabs and only 17,000 dunams to Jews. This was in clear violation of the terms of the Mandate. Nor, ironically enough, did it help the Arab peasants for whose benefit these transactions were ostensibly carried out. The glaring examples of this policy are the case of the Besian lands and that of the Huleh Concession.

* 

Besian Lands*

Under the Ghor-Mudawwarra Agreement of 1921, some 225,000 dunams of potentially fertile wasteland in the Besian (Beit Shean) area were handed over to Arab farmers on terms severely condemned not only by Jews but also by such British experts as Lewis French and Sir John Hope-Simpson. More than half of the land was irrigable, and, according to the British experts, eight dunams of irrigated land per capita (or 50–60 dunams per family) were sufficient to enable a family to maintain itself on the land. Yet many farmers received far more than that: six families, of whom two lived in Syria, received a combined area of about 7,000 dunams; four families (some living in Egypt) received a combined area of 3,496 dunams ; another received 3,450 and yet another, 1,350.

Thus the Ghor-Mudawwarra Agreement was instrumental in creating a new group of large landowners. Possessing huge tracts, most of which they were unable to till, these owners began to sell the surplus lands at speculative prices. In his 1930 Report, Sir Hope-Simpson wrote of the Agreement that it had deprived the Government of “the control of a large area of fertile land eminently suited for development and for which there is ample water for irrigation,” and that “the grant of the land has led to speculation on a considerable scale.”

* 

Huleh Area*

For twenty years (from 1914 to 1934) the Huleh Concession—some 57,000 dunams of partly swamp-infested but potentially highly fertile land in north-eastern Palestine—was in Arab hands. The Arab concessionaires were to drain and develop the land so as to make additional tracts available for cultivation, under very attractive terms offered by the Government (first Turkish, then British). However, this was never done, and in 1934 the concession was sold to a Jewish concern, the Palestine Land Development Company, at a huge profit. The Government added several onerous conditions concerning the amount of land (from the drained and newly developed tracts) that had to be handed over—without reimbursement for drainage and irrigation costs—to Arab tenant-farmers in the area.

All told, hundreds of millions of dollars were paid by Jewish buyers to Arab landowners. Official records show that in 1933 £854,796 was paid by Jewish individuals and organizations for Arab land, mostly large estates; in 1934 the figure was £1,647,836 and in 1935, £1,699,488. Thus, in the course of only three years £4,202,180 (more than 20 million dollars at the prevailing rate of exchange) was paid out to Arab landowners (Palestine Royal Commission Report, 1937).

To understand the magnitude of the prices paid for these lands, we need only look at some comparative figures. In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semi-arid land; in the same year rich black soil in the state of Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre (U.S. Department of Agriculture).






__





						Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival
					






					lessons.myjli.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 6

*Effects on Arab Population*

In those instances where as a result of such transactions Arab tenant-farmers were displaced (on one year’s notice), compensation in cash or other land was paid, as required by the 1922 Protection of Cultivators Ordinance; the Jewish land-buying associations often paid more than the law required (Pollack and Boehm, _The Keren_ _Kayemeth Le-Israel). _Of 688 such tenants between 1920 and 1930, 526 remained in agricultural occupations, some 400 of them finding other land (Palestine Royal Commission Report, 1937, Chapter 9, para. 61).

Investigations initiated in 1931 by Mr. Lewis French disposed of the charge that a large class of landless or dispossessed Arab farmers was created as a result of Jewish land purchases. According to the British Government report (Memoranda prepared by the Government of Palestine, London 1937, Colonia No. 133, p. 37), the total number of applications for registration as landless Arabs was 3,271. Of these, 2,607 were rejected on the ground that they did not come within the category of landless Arabs. Valid claims were recognized in the case of 664 heads of families, of whom 347 accepted the offer of resettlement by the Government. The remainder refused either because they had found satisfactory employment elsewhere or because they were not accustomed to irrigated cultivation or the climate of the new areas (_Peel Report_, Chapter 9, para. 60).

Purchases of land by Jews in the hill country had always been very small and, according to the investigations by Mr. French, of 71 applications by Arabs claiming to be landless, 68 were turned down.

* 

Arab Population Changes Due to Jewish Settlement*

Another Arab claim disproved by the facts is that Zionist “colonialism” led to the disruption and ruin of the Arab Palestinian society and economy.

Statistics published in the Palestine Royal Commission Report (p. 279) indicate a remarkable phenomenon: Palestine, traditionally a country of Arab emigration, became after World War I a country of Arab immigration. In addition to recorded figures for 1920-36, the Report devotes a special section to illegal Arab immigration. While there are no precise totals on the extent of Arab immigration between the two World Wars, estimates vary between 60,000 and 100,000. The principal cause of the change of direction was Jewish development, which created new and attractive work opportunities and, in general, a standard of living previously unknown in the Middle East.

Another major factor in the rapid growth of the Arab population was, of course, the rate of natural increase, among the highest in the world. This was accentuated by the steady reduction of the previously high infant mortality rate as a result of the improved health and sanitary conditions introduced by the Jews.

Altogether, the non-Jewish element in Palestine’s population (not including Bedouin) expanded between 1922 and 1929 alone by more than 75 per cent. The _Royal Commission Report_ makes these interesting observations:

_The shortage of land is, we consider, due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population, (p. 242) We are also of the opinion that up till now the Arab cultivator has benefited, on the whole, both from the work of the British administration and from the presence of Jews in the country. Wages have gone up; the standard of living has improved; work on roads and buildings has been plentiful. In the Maritime Plains some Arabs have adopted improved methods of cultivation. (p. 241)_

Jewish development served as an incentive not only to Arab entry into Palestine from Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and other neighbouring countries, but also to Arab population movements within the country—to cities and areas where there was a large Jewish concentration. Some idea of this phenomenon may be gained from the following official figures:

_Changes in towns: _The Arab population in predominantly Arab towns rose only slightly (if at all) between the two World Wars: in Hebron—from 16,650 in 1922 to 22,800 in 1943; Nablus—from 15,931 to 23,300; Jenin—from 2,737 to 3,900; Bethlehem—from 6,658 to 8,800. Gaza’s population actually decreased from 17,426 in 1922 to 17,045 in 1931.

On the other hand, in the three major Jewish cities the Arab population shot up during this period, far beyond the rate of natural increase: Jerusalem—from 28,571 in 1922 to 56,400 (97 percent); Jaffa—from 27,437 to 62,600 (134 per cent); Haifa—from 18,404 to 58,200 (216 per cent).

_Changes in rural areas: _The population of the predominantly Arab Beersheba district dropped between 1922 and 1939 from 71,000 to 49,000 (the rate of natural increase should have resulted in a rise to 89,000). In the Bethlehem district the figure increased from 24,613 to about 26,000 (after falling to 23,725 in 1929). In the Hebron area it went up from 51,345 to 59,000 (the natural increase rate dictated a rise to 72,000).

In contrast to these declines or comparatively slight increases in exclusively Arab-inhabited areas, in the Nazareth, Beit Shean, Tiberias and Acre districts—where large-scale Jewish settlement and rural development was underway—the figure rose from 89,600 in 1922 to some 151,000 in 1938 (by about 4.5 per cent per annum, compared with a natural increase rate of 2.5–3 per cent).

In the largely Jewish Haifa area the number of Arab peasants increased by 8 per cent a year during the same period. In the Jaffa and Ramla districts (heavily Jewish populated), the Arab rural population grew from 42,300 to some 126,000—an annual increase of 12 per cent, or more than four times as much as can be attributed to natural increase (L. Shimony, _The Arabs of Palestine,_ Tel-Aviv, 1947, pp. 422–23).

One reason for the Arab gravitation toward Jewish-inhabited areas, and from neighbouring countries to Palestine, was the incomparably higher wage scales paid there, as may be seen from the following table.





__





						Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival
					






					lessons.myjli.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 7

*Daily Wage Scales, 1943 (in mils)5*


*Unskilled Labour**Skilled Labour*Palestine220–250350–600Egypt30–5070–200Syria80–100150–200Iraq5070–200
 

The capital received by Arab landowners for their surplus holdings was used for improved and intensive cultivation or invested in other enterprises. Turning again to the Report of the Palestine Royal Commission (p. 93), we find the following conclusions: “The large import of Jewish capital into Palestine has had a general fructifying effect on the economic life of the whole country. . . . The expansion of Arab industry and citriculture has been largely financed by the capital thus obtained. . . . Jewish example has done much to improve Arab cultivation. . . . The increase in Arab population is most marked in areas affected by Jewish development.”

During World War II, the Arab population influx mounted apace, as is attested by the _UNRWA Review, _Information Paper No. 6 (September 1962):

A considerable movement of people is known to have occurred, particularly during the Second World War, years when new opportunities of employment opened up in the towns and on military works in Palestine. These wartime prospects and, generally, the higher rate of industrialization in Palestine attracted many new immigrants from the neighbouring countries, and many of them entered Palestine without their presence being officially recorded.

* 

Land Ownership in 1948*

The claim is often made that in 1948 a Jewish minority owning only 5 per cent of the land of Palestine made itself master of the Arab majority, which owned 95 per cent of the land.

In May 1948 the State of Israel was established in only part of the area allotted by the original League of Nations Mandate. 8.6 percent of the land was owned by Jews and 3.3 per cent by Israeli Arabs, while 16.9 per cent had been abandoned by Arab owners who imprudently heeded the call from neighbouring countries to “get out of the way” while the invading Arab armies made short shrift of Israel. The rest of the land—over 70 per cent—had been vested in the Mandatory Power, and accordingly reverted to the State of Israel as its legal heir. (Government of Palestine, _Survey of Palestine,_ _1946, _British Government Printer, p. 257.)

The greater part of this 70 per cent consisted of the Negev, some 3,144,250 acres all told, or close to 50 per cent of the 6,580,000 acres in all of Mandatory Palestine. Known as Crown or State Lands, this was mostly uninhabited arid or semi-arid territory, inherited originally by the Mandatory Government from Turkey. In 1948 it passed to the Government of Israel.

These lands had not been owned by Arab farmers—neither under the British Mandate nor under the preceding regime. Thus it is obvious that the contention that 95 per cent of the land—whether of Mandatory Palestine or of the State of Israel—had belonged to Arabs has absolutely no foundation in fact.

There is perhaps no better way of concluding and summing up this study than to quote from an article entitled _Is Israel a Thorn or a Flower in the Near East? _by Abdul Razak Kader, the Algerian political writer, now living in exile in Paris _(Jerusalem Post, _Aug. 1, 1969):

“The Nationalists of the states neighbouring on Israel, whether they are in the government or in business, whether Palestinian, Syrian or Lebanese, or town dwellers of tribal origin, all know that at the beginning of the century and during the British Mandate the marshy plains and stone hills were sold to the Zionists by their fathers or uncles for gold, the very gold which is often the origin of their own political or commercial careers. The nomadic or seminomadic peasants who inhabited the frontier regions know full well what the green plains, the afforested hills and the flowering fields of today’s Israel were like before.

“The Palestinians who are today refugees in the neighbouring countries and who were adults at the time of their flight know all this, and no anti-Zionist propaganda—pan-Arab or pan-Moslem—can make them forget that their present nationalist exploiters are the worthy sons of their feudal exploiters of yesterday and that the thorns of their life are of Arab, not Jewish, origin.”

* Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival*


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> How can you know if you didn't read?
> 
> Let's take a look...
> 
> 1517: 1st Safed Pogrom
> 1517: 1st Hebron Pogrom,
> 1577: Passover Massacre
> 1660: 2nd Safed Pogrom1834: 2nd Hebron Pogrom
> 1840: Damascus, ritual killings
> 1847: Dayr al-Qamar Pogrom
> 1847: Ethnic cleansing of Jews from Jerusalem
> 1848: 1st Damascus Pogrom
> 1850: 1st Aleppo Pogrom
> 1860: 2nd Damascus Pogrom
> 1862: 1st Beirut Pogrom1874: 2nd Beirut Pogrom
> 1875: 2nd Aleppo Pogrom
> 1882: Homs Massacre
> 1890, 3rd Damascus Pogrom
> 1920 - 1930: Arab riots (incl. "Palestine is Arab land and the Jews are our dogs")
> 1921: 1st Jaffa riots
> 1928: Jewish orphans sold into slavery and forced to convert to Islam by Muslim Brotherhood
> 1929: 3rd Hebron pogrom and 3rd Safed pogrom
> 1933: 2nd Jaffa riots
> 1934: 1st Farhud Massacres
> 1936: 3rd Jaffa riots
> 1936: 2nd Farhud Massacres1941: 3rd Farhud Massacres
> 1942: Jerusalem Grand Mufti openly collaborates with Hitler, plays a part in planning the Final Solution, sends Muslim SS divisions to ro
> 
> 
> 
> rylah said:
> 
> 
> 
> does it mean those who call themselves 'Palestinians' didn't live there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> und up Jews.
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> 
> So if these atrocities weren't committed by them,
> does it mean those who call themselves 'Palestinians' didn't live there?
Click to expand...

Indeed.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Let us inject a little realism into the Discussion!
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,

*(RHETORICAL QUESTIONS)*

✪   Do you think, for one moment that this consistent whining about the political contrivance called the "NAKBA" (_*Catastrophe of Palestine*_) will get milage in any negotiated settlement?

✪   What difference does the "NAKBA" make?

✪   The creation and movement of "refugees," as the Arab Palestinians like to refer to themselves is covered by what binding laws?

*(COMMENT)*

There are damn few Arab Palestinian "NAKBA" Refugees left from the period 1946 to 1949.  Any survivors of that period would be over seventy years old the absolute upper limit to the returnable refugees is approximately 100,000.





And of those people you must weed out:

◈    Those that once had Jordanian Citizenship.​​◈    Those are now or have been in the past national security risks, those that threaten public order, public health, or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.​​◈    Those who committed offenses that were solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.​​◈    Those guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or those who committed intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.​​◈    Those that introduced propaganda for war.​​◈    Those that advocated for national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​​◈    Those that advocated or were indoctrinated in the policy that Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.  Those that were members of, or collaborators with known or designated terrorist organizations (past and present).​​(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or​(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily reacquired it; or​(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or​(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or​(5) He can no longer because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality.​
Once you sift these ineligible, how many do you really have left?

All those engaged in support activities would be filtered out if they advocated "armed struggle" against the Occupation Force and Civil Administration in this discussion group.  And for preaching that "armed struggle against the Israelis is legitimate.

Just my observation. 






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Let us inject a little realism into the Discussion!
> ※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,
> 
> *(RHETORICAL QUESTIONS)*
> 
> ✪   Do you think, for one moment that this consistent whining about the political contrivance called the "NAKBA" (_*Catastrophe of Palestine*_) will get milage in any negotiated settlement?
> 
> ✪   What difference does the "NAKBA" make?
> 
> ✪   The creation and movement of "refugees," as the Arab Palestinians like to refer to themselves is covered by what binding laws?
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> There are damn few Arab Palestinian "NAKBA" Refugees left from the period 1946 to 1949.  Any survivors of that period would be over seventy years old the absolute upper limit to the returnable refugees is approximately 100,000.
> 
> View attachment 599627​
> And of those people you must weed out:
> 
> ◈    Those that once had Jordanian Citizenship.​​◈    Those are now or have been in the past national security risks, those that threaten public order, public health, or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.​​◈    Those who committed offenses that were solely intended to harm the Occupying Power.​​◈    Those guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or those who committed intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.​​◈    Those that introduced propaganda for war.​​◈    Those that advocated for national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.​​◈    Those that advocated or were indoctrinated in the policy that Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.  Those that were members of, or collaborators with known or designated terrorist organizations (past and present).​​(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or​(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily reacquired it; or​(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or​(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or​(5) He can no longer because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality.​
> Once you sift these ineligible, how many do you really have left?
> 
> All those engaged in support activities would be filtered out if they advocated "armed struggle" against the Occupation Force and Civil Administration in this discussion group.  And for preaching that "armed struggle against the Israelis is legitimate.
> 
> Just my observation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Holy excuses, Batman!


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Holy excuses, Batman!


Holy Ignorance of Everything, Batman !!!!!


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Let us inject a little realism into the Discussion!
※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,

There is no excuse here.  I did not offer an excuse.  I will not give an excuse. 

If we are to believe that you are making some relevant contribution to the discussion, then we have to assume that you have some realistic way in which the current situation can be overturned and Israel be overrun by Arab Palestinians.



P F Tinmore said:


> Holy excuses, Batman!


*(COMMENT)*

We both know that is NOT happening.  In fact, each time the Hostile Arab components to this conflict try to accomplish some achievement by means of "Armed Conflict" the Arab Palestinian political-military (POL-MIL) position comes back worse than when they started.

If the Arab Palestinians had approached the issues from a  prospectus to attain a peaceful solution, then Arab Palestinians would have come away with the sovereignty - approximately 43% of territory West of the Jordan River.   In 70 years of conflict, all the territory they have that could be considered sovereign is Area "A" cut out.  That is not progressing in any way shape or form. The state with the greatest measure of Human Development in the Region is, by far, Israel.  Not one Arab Nation has yet to ever come close to the contributions Israel has made to the world.

This entire controversy over the "Nakba" (what it is and what it represents) is an excuse alright.  But it is the excuse that the Arab Palestinians use along with others in a vain attempt to persuade readers that the Arab Palestinians are being unjustly persecuted by the "Zionists" and some Jewish colonial cabal to hold them down.  That dog won't hunt.

You can criticize my argument all you want, but it will not change the consequences the Arab Palestinians will not acknowledge.  In fact, they are more the Arab Narcissists than any other breed of loser in the Middle East North African Region.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Let us inject a little realism into the Discussion!
> ※→ P F Timore,  _et al_,
> 
> There is no excuse here.  I did not offer an excuse.  I will not give an excuse.
> 
> If we are to believe that you are making some relevant contribution to the discussion, then we have to assume that you have some realistic way in which the current situation can be overturned and Israel be overrun by Arab Palestinians.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> We both know that is NOT happening.  In fact, each time the Hostile Arab components to this conflict try to accomplish some achievement by means of "Armed Conflict" the Arab Palestinian political-military (POL-MIL) position comes back worse than when they started.
> 
> If the Arab Palestinians had approached the issues from a  prospectus to attain a peaceful solution, then Arab Palestinians would have come away with the sovereignty - approximately 43% of territory West of the Jordan River.   In 70 years of conflict, all the territory they have that could be considered sovereign is Area "A" cut out.  That is not progressing in any way shape or form. The state with the greatest measure of Human Development in the Region is, by far, Israel.  Not one Arab Nation has yet to ever come close to the contributions Israel has made to the world.
> 
> This entire controversy over the "Nakba" (what it is and what it represents) is an excuse alright.  But it is the excuse that the Arab Palestinians use along with others in a vain attempt to persuade readers that the Arab Palestinians are being unjustly persecuted by the "Zionists" and some Jewish colonial cabal to hold them down.  That dog won't hunt.
> 
> You can criticize my argument all you want, but it will not change the consequences the Arab Palestinians will not acknowledge.  In fact, they are more the Arab Narcissists than any other breed of loser in the Middle East North African Region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


You say "And of those people you must weed out:" Blah, blah, blabla,blah.

How many Palestinians have been adjudicated for any of these offenses? Probably none. Israel issues a blanket denial and throws out some shit to justify it.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Let us inject a little realism into the Discussion!
※→ P F Timore, _et al_,

Where do you get such ludicrous criteria?  adjudicated_*!*_



P F Tinmore said:


> You say "And of those people you must weed out:" Blah, blah, blabla,blah.
> 
> How many Palestinians have been adjudicated for any of these offenses? Probably none. Israel issues a blanket denial and throws out some shit to justify it.


*(COMMENT)*

First:  The UN Charter, the 

 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Principles of International Law on Friendly Relations, all use the same phrase and terminology:  either --- "hatred that constitutes incitement" OR " the threat or use of force." 

Second:  The international community has no authority to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.  Israel is a state.

There is no requirement for "adjudication" or "court ruling" on the matter.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> Second: The international community has no authority to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Israel is a state.


Immigration is a domestic issue. This is not about immigration. The right to leave and enter one's own country is an international issue.

When people are violently denied their rights, a violent response is justified. If the international community did its job and implemented Resolution 194, there would be no need or reason for violence.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Immigration is a domestic issue. This is not about immigration. The right to leave and enter one's own country is an international issue.
> 
> When people are violently denied their rights, a violent response is justified. If the international community did its job and implemented Resolution 194, there would be no need or reason for violence.


Palestinians are being violently denied their rights by Hamas leaders and PA leaders.  Go discuss this on another thread, as it has nothing to do with Israel.

Arabs are free to become citizens in Israel.  To study, work, vote.

When was the last time Arabs voted in Gaza or the PA?

And why are Arabs escaping Gaza via Israel, if those Arabs are being treated so well by Hamas?

-------

The United Nations General Assembly adopts resolution 194 (III), resolving that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

------------
There are very few Arab original refugees left from the 1948 war. Most left their homes following their leaders orders that it would all be over in 2 weeks and they could return.

If that resolution were to be truly followed then all Jews expelled from TranJordan in 1925, Hebron in 1929, and Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem in 1948 would have the right to either return to their homes or be compensated for the brutal way the Arabs ethnically cleansed those areas.

You keep trying to fool us and anyone else who may read this for the first time and know nothing about the history of what happened.


Tell Hamas and the PA to stop their hatred and inciting of their population to kill Jews and destroy Israel and you will see the level of peace and progress so many Arabs are achieving not only in Israel but are now gaining in all the Arab countries which have signed the Abraham Accords.

Otherwise the violence and death that Hamas and the PA so much enjoy on their own people is going to continue ad total nauseam .


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

SUBTOPIC: *You cannot have it both ways.*
※→ P F Timore, _et al_,

*IF* you call it an "international" issue, *THEN* let us keep the discussion in that domain.​​*IF* you are going to call it a "domestic" issue, *THEN* let us keep the discussion in that domain.​


> Second: The international community has no authority to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Israel is a state.





> This is not about immigration. The right to leave and enter one's own country is an international issue.


*(COMMENT)*

The entry and exit of one's own country (single sovereignty) the action all contained within one continuous boundary, then we are talking about Article 12, _*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*_ (CCPR) criteria.

_The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant._​
The logic you are attempting to use is that the entirety of the territory formerly
to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, is an independent state under Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. Thus, the movement between (as an example) Tel Aviv and Ramallah is under one sovereignty (one's own country). That is a totally erroneous assumption. Israel was established under the Right of Self-Determination.

However, the movement (in the example) between Ramallah (a unique legal entity) and Tel Aviv (Israel) is a transit between two separate jurisdictions. The law that governs movement from Ramallah to Tel Aviv is regulated under the criteria established by Israel and is covered under Article 2(7), _*UN Charter*_ as a matter of territorial integrity.


_Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to 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; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll._​
But you cannot have it both ways. *IF* you consider the first instance under Article 12 CCPR, *THEN* (as one example) the ramifications of that decision mean that there are no Arab Palestinian Refugees in the territory. It was a movement totally within a single jurisdiction.

You must be able to accept the consequences. (Something the Arab Palestinians not noted for.)


			
				P F Timore said:
			
		

> When people are violently denied their rights, a violent response is justified. If the international community did its job and implemented Resolution 194, there would be no need or reason for violence.


*(COMMENT)*

I cannot recall Israel specifically denying any specific "right" - bound under international law (violently or otherwise).

General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) is NOT law.  If you want to argue this point then cite me what law you are using.

The use of non-state actors by the Arab Palestinians to pursue activities directed against the State of Israel, with the intention to intimidate or coerce the Israeli people to alter their course of action relative to the protection of the Jewish National Home is, by the very nature and intent, terrorism.






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> If that resolution were to be truly followed then all Jews expelled from TranJordan in 1925, Hebron in 1929, and Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem in 1948 would have the right to either return to their homes or be compensated for the brutal way the Arabs ethnically cleansed those areas.


I agree with that 100%.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> I agree with that 100%.


What a phony response.

Because your belief is that all of those who live in Gaza now are refugees from Israel and that they have the right to return or be compensated.

Sorry, but the ones who need to compensate those few left alive from 1948 are the Arab leaders who told them to leave expecting to destroy the newly independent formed country .

Many Gaza people know it is not true, but you continue to want to destroy Israel and "give it back" to the Arabs, who are from Arabia.

As if they did not have a huge piece of land to return to.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> There are very few Arab original refugees left from the 1948 war. Most left their homes following their leaders orders that it would all be over in 2 weeks and they could return.


This is completely off the mark. The Nakba started 6 months before the 1948 war. About 300.000 Palestinians were kicked off their land before that war started. The Nakba continued during the war and never stopped.

Only a few % of Palestinians were instructed to leave. Mostly women and children.

Why people left is irrelevant. That is never mentioned in the right to return. People working or studying abroad, or people on vacation or avoiding violence have the right to return.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Because your belief is that all of those who live in Gaza now are refugees from Israel and that they have the right to return or be compensated.


Let me tell you about Najd. (Sometimes it was called Huj.) Najd was a small farm village that predated the Ottoman Empire. Before the 1948 war, Najd was attacked by Zionist forces and the inhabitants were driven into Gaza. Israel created the illagal settlement of Sderot on Najd's ruins.



> Sderot was settled by Jews in 1951. According to Walid Khalidi in All That Remains, it along with the settlement of Or ha-Ner, founded in 1957, were established on the village lands of Najd, which means "elevated plain" in Arabic.*
> 
> Najd's Palestinian villagers, approximately 620 in 1945, were expelled on 13 May 1948, before Israel was declared a state and before any Arab armies entered Palestine. According to UN Resolution 194 and also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13, Section 2, the villagers of Najd have a right to return home to their personal property and to their native village.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sderot Built on Ashes of Ethnically Cleansed and Defaced Najd
> 
> 
> If Americans Knew is dedicated to providing Americans with everything they need to know about Israel and Palestine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ifamericansknew.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> SUBTOPIC: *You cannot have it both ways.*
> ※→ P F Timore, _et al_,
> 
> *IF* you call it an "international" issue, *THEN* let us keep the discussion in that domain.​​*IF* you are going to call it a "domestic" issue, *THEN* let us keep the discussion in that domain.​
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> The entry and exit of one's own country (single sovereignty) the action all contained within one continuous boundary, then we are talking about Article 12, _*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*_ (CCPR) criteria.
> 
> _The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant._​
> The logic you are attempting to use is that the entirety of the territory formerly
> to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, is an independent state under Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. Thus, the movement between (as an example) Tel Aviv and Ramallah is under one sovereignty (one's own country). That is a totally erroneous assumption. Israel was established under the Right of Self-Determination.
> 
> However, the movement (in the example) between Ramallah (a unique legal entity) and Tel Aviv (Israel) is a transit between two separate jurisdictions. The law that governs movement from Ramallah to Tel Aviv is regulated under the criteria established by Israel and is covered under Article 2(7), _*UN Charter*_ as a matter of territorial integrity.
> 
> 
> _Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to 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; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll._​
> But you cannot have it both ways. *IF* you consider the first instance under Article 12 CCPR, *THEN* (as one example) the ramifications of that decision mean that there are no Arab Palestinian Refugees in the territory. It was a movement totally within a single jurisdiction.
> 
> You must be able to accept the consequences. (Something the Arab Palestinians not noted for.)
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> I cannot recall Israel specifically denying any specific "right" - bound under international law (violently or otherwise).
> 
> General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) is NOT law.  If you want to argue this point then cite me what law you are using.
> 
> The use of non-state actors by the Arab Palestinians to pursue activities directed against the State of Israel, with the intention to intimidate or coerce the Israeli people to alter their course of action relative to the protection of the Jewish National Home is, by the very nature and intent, terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Palestine was attacked by foreign forces.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was attacked by foreign forces.


Palestine was a region.  Never a country.

The Ottomans lost WWI, they lost the region.

Arab Muslims only had control of it from their invasion after the Kurds.

Arabs never complained about the Crusaders or the Ottoman conquest.

It is the Jews they have always had a problem with, as so do you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was attacked by foreign forces.



And then the Israelis beat those foreign, Arab armies.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Staying on Topic and Being Relevant
※→ _et al_,

*(GENERAL COMMENT)*

This THREAD should be re-named the "Arab Palestinian Whining" Thread - or - the "Perpetual Victims Thread."
_______________________________________
By the way, the UNIPAL Database is non-functioning due to some unspecified client-based error in the request.  For the amount of time the database has been rejecting requests, makes it look mightily suspicious as if the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian factions are resisting fact checks.






​




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was attacked by foreign forces.


No, it was not.

Maybe peddle your spam in a different thread.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Staying on Topic and Being Relevant
※→ Hollie, _et al_,



Hollie said:


> No, it was not.
> 
> Maybe peddle your spam in a different thread.


*(COMMENT)*

For some, this is a desperate idea that some Arab Palestinians grasp in order to justify violence.

This is not just an opposing view, to deliberately deceive the reader.  Whereas disinformation is a  propaganda tool by non-state actors in support of a hostile regime. Our friend P F Tinmore is very crafty in the way we phrases things like:



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> P F Tinmore said:
> Palestine was attacked by foreign forces.



Notice that PF Tinmore does not say *who* the foreign forces were, *where* and *when* the attack took place, *what* the purpose of the attack served; or the motive as to *why* the attack was necessary.

Our friend "Hollie" has nailed the salient points yet again.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Staying on Topic and Being Relevant
> ※→ Hollie, _et al_,
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> For some, this is a desperate idea that some Arab Palestinians grasp in order to justify violence.
> 
> This is not just an opposing view, to deliberately deceive the reader.  Whereas disinformation is a  propaganda tool by non-state actors in support of a hostile regime. Our friend P F Tinmore is very crafty in the way we phrases things like:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that PF Tinmore does not say *who* the foreign forces were, *where* and *when* the attack took place, *what* the purpose of the attack served; or the motive as to *why* the attack was necessary.
> 
> Our friend "Hollie" has nailed the salient points yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R





RoccoR said:


> Notice that PF Tinmore does not say *who* the foreign forces were, *where* and *when* the attack took place, *what* the purpose of the attack served; or the motive as to *why* the attack was necessary.







__





						The Zionist Project - 1948
					






					www.1948.org.uk


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Zionist Project - 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1948.org.uk


The Zionist Project

A site bent on destroying Jewish History, and the State of Israel with it.

Let us take a look:

*1948: LEST.WE.FORGET*

We are a loose group of multi-cultural/multi-desciplinary/multi-national individuals who share a single belief that an injustice had been orchestrated and implemented in Palestine since WW1. We do not pretend to be non-political because, as the world knows, everything about Palestine IS political.

Underpinning our beliefs, aims and objectives is an unrelenting struggle to end the Zionist colonisation and occupation of* historic Palestine. *The inhumanity of this *occupation,* the longest in modern history, came about as a consequence of political manoeuvers by Zionist leaders in collaboration with world powers who had a political agenda with misguided narrow interests and utilising political means (supplemented by military and terror tactics) to achieve a political aim: *the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous people of over 1 million Palestinians and replacing them with another people, exclusively Jewish, imported from outside.*

Our aim, therefore, is:

1. To expose the Zionist lies which, for far too long, have been presented and accepted as the true scenario of how Israel came about in 1948; to raise awareness of the tragic events that befell and continue to engulf *historic Palestine *and its people as a result of these Zionist lies; to salvage a piece of history which has been cruelly erased and simply forgotten; by sourcing information from de-classified official documents from Zionist government archives. This will allow the general public to exercise the right to speak without fear and to judge without prejudice.

2. To call for the Right of Return of all Palestinian refugees to their homes in* all of historic Palestine *to be re-affirmed and re-asserted under International Law and in accordance with all relevant United Nations Resolutions. *This Right of Return remains non-negotiable and must apply to those Palestinians who are not UNRWA registered refugees, should they choose to return.*

3. T*o campaign for equitable and fair restitution and compensation for destroyed, damaged or stolen Palestinian properties and for lost wealth and income for those who fled out of fear or were expelled ever since 1948.*

4. *To celebrate the rich and colourful culture of the vibrant Palestinian society *and its people by promoting it beyond the confines of the refugee camps and the borders of a cruelly occupied territory.

5. To plan, organise and promote cultural activities through media, music, film, architecture and art exhibitions, theatre performances and public debates.

*We believe in the single democratic state within the borders of historic Palestine* with equal rights for all its citizens. Any attempt at negotiations which does not address this one goal is bound to fail miserably. For many decades now, all past negotiations which had been conducted outisde this framework had failed miserably.

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


Indeed, all past negotiations have failed because the leaders are scared to death they will end up dead or the golden goose will come no more.

As there has never has been a "Historic Palestine" with Arabs having the history which ended up creating Christianity and then Islam, all that is written in a site like is a waste of the people who created it, and any one who bothers to read the absolute non historical wonderland they live in.

Jews are from Judea, they are not some foreign invaders.

Now......Arabs, and all of them do come from the Arabian Peninsula, just as are all the Palestinians......
are from Arabia, and THAT will never change.

Create a thousand sites like this one and the truth will continue to be the same.

The Jews are the Indigenous people of the land with the right to reconstruct their Nation ON their ancient Jewish homeland.

And that was a truth acknowledged by all, including Christians and Muslims everywhere in the world, until the Jews DARED to become sovereign of their destiny and any part of their ancient homeland.

So, ignorant Tinmore.......post any and all sites and all toxic destructive nonsense about the history of the land......the result is always the same.

Am Israel chai

The People of Israel Live

And continue to survive the viciousness capable by too many Christians and Muslims who learn only hatred to Jews and how to mistreat, demean, attack and destroy Jews at any time the Jews seem to become successful at anything.


THAT is the endless history of Christianity and Islam.


Reject that history those who dare to do so.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine 1920: The Other Side of the Palestinian Story | Al Jazeera World​


----------



## Sixties Fan

On the Origin, Meaning, Use and Abuse of a Phrase





__





						On the Origin, Meaning, Use and Abuse of a Phrase on JSTOR
					

Adam M. Garfinkle, On the Origin, Meaning, Use and Abuse of a Phrase, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Oct., 1991), pp. 539-550




					www.jstor.org


----------



## Sixties Fan

__





						"A Land without a People for a People without a Land" (Diana Muir)
					

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.




					www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org


----------



## Sixties Fan

According to the late Edward Said the phrase the ‘A land without people for a people without a land,’ was coined by a Zionist named Israel Zangwill for the purpose of making the false claim that Palestine was empty. Other scholars, most notably Rashid Khalidi of Columbia University in his book “Palestinian Identity,” have explained that the phrase became a widely-propagated Zionist slogan summing up the assertion that Palestine was empty.

It ain’t necessarily so.

The phrase “A land without a people for a people without a land,” was not coined by a Jew, was never widely propagated by Zionists, and was not intended by the Victorian-era Christians who did use it to imply that Palestine was empty. It meant, quite specifically, that in the nineteenth century there was no self-identified Palestinian people in the land that would become Israel.

Edward Said even cited the phrase incorrectly, omitting the definite article to turn, “A land without a people,” into “A land without people,” and more effectively charge Zionists with falsely claiming that the land was empty.

But if Israel Zangwill didn’t coin this familiar phrase, who did?

A Scots Presbyterian in a frock coat, the Rev. Dr. Alexander Keith, who was sent to the Holy Land by the Church of Scotland on an 1839 fact-finding mission. His task: to determine whether the land was ready for the Jews to return (he thought that it was.) Keith published a book describing his trip and urging Christians to help the Jews, “a people without a country,” return to Israel, “a country without a people.” 

An unsigned review of Keith’s book immediately put the phrase into the familiar “land without a people” wording.

Keith and the other Christians who used the phrase perceived the Holy Land as being the homeland of the Jews in the way that Greece was the homeland of the Greeks, and Scotland was the land of the Scots. They did not perceive the Arabs who lived in Palestinian as having a separate Palestinian ethnic or national identity, rather, they saw them as part of a larger Arab people. In this they were correct. The idea of a Palestinian people would not be proposed by Arab intellectuals until the twentieth century. 

Rev. Keith urged Britain to “give Judea to the Jews” just as “Greece was given to the Greeks” in 1829. Greek independence was a wildly popular cause, idealistic young men sailed to Greece to join the fight. But even with Lord Byron and other romantic European volunteers shouldering rifles, the Greek rebellion would certainly have been put down by the Ottomans if Britain had not also sent the Navy, which secured Greek independence by defeating the combined Ottoman and Egyptian navies at the battle of Navarino. To many European and American Christians, the idea of creating a Jewish State seemed just as compelling as Byron’s dream that Greece might yet be free.

Keith’s political proposal failed to come to immediate fruition, but his slogan lived on, used by a fair number of Victorian-era Christians interested, like Keith, both in fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy of the return of the Jews to Israel and in relieving the oppression Jews suffered in Eastern Europe and in Ottoman lands. 

Zionism, meanwhile, suffered no shortage of widely-propagated slogans. Read enough early Zionist literature and you may begin to suspect that there were once more Zionist slogans than there were Zionists. “Land without a people…,” however, was not a Zionist slogan.

(full article online)





__





						"A Land Without a People for a People Without a Land" |  History News         Network
					






					hnn.us


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


>


Sure hope I have the power to get rid of these Palestinians.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sure hope I have the power to get rid of these Palestinians.


Tinmore, the Christian, transferring to Jews what Christians and Muslims have always done and continue to do, and have every intention of succeeding in doing with all Jews on the planet.

Good on ya, Tinmore !!!


----------



## Sixties Fan

It is almost a cliché to note that today too many historians and laypeople erroneously look at history through modern lenses that distort the picture and prevent an honest understanding of historical events.

But many others still want to read about history through the lens of as it was, not as today’s talking heads would have it. For those folks, Abraham Sion’s “To Whom Was The Promised Land Promised?” is a breath of fresh air.

Sion’s book is over 400 pages of thorough but eminently readable legal and historical analysis of the key moments and documents that led to the creation of a Jewish State in the land in which it was reestablished.  

From the late 19th-century origins of modern Zionism to the British White Papers of the 1930s, the book provides a wealth of fascinating details on the legal and political understandings of the times that underpinned documents from the Balfour Declaration to the Hussein-McMahon letters.
The importance of these details to today’s debates is correctly identified by Sion, who notes in the context of the constant attacks on Israel’s legitimacy by institutions like the United Nations:



> “Only by ignoring or overlooking these original treaties and resolutions could the international community arrive at the decisions adopted incessantly by the United Nations and other international organizations. These fundamental truths are ignored by the international community, and they are treated as if they never existed.”



“To Whom Was The Promised Land Promised” is at its best when it is examining the terminology found in agreements and declarations. Sion not only provides contemporary documentary sources to clarify the original meanings, but he also includes the words of key personalities of the times. The views of important figures – such as Col. Richard Meinertzhagen, Lord George Nathaniel Curzon, Emir Feisal, Woodrow Wilson, and many others – are illustrated throughout in relation to the conferences, correspondences, and agreements in which they partook. 

The book contains fascinating and thorough examinations of the debates and negotiations inside the British Cabinet, the San Remo Conference, the drafting of the Treaties of Sevres and Lausanne, the De Bunsen Committee, and the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Importantly, it does not treat these conversations and events as isolated from each other or unrelated, but rather as inter-connected and reinforcing.

Through this form of analysis, Sion adeptly examines the evolution of the language of what would become the Balfour Declaration, as well as how the British would later distort and betray its plain meaning as they discharged their responsibility as the colonial power over Mandate Palestine. 

Using this type of analysis for the Balfour Declaration, the book stays true to history as it was, not as some would prefer it to have been. Sion elucidates the complex interplay between the British (and subsequently, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine) promise on the one hand to “use their best endeavours to facilitate” the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and, on the other hand, the understanding “that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

(full article online)









						Abraham Sion Faithfully Examines the Promises of the Promised Land
					

To Whom Was The Promised Land Promised? By Abraham A. Sion Mazo Publishers, 2020 The book is also an important read for anyone truly




					www.camera.org


----------



## Sixties Fan

Before hashtags told us what to think and how to feel, it was slogans that stirred up energy for political causes. Repetition could turn the slogan into an idiom wielded by politicians but also shape how the people understood history and identity. This is how the slogan ‘Negation of the Diaspora’  – urging Palestine’s Jewish residents to cast off Jewish lifestyles forged in ‘exile’  – became a core Zionist principle shaping the narrative of the Jewish National Home in British Mandate Palestine. ‘Negating the Diaspora’ provided Palestine’s Jews with an explanation for their past as well as a direction for their national future. The hegemonic status of the slogan has hovered over Zionist historiography too, sometimes lending it a romantic quality. In recent years, however, the phrase has been critically rethought by a new generation of scholars, as illustrated by these three brilliant books about the British Mandate period.

(full article online)









						The Naqba dynamic:  A sobering analysis of Arab-Jewish relations
					

The fundamental Arab goal is complete de-Zionization of Israel, meaning canceling the Law of Return and the Jewish Nation-State Law.Op-ed




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Before hashtags told us what to think and how to feel, it was slogans that stirred up energy for political causes. Repetition could turn the slogan into an idiom wielded by politicians but also shape how the people understood history and identity. This is how the slogan ‘Negation of the Diaspora’  – urging Palestine’s Jewish residents to cast off Jewish lifestyles forged in ‘exile’  – became a core Zionist principle shaping the narrative of the Jewish National Home in British Mandate Palestine. ‘Negating the Diaspora’ provided Palestine’s Jews with an explanation for their past as well as a direction for their national future. The hegemonic status of the slogan has hovered over Zionist historiography too, sometimes lending it a romantic quality. In recent years, however, the phrase has been critically rethought by a new generation of scholars, as illustrated by these three brilliant books about the British Mandate period.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Naqba dynamic:  A sobering analysis of Arab-Jewish relations
> 
> 
> The fundamental Arab goal is complete de-Zionization of Israel, meaning canceling the Law of Return and the Jewish Nation-State Law.Op-ed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.israelnationalnews.com





> Presently, in 2022, the inter-communal friction and Arab violence in the Jerusalem Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood could ignite a broader countrywide upheaval.


So then, why is Israel provoking it? Israel keeps making problems for itself.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Before hashtags told us what to think and how to feel, it was slogans that stirred up energy for political causes. Repetition could turn the slogan into an idiom wielded by politicians but also shape how the people understood history and identity. This is how the slogan ‘Negation of the Diaspora’  – urging Palestine’s Jewish residents to cast off Jewish lifestyles forged in ‘exile’  – became a core Zionist principle shaping the narrative of the Jewish National Home in British Mandate Palestine. ‘Negating the Diaspora’ provided Palestine’s Jews with an explanation for their past as well as a direction for their national future. The hegemonic status of the slogan has hovered over Zionist historiography too, sometimes lending it a romantic quality. In recent years, however, the phrase has been critically rethought by a new generation of scholars, as illustrated by these three brilliant books about the British Mandate period.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Naqba dynamic:  A sobering analysis of Arab-Jewish relations
> 
> 
> The fundamental Arab goal is complete de-Zionization of Israel, meaning canceling the Law of Return and the Jewish Nation-State Law.Op-ed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.israelnationalnews.com


The *Nakba* lives.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The *Nakba* lives.



Losers gotta lose.


----------



## Sixties Fan

‘I am in the West, but my heart is in the East, ‘ lamented the great medieval poet Yehuda Halevi (1100 – 1148). Writing at a time when Jews were caught up in a great power struggle between Islam and Chrstianity, Halevi dreamt  of the resurrection of the Jewish nation. During the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, prominent rabbis Maimonides, Nahmanides and Ishtori Haparhi attempted to return to _Eretz Israel._ They were followed by Rabbi Yosef Caro, who developed the _Shulhan Arukh_ in Safed, Rabbis Reuveni and Molho in the 16th century and the Rishonim between the 17th and 19th centuries.  In the 18th century the Moroccan rabbi Haim Benattar set up an important yeshiva.

Theodore Herzl’s father was said to have been influenced by the sermons of Yehuda Bibas (1789 – 1852) in the Balkans. Marco Yosef Baruch (1872 – 99) of Istanbul was known as the Sephardi Herzl.

Sephardi figures bought and developed land in _Eretz Israel_ well before modern Zionism. Fugitives from the Spanish Inquisition Doña Graciaand her nephew Yosef Hanasi re-established the Jewish community of Tiberias in the 16th century. Rav Yehuda Halevi Meragusa from Sarajevo (1840 – 79) owned orchards in Jaffa. Sir Moses Montefiore established the first neighbourhood outside the city walls of Jerusalem. Rav David Bensimon built Mahane Israel, the second. Adolphe Cremieux, president of the Alliance Israelite Universelle, set up the agricultural school of Mikve Israel., while the bankers Jacob and Haim Valero helped develop modern cities in the Old Yishuv. The British consul Haim Amzallag bought land in Petah Tikva and Rishon Letzion. Yosef Bey Navon created the Jaffa- Jerusalem railway.

Abraham Moyal,  merchant, Alliance delegate, and supervisor of the Rothschild project,  was an important figure in Hovevei Zion together with Pinsker and Wissotsky.

Naturally, Jews made _aliya_ for practical reasons when conflict between Algerian Muslims and the French in the 19th century led to repression of the Jewish community. The Chelouche family was not only active in building the new Jaffa suburb of Neve Tsedek, but developed the coastline down to Gaza. The Abbo family founded the first settlements in the Galilee.

The first mass wave of immigration came from Yemen in 1881 – a year before the first Aliya from Russia.










						Juifs heureux en terres d’islam ? L’éclairage de l’histoire et les enjeux du moment - Dialogia
					

Sur internet | 13 février 2022 Via la plateforme ZOOM La question de l'identité et de l'histoire des Juifs originaires du monde arabo-musulman s'est retrouvée au cœur de l'actualité politique et du débat idéologique en France ces derniers mois.  Je fais référence à une exposition de l'Institut...



					dialogia.co.il
				




(full article online)









						Pre-19th century Sephardi forerunners of Zionism • Point of No Return
					

It is a myth to suggest that Zionism was a movement which originated in Europe at the end of the 19th century and was alien to Jews in Arab countries : in fact there were plenty of Sephardi pioneers who advocated the return of the Jewish nation to its land, well before the first Eastern […]




					www.jewishrefugees.org.uk


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Ashkenazi synagogue in Cairo built in 1894 by Ashkenazi refugees from pogroms in Ukraine, Poland and Romania.


In April and May 1881, terrible pogroms erupted in Elisavetgrad, the Jewish quarter of Kyiv, Chipola, Ananiev, Vasilkiv and Konotop. There were also pogroms in Poland and Romania.

Some Ashkenazi families moved to Egypt. From 1865, the Ashkenazim of Cairo maintained a separate communal organisation from the dominant Sephardim and Mizrahim. They were concentrated in the Darb al-Barabira quarter. in 1917 the Ashkenazi population was swollen by the arrival of 10,000 Ashkenazim chased out of Palestine by the Ottoman governor Jamal Pasha.

Compiling a list of Egyptian-Jewish surnames, an Israeli diplomat, Jacob Rosen, was surprised to find many Ashkenazi names. He estimated that the Ashkenazim comprised 20 percent of the Jewish community in the 1930s and 40s. Many intermarried with the local Sephardim.

In 1894, the Ashkenazi synagogue was built in Cairo. It was damaged in riots in 1945 but was restored in 1950.

A few families also moved to  Syria and Lebanon. A group of Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazim arrived in Beirut in the 19th century.

Historian, author and expert on Lebanese Jewry Nagi Georges Zeidan says that this community intermarried with the Jews of Beirut but continued to retain an Eastern European accent in Hebrew. In time their Yiddish names were replaced with Sephardi ones.

Researching Lebanese-Jewish surnames, Zeidan found at least eight Ashkenazi names: Rosenthal, Leibowitz,  Kaminsky, Lamen from Huysatin, Levy and Pikovsky from the city of Odessa, and Kugel from Simferopol. The Lichtman family even produced a Chief rabbi for Lebanon, Ben Zion Lichtman. He was born in 1892 in the Ukrainian town of Brajiow.

Zeidan points out that following the Crimean War in 1853 between Russia and Ottoman Turkey, several Ashkenazi families from Eastern Europe settled in Baghdad.

(full article online)









						Jews fled Ukrainian pogroms for Egypt and the Levant • Point of No Return
					

All eyes are on the war in Ukraine. An overwhelming number of Jews are among those expressing support for its beleaguered civilians – and rightly so. But it must not be forgotten that the Jewish people and the Ukraine have a  checkered history. Even before the so-called ‘Shoah of bullets’...




					www.jewishrefugees.org.uk


----------



## P F Tinmore

*The Nakba and the 1948 war.*

Most people believe that the Nakba and the 1948 war were one in the same. As the story goes, upon Israel's declaration of independence (May 15. 1948) five Arab armies attacked Israel. The Arabs lost that war and the result was 750,000 Palestinian refugees and Israel won 78% of Palestinian land.

None of this is true. Five Arab armies entered Palestine. Israel never declared its borders. No Arab army crossed a border into Israel. The Arab armies did not lose that war. The fighting stopped when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. An armistice ends the fighting without calling winners or losers. Israel cannot win Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors who did not lose that war. It was not their land to lose.

The Nakba, on the other hand, began in December of 1947 when Zionist gangs began attacking and expelling Palestinian civilians from their homes. About 300,000 Palestinians became refugees before any Arab army entered Palestine. This attack on the Palestinians has never stopped.

The Nakba and the 1948 war are two separate events.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> *The Nakba and the 1948 war.*
> 
> Most people believe that the Nakba and the 1948 war were one in the same. As the story goes, upon Israel's declaration of independence (May 15. 1948) five Arab armies attacked Israel. The Arabs lost that war and the result was 750,000 Palestinian refugees and Israel won 78% of Palestinian land.
> 
> None of this is true. Five Arab armies entered Palestine. Israel never declared its borders. No Arab army crossed a border into Israel. The Arab armies did not lose that war. The fighting stopped when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. An armistice ends the fighting without calling winners or losers. Israel cannot win Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors who did not lose that war. It was not their land to lose.
> 
> The Nakba, on the other hand, began in December of 1947 when Zionist gangs began attacking and expelling Palestinian civilians from their homes. About 300,000 Palestinians became refugees before any Arab army entered Palestine. This attack on the Palestinians has never stopped.
> 
> The Nakba and the 1948 war are two separate events.



*The Arabs lost that war and the result was 750,000 Palestinian refugees and Israel won 78% of Palestinian land.*

The Palestinians had no land to lose.

*The Arab armies did not lose that war.*

Israel was bigger after the war than before. The Arab armies did not win that war.

*The fighting stopped when the UN Security Council called for an armistice. An armistice ends the fighting without calling winners or losers.*

Not calling the Arabs losers must have made them feel better for their loss.

*Israel cannot win Palestinian land from Palestine's neighbors who did not lose that war. *

Correct. The Arab losers did not lose any of their land.


----------



## P F Tinmore

You are going to refute my post with balderdash?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Link?


Pick one of my points and refute it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Pick one of my points and refute it.



I did....right here.





__





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

The Nakba lives. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:   Losers gotta lose.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I did....right here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> 
> 
> The Nakba lives. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:   Losers gotta lose.
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com





Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The Arabs lost that war and the result was 750,000 Palestinian refugees and Israel won 78% of Palestinian land.*
> 
> The Palestinians had no land to lose.


You said it. That doesn't prove anything.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> You said it. That doesn't prove anything.



Pick one of my points and refute it.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pick one of my points and refute it.


You didn't give me anything to refute.

Just some unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> You didn't give me anything to refute.


What, you're the only one who gets to do that?
*
Just some unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.*

Still better than your unsubstantiated Palestinian talking points.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What, you're the only one who gets to do that?
> 
> *Just some unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.*
> 
> Still better than your unsubstantiated Palestinian talking points.


Well then, name them. Don't be shy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Well then, name them. Don't be shy.



*The Arabs lost that war and the result was 750,000 Palestinian refugees and Israel won 78% of Palestinian land.*

Why do you feel Palestinians had any land?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The Arabs lost that war and the result was 750,000 Palestinian refugees and Israel won 78% of Palestinian land.*
> 
> Why do you feel Palestinians had any land?


Good question. Put aside the UN and the Treaty of Lausanne for a moment. There were hundreds upon hundreds of villages in Palestine. Not to mention the cities and towns. The existence of virtually all of them predate the Ottoman Empire. Many could be traced back hundreds or a thousand years or more.

Why would anyone even question ownership?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Good question. Put aside the UN and the Treaty of Lausanne for a moment. There were hundreds upon hundreds of villages in Palestine. Not to mention the cities and towns. The existence of virtually all of them predate the Ottoman Empire. Many could be traced back hundreds or a thousand years or more.
> 
> Why would anyone even question ownership?



Their landlord loses a war, why do they own anything?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Their landlord loses a war, why do they own anything?


So, who was the landlord?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> So, who was the landlord?



The Ottoman Empire, of course.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Ottoman Empire, of course.


These cities, towns, and villages predate the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> These cities, towns, and villages predate the Ottoman Empire.



Like Jerusalem?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like Jerusalem?


The Ottoman Empire did what empires always do. They claim that everybody's land is theirs. They lost that claim when they lost the war. The Treaty of Lausanne returned the land to the people.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The Ottoman Empire did what empires always do. They claim that everybody's land is theirs. They lost that claim when they lost the war. The Treaty of Lausanne returned the land to the people.


What land? What people?

As usual, you're circling back to your "Treaty of Lausanne invented the country of Pal'istan" conspiracy theory.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> The Ottoman Empire did what empires always do. They claim that everybody's land is theirs. They lost that claim when they lost the war. The Treaty of Lausanne returned the land to the people.


Write it 1000 times.

Treaty of Lausanne
Treaty of Lausanne

Which did not return the land to the Arabs who, like the Ottoman Turks, had also invaded the land and taken it from its original people after the Crusaders, who took it from the Arab Muslims, who took it from  the Byzantine , who took it  after the Romans, who took  after the Greek from the indigenous people, the Jews who created a Nation on the land starting 3000 years ago.

After you have written it 1000 times, forget it and look for the truth, something you are so bad at.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The Ottoman Empire did what empires always do. They claim that everybody's land is theirs.



Even Jewish land?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> What land? What people?
> 
> As usual, you're circling back to your "Treaty of Lausanne invented the country of Pal'istan" conspiracy theory.


The Treaty of Lausanne did not create anything. The new states were created by the Allied Powers. The Treaty of Lausanne merely released the territories to their respective new states.

Palestine's northern international border was set by the Sykes-Pecot Agreement in 1916. Palestine's southern international border was determined by Egypt's international border that was defined in 1906.

Palestine and Transjordan were already determined to be two separate states. Article 25 in the Palestine Mandate allowed that to happen. The international border between Palestine and Transjordan was approved by the League of Nations in 1922.

All this was finalized with the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924. The Palestinians became Palestinian nationals and Palestinian citizens by international law in 1924. They received Palestinian citizenship by domestic law in 1925.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Even Jewish land?


Sure, everything.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Which did not return the land to the Arabs who, like the Ottoman Turks, had also invaded the land and taken it from its original people...


Who did the Arabs expel from their land?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Sure, everything.



So now the Jewish land is Jewish again.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> who took it after the Romans, who took after the Greek from the indigenous people, the Jews who created a Nation on the land starting 3000 years ago.


It looks like you have a bitch with the Greeks not the Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> So now the Jewish land is Jewish again.


All of the Jews who became Palestinian citizens in 1925 should have gotten their land back.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> All of the Jews who became Palestinian citizens in 1925 should have gotten their land back.



Which Jews in Israel didn't get their land back?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which Jews in Israel didn't get their land back?


Since land deeds did not exist in the Ottoman Empire until the middle of the 19th century, it is hard to tell.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Since land deeds did not exist in the Ottoman Empire until the middle of the 19th century, it is hard to tell.



They own it now, so what's the problem?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They own it now, so what's the problem?


Do they? Or do they merely claim it is theirs like all of the other empires?

Link?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Since land deeds did not exist in the Ottoman Empire until the middle of the 19th century, it is hard to tell.


Why would you assume that it is hard to know since land deeds did exist in the Ottoman Empire after 1856 when they started selling land? 

Such records do exist but you do like to live in the world where all Arabs 'Owned" land and it was all "stolen" from them by the Jews.

A few rich Arabs bought land after 1856.   Most were poor and could not afford one Dunham to their name.

It was all recorded by the Ottomans.  The British kept those records.  They are still available to this day.






__





						Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival
					






					lessons.myjli.com
				












						Jewish land purchase in Palestine - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Do they? Or do they merely claim it is theirs like all of the other empires?



Like the Pallies claim it?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Why would you assume that it is hard to know since land deeds did exist in the Ottoman Empire after 1856 when they started selling land?
> 
> Such records do exist but you do like to live in the world where all Arabs 'Owned" land and it was all "stolen" from them by the Jews.
> 
> A few rich Arabs bought land after 1856.   Most were poor and could not afford one Dunham to their name.
> 
> It was all recorded by the Ottomans.  The British kept those records.  They are still available to this day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lessons.myjli.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish land purchase in Palestine - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


It is no secret that the Ottoman Empire was screwing its people.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like the Pallies claim it?


Deflection.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Deflection.



The pallies don't claim it?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne did not create anything. The new states were created by the Allied Powers. The Treaty of Lausanne merely released the territories to their respective new states.
> 
> Palestine's northern international border was set by the Sykes-Pecot Agreement in 1916. Palestine's southern international border was determined by Egypt's international border that was defined in 1906.
> 
> Palestine and Transjordan were already determined to be two separate states. Article 25 in the Palestine Mandate allowed that to happen. The international border between Palestine and Transjordan was approved by the League of Nations in 1922.
> 
> All this was finalized with the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924. The Palestinians became Palestinian nationals and Palestinian citizens by international law in 1924. They received Palestinian citizenship by domestic law in 1925.


You can recite that nonsense as often as you wish; you can tap the heels of your Ruby red slippers together three times,  but inventing your own version of history as you invent your own version of the Treaty of Lausanne is really comical. 

What "new states"?  You have invented "new states" you can't identify.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> It is no secret that the Ottoman Empire was screwing its people.


"... because I say so".


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The pallies don't claim it?


The Palestinians only claim what is in their own international borders.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians only claim what is in their own international borders.



They have international borders? 
Awesome!
When did that happen?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> You can recite that nonsense as often as you wish; you can tap the heels of your Ruby red slippers together three times,  but inventing your own version of history as you invent your own version of the Treaty of Lausanne is really comical.
> 
> What "new states"?  You have invented "new states" you can't identify.


You need to read up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They have international borders?
> Awesome!
> When did that happen?





P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's northern international border was set by the Sykes-Pecot Agreement in 1916. Palestine's southern international border was determined by Egypt's international border that was defined in 1906.
> 
> Palestine and Transjordan were already determined to be two separate states. Article 25 in the Palestine Mandate allowed that to happen. The international border between Palestine and Transjordan was approved by the League of Nations in 1922.


You're welcome.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> You're welcome.



League of Nations? LOL!

When did someone real agree to their borders?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> League of Nations? LOL!
> 
> When did someone real agree to their borders?


The borders of all of the new states were defined by post war treaties. None of them have ever been disputed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The borders of all of the new states were defined by post war treaties. None of them have ever been disputed.



Cool.

Can you post the border agreements they signed with neighboring states?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> You need to read up.


The silly ''new states'' claim you make, similar to the silly claim that the Treaty of Lausanne invented the magical ''country of Pal'istan'' is just mere spam.

You don't see it as buffoonish to make nonsense claims you can't support?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The borders of all of the new states were defined by post war treaties. None of them have ever been disputed.


There's no dispute about what never happened, except in the alternate reality you have invented. 

What are these ''new states'' you can't identify? How long have you been perpetrating this fraud?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cool.
> 
> Can you post the border agreements they signed with neighboring states?


The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers. There were no border disputes between the states.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers. There were no border disputes between the states.


Are these the ''new states'' you have invented in your fantasy world of treaties that invent new countries while never inventing new countries?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians only claim what is in their own international borders.



Greedy Arab supremacists only want
doesn't belong to them... and then some...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The international borders were defined by the Allied Powers. There were no border disputes between the states.



Palestine has no border agreements with neighboring states?
That's weird.
Israel has agreements.
Maybe that's because Israel is a country and Palestine isn't.
Do you have a better explanation?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Palestine has no border agreements with neighboring states?
> That's weird.
> Israel has agreements.
> Maybe that's because Israel is a country and Palestine isn't.
> Do you have a better explanation?


Why have a border agreement when there is no dispute?

You don't make any sense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Why have a border agreement when there is no dispute?
> 
> You don't make any sense.



We have border agreements with Canada and Mexico. Weird.

Do the Palestinians have a border agreement with Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Do the Palestinians have a border agreement with Israel?


Here comes the cognitive dissonance.

Israel has no borders.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Here comes the cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Israel has no borders.



Why did their neighbors sign border treaties with Israel?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Here comes the cognitive dissonance.
> 
> Israel has no borders.


That's odd. Hamas, Fatah and the various Islamic terrorist franchises can tell you where the Israeli border is.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Remembering the Anschluss - March 12, 1938
					

The WJC appealed to the League of Nations to come to the aid of Austrian Jewry, “exposed completely to Nazi barbarism.” No response.Op-ed.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

( Perfect example as to why Israel needed to be reconstructed on its homeland )

In reaction to the infamous 1840 Damascus blood libel, at least two British newspapers published an antisemitic article that pretends to confirm that Jews indeed have many rituals involving murdering Christians and consuming Christian blood. 

The Cheltenham Chronicle and Gloucestershire Advertiser (July 2) and The Northern Liberator (July 4) both published, without comment, a lengthy antisemitic blood libel as if it was simple truth. (The Liberator claimed the text came from The Times of London. but I could not find that anywhere.)

The specific accusations of that essay don't only concentrate on the Passover blood libel. According to this account, every Jewish holiday and event is dedicated somehow to consuming Christian blood, from the eve of Tisha B'Av to the day of one's marriage and one's death. 

It is the most lurid description of the blood libel I have ever seen. 

Here is what it says about Purim:


(full article online)









						1840 British newspapers: Hamantashen were made with Christian blood, with three sides to ridicule the Trinity
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

(full article online)









						The Jewish "Palestine Resistance"
					

When, in 1946, the term " Palestine Resistance " meant the Jewish fight for freedom and liberation from the repressive British mandatory reg...




					myrightword.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

The Green Line separates the 1967 occupied territory from the 1948 occupied territory..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The Green Line separates the 1967 occupied territory from the 1948 occupied territory..



And none of it is Palestinian territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And none of it is Palestinian territory.


Link?

Of course not.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Link?
> 
> Of course not.


No Need.  Jordan took the land.  Not a word from the Arabs in the territories taken.

Enough said


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Link?
> 
> Of course not.



You have any of those border agreements Palestine has with their neighbors?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Isidor Bieber was a successful owner and breeder of racehorses during much of the 20th century. He worked closely with trainer Hirsch Jacobs who had an uncanny ability to pick talented horses and work with them.

Bieber, who was born in the Warsaw suburb of Vasloveck, liked to name horses after causes he was passionate about. He was anti-smoking and named horses Puffaway Sister, Kansirette, Shedontsmoke and Burnt Lips. Other horses were named Hail to Reason, Hate War, Reason Is One.

He was also a passionate Zionist who  named horses Promised Land, Forgotten Ally. and Humane Leader in honor of David Ben-Gurion.

And Palestinian, born in 1946.





Palestinian won this exciting race in San Francisco in 1951:




Unfortunately, Palestinian had to be put out to pasture when he was injured the following year.





Palestinian was only successful as long as he relied on Jews for his welfare.











						In 1950, "Palestinian" was a successful racehorse - owned by a Jew
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You have any of those border agreements Palestine has with their neighbors?


The armistice agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The armistice agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.



What were they?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What were they?


Egyptian, Jordanian, and Israeli.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Egyptian, Jordanian, and Israeli.



Where in the agreements does it say that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where in the agreements does it say that?


Read the agreements. There is not one word of difference between the three occupations.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Read the agreements. There is not one word of difference between the three occupations.



I did. 
None of them back up your claim.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I did.
> None of them back up your claim.


What were those differences?

Links?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> What were those differences?
> 
> Links?



If you read them and they back up your claim, post it here.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you read them and they back up your claim, post it here.


There is nothing for me to post. If you think there is a difference, it is up to you to post it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> There is nothing for me to post. If you think there is a difference, it is up to you to post it.


*
The armistice agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.*

Just post the part that did this.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The armistice agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.*
> 
> Just post the part that did this.


Read them yourself. There is no difference to post. All three occupations were identical.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Read them yourself. There is no difference to post. All three occupations were identical.



The armistice agreements didn't say they divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The armistice agreements didn't say they divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.


The armistice agreements did not mention occupation. They did, however, restrict the movements of the militaries within Palestine while not removing them from the territory. The logical conclusion of leaving these militaries in country would be military occupation. That is what happened. Three areas of occupation.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The armistice agreements did not mention occupation. They did, however, restrict the movements of the militaries within Palestine while not removing them from the territory. The logical conclusion of leaving these militaries in country would be military occupation. That is what happened. Three areas of occupation.


Link?

Of course not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The armistice agreements did not mention occupation. They did, however, restrict the movements of the militaries within Palestine while not removing them from the territory. The logical conclusion of leaving these militaries in country would be military occupation. That is what happened. Three areas of occupation.



*The armistice agreements did not mention occupation. *

Why did you lie?

*They did, however, restrict the movements of the militaries within Palestine* 

What's Palestine?

*The logical conclusion of leaving these militaries in country would be military occupation.*

Which country did they leave them in?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The armistice agreements did not mention occupation. *
> 
> Why did you lie?
> 
> *They did, however, restrict the movements of the militaries within Palestine*
> 
> What's Palestine?
> 
> *The logical conclusion of leaving these militaries in country would be military occupation.*
> 
> Which country did they leave them in?


     
You never read the armistice agreements.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> You never read the armistice agreements.



I did. Your claim isn't in there.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I did. Your claim isn't in there.


No, I said your claim isn't in there.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I did. Your claim isn't in there.


What is and is not in the armistice agreements?

Palestine was mentioned many times.
There was no mention of a place called Israel.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned.
There were no borders mentioned for Israel.

The land was called Palestine.
There was no land called Israel.

The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. There was nothing inside Palestine's international borders that would define a state other than Palestine.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> What is and is not in the armistice agreements?
> 
> Palestine was mentioned many times.
> There was no mention of a place called Israel.
> 
> Palestine's international borders were mentioned.
> There were no borders mentioned for Israel.
> 
> The land was called Palestine.
> There was no land called Israel.
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. There was nothing inside Palestine's international borders that would define a state other than Palestine.


How many more times are you going to cut and paste these same debunked talking points?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> How many more times are you going to cut and paste these same debunked talking points?


Debunk away, I am correct.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Debunk away, I am correct.


"mentioned many times"

What does that mean?

Regarding your invented "Magical Kingdom of Pal'istan,  "Palestine"  was a matter of the British _Mandate. _

I should mention that to better help you concentrate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> No, I said your claim isn't in there.



*The armistice agreements divided Palestine into three areas of occupation.
*
This was your claim. Now show it's in the agreements.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> What is and is not in the armistice agreements?
> 
> Palestine was mentioned many times.
> There was no mention of a place called Israel.
> 
> Palestine's international borders were mentioned.
> There were no borders mentioned for Israel.
> 
> The land was called Palestine.
> There was no land called Israel.
> 
> The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders. There was nothing inside Palestine's international borders that would define a state other than Palestine.



*Palestine was mentioned many times.
There was no mention of a place called Israel.*

You're lying.

*Palestine's international borders were mentioned.
There were no borders mentioned for Israel.*

Lying again.

*There was no land called Israel.*

There sure is now though.

*The armistice lines were specifically not to be political or territorial borders.*

Border agreements have been signed since. So there are borders.

*There was nothing inside Palestine's international borders that would define a state other than Palestine.*

You ever find any of those agreements that were signed by Palestinians and not Israelis? LOL!


----------



## Sixties Fan

Wikipedia describes the 1934 Constantine pogrom:






> The 1934 Constantine riots was an anti-Jewish riot that erupted in the Algerian city of Constantine.
> The general consensus is that the initial cause of the conflict was a confrontation between Eliahou Khalifa, a Jewish Zouave, and Muslim worshippers in a mosque next to his home. The Muslims said that Khalifa was drunk, and insulted Islam. A report by the Jewish authorities claimed he was not intoxicated, and that after getting into an argument with them, the Muslims had cursed Khalifa's faith and he cursed them and their faith back.
> JTA reported on August 8, 1934:



(full article online)









						Algerian newspaper praises 1934 Constantine pogrom that killed dozens of Jews as "battle of glory"
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## rylah

*Morocco and the cause of Zionism*


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

I was surprised at the sheer number and variety of wines from Israel (then Palestine) for sale at Frazer, Viger and Company, a Montreal importer, in 1914.





And Carmel also exported Palestine olive oil!

This was in the Montreal Gazette.

(full article online)









						A large variety of Palestine kosher for Passover wines were imported to North America in 1914
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Baking Matza in Haifa during the Mandate

*'Buy Palestinian Matzot!' w*as a call to support Zion back in the days of the British Mandate.

On April 28, 1926, a headline for a Jewish Telegraphic Agency story read, “Arrangements Are Made to Sell Palestine Matzos in the United States.” It was part of an effort to further expand the growing Palestinian Matzo industry.

Palestine is a name of the land, it is not a nation. It is a title that has been often used for well over two thousand years. During Ottoman (1517-1917) and subsequent post World War One British Mandatory rule, the inhabitants of Palestine whether Jews, Christians, or Muslims were often known as Palestinians.

Palestine Matzos! Those are Matzot from the land of Israel, produced by Zionist industry. Products of the land whether it was wine, honey, or oranges and so many other industries was Palestinian in name and Zionist. Purchasing these products was a way of supporting the Zionist movement. In 1926, a greater push was made to sell Palestinian Matzot to Jews worldwide.

(full article online)









						'Buy Palestinian Matzot!'-  1927 ad
					

This was the slogan in 1927 when Chief Rabbi Avraham Kook urged Rabbis to have their ongregations buy Matzot from the land of Israel. Op-ed.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Orthodox Patriarchate complains about Israeli police presence on Holy Saturday. Let's see how it was in 1932.
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary​


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Global Empire - The Balfour Declaration: A Blood-Drenched Centenary​


Nothing like deciding that the Arabs called themselves Palestinians pre 1964, and that all the Jews were new immigrants to the area.

Nice rewriting of history.


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


>


So, why did the Jews buy land in Palestine when God had already given it to them?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Explained: The Nakba 70 years on​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Israel's Zionist Settler-Colonial Project in Palestine Explained | I Got A Story to Tell | S2E8​


----------



## JoeBlow

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel's Zionist Settler-Colonial Project in Palestine Explained | I Got A Story to Tell | S2E8​


How bad does it suck that a few Jews are kicking your collective arab asses?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Ilan Pappe on "The Nakba of Palestine"​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Explained: The Nakba 70 years on​



I heard it was hundreds of millions.
And 6 out of 5 villages.


----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> So, why did the Jews buy land in Palestine when God had already given it to them?



To expropriate the holding of Arab colonialists
under the laws of foreign powers.

What's truly yours you can't
sell and neither required to
purchase, rather wealth
passing through you,
isn't really yours.
Give it to those
holding yours
for passing
sparkles.


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> *Morocco and the cause of Zionism*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


>



Yeah, the Arabs really fucked that up, eh?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


>


" Don't be fooled by the nonsense that Zionist trolls throw at you here on social media; this is recorded and undisputed history. Ignore them completely, they are just attempting to sow doubt, in order to try and justify the unjustifiable."


You are fooled and attempt to fool others into believing it as well, on a daily basis.

Not doing well at all.

Hashemites take Judea, Samaria and Jewish Quarter in 1948......Cricket.

Egypt takes Gaza in 1948........Cricket.


Yeah, it was always about keeping the Jews from rebuilding legally their Nation ON their ancient homeland.

Jews ended up with only 20 % of the Mandate set up for them.


Keep crying your crocodile tears.


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

But even that doesn’t complete the story.

The San Remo Resolution passed in 1920 provided;

“The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22 (of the league of Nations Charter), the administration of Palestine ….The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 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.”

The San Remo Resolution is the subject of research of international law scholar and lawyer, Jacques Gauthier, Ph.D. The Toronto-based Gauthier, who is Christian, spent a quarter-century researching and writing a 1,300-page thesis to investigate legal ownership rights of the ancient-modern capital city.

Through San Remo, a legal document, “The Jewish people have been given the right to establish a home, based on the recognition of their historical connection and the grounds for reconstituting this national home,” Gauthier explained..

The Palestine Mandate included both sides of the Jordan River and was passed in 1922 by the League of Nations. It should be noted that the Mandate as passed violated the rights given to the Jews at San Remo in that  it restricted their homeland to the lands west off the river. But all of the land was managed under the same Mandate,  It was intended in 1922 that Jordan would be the Arab state and Israel would be the Jewish state

The Mandate included this recital.  “Whereas recognition has thereby [i.e. by the Treaty of Sèvres] been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”

Jordan declared independence in 1946 and Israel did in 1948.

Thus the Jewish state includes all of the lands west of the Jordan River.

And thus Jordan is Palestine. And most people living in Jordan are Palestinians.

In order to make this a reality the King Abdullah II must abdicate and the Palestinians must take control of their country..

To explore all these issue I have set up a Zoom Conference to be held on May 15th 2022 at 7:00 pm.

*JORDAN: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. The Jordan Option Revisited** 

ZOOM CONFERENCE

MAY 15, 2022,

7:00 pm Israel Time (12:00 pm est)

JORDAN: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE:
The Jordan Option Revisited*

The Jordan Option has been touted for over 20 years but gained little traction. *Essentially it embraces the idea that Jordan should be seen as the Palestinian state.  *The primary resistance to the idea came from the Hashemites.

Mudar Zahran, Secretary General of the Jordan Opposition Coalition together with Ted Belman, Editor of ISRAPUNDIT, held a conference at the Begin Centre in Jerusalem on Oct 17, 2017. It justified the rationale behind Jordan being the Palestinian State and called for the end of the Hashemite control of Jordan.  Mudar Zahran announced he was ready, willing and able to serve as President of Jordan.

(full article online)









						Jordan is Palestine. Jordanians are Palestinian
					

From the blog of Ted Belman at The Times of Israel




					blogs.timesofisrael.com


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> *Morocco and the cause of Zionism*



To sum up, the grandfather of Binyamin Zeev Herzl Zt"a,
used to sound the shofar in Rabbi Elkal'ay's synagogue,
who himself  after meeting Rabbi Yehudah Bivas, the
grandson of Or Hahayyim HaKadosh, left a detailed
political plan, also referring to the Greek war for
independence from the Ottoman Caliphate.


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


>



*Rabbi Yehudah Bivas -** Binyamin Herzl link to Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar*
*and the role of Moroccan Jewry in initiating the Zionist revolution

| Lesson series by Rabbi Mosheh Elharar*

What You see here is the picture of Rabbi Yehudah Bibas Z"l, the grandson of Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar HaKadosh, who had only daughters.

Some take in the nonsense, maybe intentionally that he had neither sons nor daughters, this is incorrect. For example here is the book about Rabbi Meir Yehudah Getz,  and on the 1st page of the book (after all the forewards), the 1st line: "HaRav Meir Yehudah Getz, born 15 Av 5684 (1924), to his parents HaRav Tzemah Getz and Rabbanit Simhah Mas'oudah Getz, descendants of Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar, author of the renowned commentary 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh".

Here in the book is not written how he's specifically linked to Or HaHayyim HaKadosh. I have asked a great friend of mine, Dr. Shlomah Sheish, who lives in the village of El'azar in Gush 'Atzion, who was also a regular doctor, surgeon, obstetrician, expert in pediatrics, then an expert in Chinese and various other treatment methods he brought to the country. Dr. Shlomah Sheish is a student of HaRav Getz, the Rabbi of the Kotel (Western Wall), I've asked him about the link to the descendants of HaKaDosh Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar? He says he has always heard from him that he was 7th generation, son after son from the daughter Rabbi Hayiim Ben-Attar. His daughter Rahel, he's the 7th generation, descendant of Rabbi 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh.

Dr Shleish told me, now I call the Gaon HaRav Yisrael Avihay, the chair of the Kabalist Yeshivah 'Beit El' in the ancient city of Jerusalem, he took the chair after HaRav Getz who was the chair of the Yeshivah prior to him, and he confirmed, especially on the day of his Hillulah. And HaRav says 'look at his gravestone, it's not as at the beginning of the book, it says HaRav Meir Yehudah Getz' he says, 'incorrect, look at his gravestone - HaRav Meir Yehudah Nahum Hayyim Getz, why Hayyim? Hayyim is after the name of 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar, he's 7th generation to Or HaHayyim HaKadosh.

And Rabbi Yehudah Bivas, the son of HaRav Shmuel Bivas, passed away 120 years ago, and he following his grandfather saw the horrific troubles done to his grandfather 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh, so he left and ran away from Sali to Gibraltar and established there a Yeshivah in Gibraltar.

This started from his father, HaRav Shmuel Bivas then passed to his son, who later was in Livorno and went around Europe, why? Following his grandfather, who said what? The moment trouble rises abroad to leave everything.

The Torah portion 'Balak' is on the week of the passing of 'Or HaHayyim HaKadosh, let's see what he writes. Bil'am wants to curse Israel that they don't merit a kingdom, that the kingdom doesn't last long for the nation of Israel. Anf of course the sages say in Gmarah, that the blessings of Bil'am are what he wanted to curse Israel. What does he bless Israel with, yet reluctantly -

_"What I see for them is not yet,
What I behold will not be soon:
A star rises from Jacob,
A scepter comes forth from Israel;"_
- BaMidbar 24​
Meaning, "A star rises from Jacob", says Or HaHayyim HaKadosh, that the redemption of the nation of Israel can be as a big star, as in suddenly appearing in the heavens, which is a sped-up miraculous redemption, like the exodus of Egypt, everything this manner is redemption sped-up. This is when the nation of Israel merits ideal unity and love, no despise or neglect, ideal respect for each other, the redemption is sped-up, up as a star that rises in the heavens suddenly and miraculously.

But the manner of redemption can be different, sped-up how?
"A scepter (also tribe) comes forth from Israel", meaning, Or HaHayyim HakaDosh says, "that one tribe rises from Israel in a normal worldly way, through the nature". Through the nature, means the need to go reach the UN, and reach the world nations, get their agreement, and the need for war,  need for the establishment of military and state and great devotion to Torah.

Rabbi 'Amram Abourabiyah who had a great devotion to Torah, used to say to his sons and grandsons who are all themselves devoted to Torah, but this is not enough, to establish the kingdom, says Or HaHayyim HaKadosh - everything through nature.

To establish the kingdom in Israel, there is a need also for science, need for wisdom, of course, Torah has to lead everything, therefore the Rabbi's father advised him on what to do, he told him to study, and he became one of the greatest atomic physicists in the world, all by the support of the father HaRav 'Amram Abourabiyah, the way of Rabbi Or HaHayyim Ben-Attar, who says it's all through the nature.

And following Or HaHayyim HaKadosh, following Rabbi Yehudah Bivas, who came to Yaffo, he was 50 years before Herzl and had an influence by leaving a detailed political plan. And HaRav Yehudah Elkal'ey who quotes him in his books, in Zemlin Yugoslavia.

Professor Zeev Vilnaee says this as well, HaRav Yehudah Bivas together with HaRav David Ben-Shim'on came to Yaffo -and they are the pioneers of the establishment of Eretz Yisrael, before the 1st and the 2nd Aliyah and the rest. They prepared the infrastructure for all the future Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael.

This is Rabbi Yehudah Bivas the grandson of Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar, following the grandfather. And HaRav David Yehudah Shim'on who came from Rabat, he writes the book 'Sha'ar HeHatzer' (the gate of the court'). The student of Rabbi Yehudah Bivas is Rabbi Aharon Shloush, who builds the 1st house in Yaffo and all of Tel Aviv, villages, and cities today in Gush Dan region started from Rabbi Yehudah Bivas.

His students, Rabbi Avraham Shloush, and Rabbi Aharon Shloush had purchased 800 dunams. How does Rabbi David Ben Shim'on start the book 'Sha'ar HeHatzer'? "Everyone must buy land in Eretz Yisrael if they want a part in the world to come".

As I've taught in the lesson about Ya'akov Avinu A"H, "and purchased the parcel of the field" (Beresheet 33), Ya'akov Avinu the first thing in Eretz Yisrael, purchases a parcel of land - there's trouble, leave the exile, purchase a dunam of land in Eretz Yisrael, and the parcel of the field in Eretz Yisrael brings the person to his part in the world to come, this is Torah portion 'Vayishlah' in the Zohar, and this how the book 'Sha'ar HeHatzer' starts, in which 613 differences between Eretz Yisrael and abroad.

And I'm wondering how some wise students in our generation try to be pedantic about certain traditions but not this great thing - that the time has come, the nation of Israel must return to the land of Israel, build it, and we need Torah in devotion, and army and state and all the rest. How does one leave the teaching of all these sages and all who followed Or HaHayyim HaKadosh.

We should know about Rabbi 'Amram Abourabiyah, what he wrote and taught daily - Or HaHayyim HaKadosh was his table book, and he translated it into action. I've given separate lessons on how he merited in his holy spirit to envision all the redemption of the nation of Israel. He wrote 5 months before it happened, how the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces liberate Jerusalem - and we, with the help of HaShem, in the merit of these sages, that we learn from their ways, learn their teaching to merit the full redemption quickly in our days amen!


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> But even that doesn’t complete the story.
> 
> The San Remo Resolution passed in 1920 provided;
> 
> “The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22 (of the league of Nations Charter), the administration of Palestine ….The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 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.”
> 
> The San Remo Resolution is the subject of research of international law scholar and lawyer, Jacques Gauthier, Ph.D. The Toronto-based Gauthier, who is Christian, spent a quarter-century researching and writing a 1,300-page thesis to investigate legal ownership rights of the ancient-modern capital city.
> 
> Through San Remo, a legal document, “The Jewish people have been given the right to establish a home, based on the recognition of their historical connection and the grounds for reconstituting this national home,” Gauthier explained..
> 
> The Palestine Mandate included both sides of the Jordan River and was passed in 1922 by the League of Nations. It should be noted that the Mandate as passed violated the rights given to the Jews at San Remo in that  it restricted their homeland to the lands west off the river. But all of the land was managed under the same Mandate,  It was intended in 1922 that Jordan would be the Arab state and Israel would be the Jewish state
> 
> The Mandate included this recital.  “Whereas recognition has thereby [i.e. by the Treaty of Sèvres] been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country”
> 
> Jordan declared independence in 1946 and Israel did in 1948.
> 
> Thus the Jewish state includes all of the lands west of the Jordan River.
> 
> And thus Jordan is Palestine. And most people living in Jordan are Palestinians.
> 
> In order to make this a reality the King Abdullah II must abdicate and the Palestinians must take control of their country..
> 
> To explore all these issue I have set up a Zoom Conference to be held on May 15th 2022 at 7:00 pm.
> 
> *JORDAN: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. The Jordan Option Revisited**
> 
> ZOOM CONFERENCE
> 
> MAY 15, 2022,
> 
> 7:00 pm Israel Time (12:00 pm est)
> 
> JORDAN: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE:
> The Jordan Option Revisited*
> 
> The Jordan Option has been touted for over 20 years but gained little traction. *Essentially it embraces the idea that Jordan should be seen as the Palestinian state.  *The primary resistance to the idea came from the Hashemites.
> 
> Mudar Zahran, Secretary General of the Jordan Opposition Coalition together with Ted Belman, Editor of ISRAPUNDIT, held a conference at the Begin Centre in Jerusalem on Oct 17, 2017. It justified the rationale behind Jordan being the Palestinian State and called for the end of the Hashemite control of Jordan.  Mudar Zahran announced he was ready, willing and able to serve as President of Jordan.
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jordan is Palestine. Jordanians are Palestinian
> 
> 
> From the blog of Ted Belman at The Times of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.timesofisrael.com


This guy is all wet.

Jordan was intended to be a separate entity as per article 25 of the Mandate document.

There was not to be any transfer of territory to a so called Jewish state. The "Jewish national home" was Palestinian citizenship for Jews who immigrated to Palestine along with all the other people who already lived there.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> This guy is all wet.
> 
> Jordan was intended to be a separate entity as per article 25 of the Mandate document.
> 
> There was not to be any transfer of territory to a so called Jewish state. The "Jewish national home" was Palestinian citizenship for Jews who immigrated to Palestine along with all the other people who already lived there.


There was no transfer of territory. You need to try and keep up.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> This guy is all wet.
> 
> Jordan was intended to be a separate entity as per article 25 of the Mandate document.
> 
> There was not to be any transfer of territory to a so called Jewish state. The "Jewish national home" was Palestinian citizenship for Jews who immigrated to Palestine along with all the other people who already lived there.



Article 25 includes Jordan with "the rest of the territory of Palestine",
only postponing certain provisions, but  no land was transferred
to the Kingdom of Trans Jordan.

Palestinian citizenship already referred to the
legal title for the *re-constitution* of a Jewish state.


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Article 25 includes Jordan with "the rest of the territory of Palestine",
> only postponing certain provisions, but  no land was transferred
> to the Kingdom of Trans Jordan.
> 
> Palestinian citizenship already referred to the
> legal title for the *re-constitution* of a Jewish state.


Do you have links for that shit?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Do you have links for that shit?



No need to curse,
the very document you referred,
destroys the Arab supremacist narrative.

*"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for re-constituting their national home in that country."*









						League Of Nations Mandate For Palestine As A Jewish State
					

JEWISH RIGHTS are spelled clearly. The League Of Nations Mandate states: in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.



					israelforever.org
				




*(QUESTION)*
Was sovereignty entitled to an Arab state  - ever?
Was there any legal land transfer to Jordan as you always claim?


----------



## Sixties Fan

Yom HaZikaron: Remembering Yochanan Stahl and Salia Zohar, murdered and savaged by Arabs in 1931
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> No need to curse,
> the very document you referred,
> destroys the Arab supremacist narrative.
> 
> *"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for re-constituting their national home in that country."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> League Of Nations Mandate For Palestine As A Jewish State
> 
> 
> JEWISH RIGHTS are spelled clearly. The League Of Nations Mandate states: in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
> 
> 
> 
> israelforever.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> Was sovereignty entitled to an Arab state  - ever?
> Was there any legal land transfer to Jordan as you always claim?


It says "in Palestine" not in a Jewish state.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> It says "in Palestine" not in a Jewish state.


That is a joke.

"In Palestine" is where ancient Judea stood.  

Syria Palestina is the name the Romans chose to use to destroy the Jewish memory of their homeland.  It never worked.

The British used Palestine instead of Israel for pure Christian disrespect for Jews and their rights to their homeland.

The Arabs could not care less about the name of the region they migrated to.   From the time Mohammad created Islam, Arabs have known that the area was the Jewish Homeland.

It was ok.......unless the Jews wanted autonomy on their homeland.

Keep making me laugh.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> It says "in Palestine" not in a Jewish state.


Grasping at straws.

Palestine is titled with Jewish national *re-constitution*,
and that also includes Jordan with the "rest of Palestine".

Was there any legal land transfer
 to Jordan, or any Arab state,
as you always claim?


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> *Rabbi Yehudah Bivas -** Binyamin Herzl link to Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar*
> *and the role of Moroccan Jewry in initiating the Zionist revolution
> 
> | Lesson series by Rabbi Mosheh Elharar*
> 
> What You see here is the picture of Rabbi Yehudah Bibas Z"l, the grandson of Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar HaKadosh, who had only daughters.
> 
> Some take in the nonsense, maybe intentionally that he had neither sons nor daughters, this is incorrect. For example here is the book about Rabbi Meir Yehudah Getz,  and on the 1st page of the book (after all the forewards), the 1st line: "HaRav Meir Yehudah Getz, born 15 Av 5684 (1924), to his parents HaRav Tzemah Getz and Rabbanit Simhah Mas'oudah Getz, descendants of Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar, author of the renowned commentary 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh".
> 
> Here in the book is not written how he's specifically linked to Or HaHayyim HaKadosh. I have asked a great friend of mine, Dr. Shlomah Sheish, who lives in the village of El'azar in Gush 'Atzion, who was also a regular doctor, surgeon, obstetrician, expert in pediatrics, then an expert in Chinese and various other treatment methods he brought to the country. Dr. Shlomah Sheish is a student of HaRav Getz, the Rabbi of the Kotel (Western Wall), I've asked him about the link to the descendants of HaKaDosh Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar? He says he has always heard from him that he was 7th generation, son after son from the daughter Rabbi Hayiim Ben-Attar. His daughter Rahel, he's the 7th generation, descendant of Rabbi 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh.
> 
> Dr Shleish told me, now I call the Gaon HaRav Yisrael Avihay, the chair of the Kabalist Yeshivah 'Beit El' in the ancient city of Jerusalem, he took the chair after HaRav Getz who was the chair of the Yeshivah prior to him, and he confirmed, especially on the day of his Hillulah. And HaRav says 'look at his gravestone, it's not as at the beginning of the book, it says HaRav Meir Yehudah Getz' he says, 'incorrect, look at his gravestone - HaRav Meir Yehudah Nahum Hayyim Getz, why Hayyim? Hayyim is after the name of 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar, he's 7th generation to Or HaHayyim HaKadosh.
> 
> And Rabbi Yehudah Bivas, the son of HaRav Shmuel Bivas, passed away 120 years ago, and he following his grandfather saw the horrific troubles done to his grandfather 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh, so he left and ran away from Sali to Gibraltar and established there a Yeshivah in Gibraltar.
> 
> This started from his father, HaRav Shmuel Bivas then passed to his son, who later was in Livorno and went around Europe, why? Following his grandfather, who said what? The moment trouble rises abroad to leave everything.
> 
> The Torah portion 'Balak' is on the week of the passing of 'Or HaHayyim HaKadosh, let's see what he writes. Bil'am wants to curse Israel that they don't merit a kingdom, that the kingdom doesn't last long for the nation of Israel. Anf of course the sages say in Gmarah, that the blessings of Bil'am are what he wanted to curse Israel. What does he bless Israel with, yet reluctantly -
> 
> _"What I see for them is not yet,
> What I behold will not be soon:
> A star rises from Jacob,
> A scepter comes forth from Israel;"_
> - BaMidbar 24​
> Meaning, "A star rises from Jacob", says Or HaHayyim HaKadosh, that the redemption of the nation of Israel can be as a big star, as in suddenly appearing in the heavens, which is a sped-up miraculous redemption, like the exodus of Egypt, everything this manner is redemption sped-up. This is when the nation of Israel merits ideal unity and love, no despise or neglect, ideal respect for each other, the redemption is sped-up, up as a star that rises in the heavens suddenly and miraculously.
> 
> But the manner of redemption can be different, sped-up how?
> "A scepter (also tribe) comes forth from Israel", meaning, Or HaHayyim HakaDosh says, "that one tribe rises from Israel in a normal worldly way, through the nature". Through the nature, means the need to go reach the UN, and reach the world nations, get their agreement, and the need for war,  need for the establishment of military and state and great devotion to Torah.
> 
> Rabbi 'Amram Abourabiyah who had a great devotion to Torah, used to say to his sons and grandsons who are all themselves devoted to Torah, but this is not enough, to establish the kingdom, says Or HaHayyim HaKadosh - everything through nature.
> 
> To establish the kingdom in Israel, there is a need also for science, need for wisdom, of course, Torah has to lead everything, therefore the Rabbi's father advised him on what to do, he told him to study, and he became one of the greatest atomic physicists in the world, all by the support of the father HaRav 'Amram Abourabiyah, the way of Rabbi Or HaHayyim Ben-Attar, who says it's all through the nature.
> 
> And following Or HaHayyim HaKadosh, following Rabbi Yehudah Bivas, who came to Yaffo, he was 50 years before Herzl and had an influence by leaving a detailed political plan. And HaRav Yehudah Elkal'ey who quotes him in his books, in Zemlin Yugoslavia.
> 
> Professor Zeev Vilnaee says this as well, HaRav Yehudah Bivas together with HaRav David Ben-Shim'on came to Yaffo -and they are the pioneers of the establishment of Eretz Yisrael, before the 1st and the 2nd Aliyah and the rest. They prepared the infrastructure for all the future Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael.
> 
> This is Rabbi Yehudah Bivas the grandson of Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar, following the grandfather. And HaRav David Yehudah Shim'on who came from Rabat, he writes the book 'Sha'ar HeHatzer' (the gate of the court'). The student of Rabbi Yehudah Bivas is Rabbi Aharon Shloush, who builds the 1st house in Yaffo and all of Tel Aviv, villages, and cities today in Gush Dan region started from Rabbi Yehudah Bivas.
> 
> His students, Rabbi Avraham Shloush, and Rabbi Aharon Shloush had purchased 800 dunams. How does Rabbi David Ben Shim'on start the book 'Sha'ar HeHatzer'? "Everyone must buy land in Eretz Yisrael if they want a part in the world to come".
> 
> As I've taught in the lesson about Ya'akov Avinu A"H, "and purchased the parcel of the field" (Beresheet 33), Ya'akov Avinu the first thing in Eretz Yisrael, purchases a parcel of land - there's trouble, leave the exile, purchase a dunam of land in Eretz Yisrael, and the parcel of the field in Eretz Yisrael brings the person to his part in the world to come, this is Torah portion 'Vayishlah' in the Zohar, and this how the book 'Sha'ar HeHatzer' starts, in which 613 differences between Eretz Yisrael and abroad.
> 
> And I'm wondering how some wise students in our generation try to be pedantic about certain traditions but not this great thing - that the time has come, the nation of Israel must return to the land of Israel, build it, and we need Torah in devotion, and army and state and all the rest. How does one leave the teaching of all these sages and all who followed Or HaHayyim HaKadosh.
> 
> We should know about Rabbi 'Amram Abourabiyah, what he wrote and taught daily - Or HaHayyim HaKadosh was his table book, and he translated it into action. I've given separate lessons on how he merited in his holy spirit to envision all the redemption of the nation of Israel. He wrote 5 months before it happened, how the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces liberate Jerusalem - and we, with the help of HaShem, in the merit of these sages, that we learn from their ways, learn their teaching to merit the full redemption quickly in our days amen!





rylah said:


>





rylah said:


> *Morocco and the cause of Zionism*


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate 
SUBTOPIC: The Government of Palestine 'v' Independent State of Palestine
※→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

I cannot believe that you have not mastered this yet.



P F Tinmore said:


> It says "in Palestine" not in a Jewish state.


*(COMMENT)*
.
At the direction of the Supreme Council - Principal Allied Powers, as one of the decisions made at San Remo (APR 1920) the military establishment of the  Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was closed in mid-1920 and immediately replaced by the Civil Administration (JUL 1920). In AUG 1920 the Palestine Order in Council and then the Mandate for Palestine were issued.  Both were driven by the decisions made at San Remo.

"Palestine" was technically the short title for the Territory to which the Mandate Applied.  The Government of Palestine was technically the British Civil Administration over Palestine.

The Jewish State was the term of description used by the UN Special Committee for Palestine (UNSCOP) used in the Recommendation and adopted in November 1947 by the General Assembly.

After December 1998, the designation "Palestine"  replaced the phrase"Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the non-member observer in the UN; but, did not change PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian People. As an outcome of the adoption of A/RES/6719 DEC 2012, the term State of Palestine.  The standalone term "Palestine" has become very flexible.

But with the exception of the Gaza Strip and Area "A" nowhere else, west of the Jordan River, can be considered sovereign or independent in the true sense of a self-governing territory.   That is to say that, without changing the meaning or definition of a sovereign state, it means a political "state that possesses an independent existence, being complete in itself, without being merely part of a larger whole to whose government it is subject." (Blacks Law Dictionary, 7 ed, pg 1523)






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Jewish State was the term of description used by the UN Special Committee for Palestine (UNSCOP) used in the Recommendation and adopted in November 1947 by the General Assembly.


Ah yes, the Recommendation that was rejected and never implemented by the Security Council. Didn't happen.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: The Government of Palestine 'v' Independent State of Palestine
> ※→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,
> 
> I cannot believe that you have not mastered this yet.
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> At the direction of the Supreme Council - Principal Allied Powers, as one of the decisions made at San Remo (APR 1920) the military establishment of the  Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was closed in mid-1920 and immediately replaced by the Civil Administration (JUL 1920). In AUG 1920 the Palestine Order in Council and then the Mandate for Palestine were issued.  Both were driven by the decisions made at San Remo.
> 
> "Palestine" was technically the short title for the Territory to which the Mandate Applied.  The Government of Palestine was technically the British Civil Administration over Palestine.
> 
> The Jewish State was the term of description used by the UN Special Committee for Palestine (UNSCOP) used in the Recommendation and adopted in November 1947 by the General Assembly.
> 
> After December 1998, the designation "Palestine"  replaced the phrase"Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the non-member observer in the UN; but, did not change PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian People. As an outcome of the adoption of A/RES/6719 DEC 2012, the term State of Palestine.  The standalone term "Palestine" has become very flexible.
> 
> But with the exception of the Gaza Strip and Area "A" nowhere else, west of the Jordan River, can be considered sovereign or independent in the true sense of a self-governing territory.   That is to say that, without changing the meaning or definition of a sovereign state, it means a political "state that possesses an independent existence, being complete in itself, without being merely part of a larger whole to whose government it is subject." (Blacks Law Dictionary, 7 ed, pg 1523)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


That was before Palestine became a state in 1924. That changed the rules of the game.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Ah yes, the Recommendation that was rejected and never implemented by the Security Council. Didn't happen.


Jewish national re-constitution is not a recommendation,
it's international law, binding on the US constitution as the law of the land.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> That was before Palestine became a state in 1924. That changed the rules of the game.


Extra !!!   Extra!   Palestine became a State in 1924 according to Tinmore's fantasy brain.

Extra!


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> That was before Palestine became a state in 1924. That changed the rules of the game.



Rules don't change when Arab supremacists lose the argument.
Like the "land transfer" you claim then always fail to present.

Was there any reference to any Arab state by 1924?


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Jewish national re-constitution is not a recommendation,
> it's international law, binding on the US constitution as the law of the land.


The US Constitution has nothing to do with Palestine.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> That was before Palestine became a state in 1924. That changed the rules of the game.


To get the cobwebs out of your brain, here is what happened in 1924 within the Mandate for Palestine


1924-1932Fourth _Aliyah_, mainly from Poland.1924Benjamin Frankel starts Hillel Foundation. The first Hillel House opens at the University of Illinois, offers religious and social services.1924Caliphate officially abolished.May 11, 1924The first conference of the General Zionist movement is held in Jerusalem.May 14, 1924Ultra-Orthodox Jews found an agricultural settlement between Ramat Gan and Petah Tikva: Bnei- Brak.1924The United States Congress passes the Immigration Restriction Act, which effectively bans immigration to the U.S. from Asia and Eastern Europe.July 1924While in prison, Hitler begins work on _Mein Kampf_.







__





						Timeline of British Rule in Palestine (1918-1947)
					

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.




					www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

rylah said:


> Rules only change as you keep losing the argument.
> As that "land transfer," you always claim but fail to present.
> 
> So was any Arab nation or a state even mentioned by 1924?


Indeed, by the League of Nations.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> To get the cobwebs out of your brain, here is what happened in 1924 within the Mandate for Palestine
> 
> ​
> 1924-1932Fourth _Aliyah_, mainly from Poland.1924Benjamin Frankel starts Hillel Foundation. The first Hillel House opens at the University of Illinois, offers religious and social services.1924Caliphate officially abolished.May 11, 1924The first conference of the General Zionist movement is held in Jerusalem.May 14, 1924Ultra-Orthodox Jews found an agricultural settlement between Ramat Gan and Petah Tikva: Bnei- Brak.1924The United States Congress passes the Immigration Restriction Act, which effectively bans immigration to the U.S. from Asia and Eastern Europe.July 1924While in prison, Hitler begins work on _Mein Kampf_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timeline of British Rule in Palestine (1918-1947)
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org


The Mandate was not Palestine.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, by the League of Nations.


No link.  No evidence.  No fact of history.

Pay attention as to what happened in 1924.

Would you like to try any other year?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> No link.  No evidence.  No fact of history.
> 
> Pay attention as to what happened in 1924.
> 
> Would you like to try any other year?


Sure, Palestine has always been the poster child of external interference.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Sure, Palestine has always been the poster child of external interference.


Can't answer.

No answers lead to no answers.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, by the League of Nations.


Poor troll.

Then why can't you ever quote it?

No land was ever legally transferred to Jordan, or any Arab state.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate 
SUBTOPIC:  What is a recommendation?
※→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

*recommendation(s) *‘The term “recommendation” is most frequently used to describe
non-binding suggestions of international organs…. Many organizations use “resolution” in
the same context…. “Recommendation” is used to denote a binding rule of law only in one
constitution [that of the European Coal and Steel Community]’: Schermers and Blokker ,
International Institutional Law (4th rev. ed.), 755.
*SOURCE*:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law • Rev. 3d ed. of: Parry and Grant • 2nd ed. 2004  © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pg 510



P F Tinmore said:


> Ah yes, the Recommendation that was rejected and never implemented by the Security Council. Didn't happen.


*(COMMENT)*

Periodically, I notice that someone tends to make this same foolish argument.  As if the Security Council needed to approve a General Assembly Resolution, or that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) had some say as to whether Jewish Council for Independence needed Hostile Arrab Palestinian Approval.



			
				EXCERPT • Press Release PAL/169. 17 May 1948 said:
			
		

> * The Palestine Commission, at its 75th Meeting today, adjourned sine die*
> During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility.  The Commission has not been dissolved.  *In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
> *




One of the most used tactics by the HoAP is to suggest that there is some fault with the argument put forth with no supporting evidence.  In this case, there is the suggestion or implication that the HoAP rejection in early 1948.  It would be a decision that would pleague them to this very day.  The process of creating self-governing institutions would be a huge mistake.  It would not stop the Jewish Council from taking positive steps forward and building the most humanly developed nation in the Region.
.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate 
SUBTOPIC: Making of a State
※→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,

Wow, I cannot believe you said this.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, by the League of Nations.





rylah said:


> Poor troll.
> 
> Then why can't you ever quote it?
> 
> No land was ever legally transferred to Jordan, or any Arab state.


(COMMENT)
.
I do not know of any independent sovereignty that was created by the League of Nations or the Treaty of Lausanne.

Maybe you can help this poor little Italian Boy find these citations.

.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Making of a State
> ※→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,
> 
> Wow, I cannot believe you said this.
> 
> 
> 
> (COMMENT)
> .
> I do not know of any independent sovereignty that was created by the League of Nations or the Treaty of Lausanne.
> 
> Maybe you can help this poor little Italian Boy find these citations.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


The mandate entrenched the Zionist political right with the American British intervention against the Palestinian side. *It was a direct challenge to the international law which gave the native population a right for independence. A right that was acceded by the article 22 of the League Charter which gave the Turkish liberated areas, like Palestine a right for independence with the League administrative advice by the mandated power.* The imposition of the Balfour Declaration as the bases of the mandate contravened the self-determination principle which the League came to uphold. In the words of Henry Cattan, a specialist in international law, "... the implementation of the mandate has created an irregular and abnormal situation which continues at this time, and even constitutes the basis of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The invalidity of the mandate and its one sided implementation in favor of the Jews are matters that would have to be taken into account in any eventual settlement of the conflict. And to ignore these facts [...] can hardly be accepted by legal theory or by international law"<51>. The illegality of the mandate came from its illegal basis of the Balfour Declaration which gave a non-owner (Britain) the right to donate Palestine to the Jews in contradiction with its agreements with the Arab for independence.



			https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26448686.pdf


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> The mandate entrenched the Zionist political right with the American British intervention against the Palestinian side. *It was a direct challenge to the international law which gave the native population a right for independence. A right that was acceded by the article 22 of the League Charter which gave the Turkish liberated areas, like Palestine a right for independence with the League administrative advice by the mandated power.* The imposition of the Balfour Declaration as the bases of the mandate contravened the self-determination principle which the League came to uphold. In the words of Henry Cattan, a specialist in international law, "... the implementation of the mandate has created an irregular and abnormal situation which continues at this time, and even constitutes the basis of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The invalidity of the mandate and its one sided implementation in favor of the Jews are matters that would have to be taken into account in any eventual settlement of the conflict. And to ignore these facts [...] can hardly be accepted by legal theory or by international law"<51>. The illegality of the mandate came from its illegal basis of the Balfour Declaration which gave a non-owner (Britain) the right to donate Palestine to the Jews in contradiction with its agreements with the Arab for independence.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26448686.pdf


" *It was a direct challenge to the international law which gave the native population a right for independence."

The Jewish People ARE the native, indigenous people/Nation of Palestine.

The Mandate for Palestine to rebuild the Jewish nation ON the Jewish Homeland, was beyond legal.

Only a Jew hater like Tinmore decides and spreads that the Jews are not the Indigenous people of the Land but the Invaders which the Arabs have been since the 7th century CE.


Find whatever site you like which says whatever you wish them to say and will continue to make you believe what you want to believe.


Jews Belong in JUDEA

Arabs belong in Arabia.

Jews were left with only 20% of their homeland after 1948.

Arab Muslims and many European Jew haters want the Jews to be sovereign of ZERO land.

That is the way Christians and Muslims, some of them, like to see the Jews.

Landless, homeless, and helpless.*


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC:  What is a recommendation?
> ※→ P F Tinmore, rylah, et al,
> 
> *recommendation(s) *‘The term “recommendation” is most frequently used to describe
> non-binding suggestions of international organs…. Many organizations use “resolution” in
> the same context…. “Recommendation” is used to denote a binding rule of law only in one
> constitution [that of the European Coal and Steel Community]’: Schermers and Blokker ,
> International Institutional Law (4th rev. ed.), 755.
> *SOURCE*:  Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law • Rev. 3d ed. of: Parry and Grant • 2nd ed. 2004  © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pg 510
> 
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Periodically, I notice that someone tends to make this same foolish argument.  As if the Security Council needed to approve a General Assembly Resolution, or that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) had some say as to whether Jewish Council for Independence needed Hostile Arrab Palestinian Approval.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most used tactics by the HoAP is to suggest that there is some fault with the argument put forth with no supporting evidence.  In this case, there is the suggestion or implication that the HoAP rejection in early 1948.  It would be a decision that would pleague them to this very day.  The process of creating self-governing institutions would be a huge mistake.  It would not stop the Jewish Council from taking positive steps forward and building the most humanly developed nation in the Region.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> R


Palestine had a local nationalism to liberate the country from foreign British-Zionist control. *By adopting a Zionist line, the US put itself in the camp of the aggressor.* Historically, Americans and Zionists alike had the same experience of fighting Native Americans and Palestinians respectively.



			https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26448686.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> " *It was a direct challenge to the international law which gave the native population a right for independence."
> 
> The Jewish People ARE the native, indigenous people/Nation of Palestine.
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine to rebuild the Jewish nation ON the Jewish Homeland, was beyond legal.
> 
> Only a Jew hater like Tinmore decides and spreads that the Jews are not the Indigenous people of the Land but the Invaders which the Arabs have been since the 7th century CE.
> 
> 
> Find whatever site you like which says whatever you wish them to say and will continue to make you believe what you want to believe.
> 
> 
> Jews Belong in JUDEA
> 
> Arabs belong in Arabia.
> 
> Jews were left with only 20% of their homeland after 1948.
> 
> Arab Muslims and many European Jew haters want the Jews to be sovereign of ZERO land.
> 
> That is the way Christians and Muslims, some of them, like to see the Jews.
> 
> Landless, homeless, and helpless.*


Thank you Mr. Israeli talking points.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Thank you Mr. Israeli talking points.


You do know that they are not "talking points.  It is the truth.

You do not accept the truth that is your problem.

Hating Jews is very costly for the world.

But what do you care?  Nothing at all.

Nothing like being a loser in the world of Jew hatred, hey, Tinmore?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The mandate entrenched the Zionist political right with the American British intervention against the Palestinian side.



Zionism in those days was a full-on* socialist revolutionary movement,*
while Arab imperialists and British imperialists fought on the same side.

Do you ever get anything correct?


----------



## Sixties Fan

The story of Israel’s creation is one of the most improbable in human history: After millennia of exile and dispersion, the Jewish people once again had a state of their own. The unlikelihood of this outcome is matched only by the dramatic events that precipitated it, and it is not surprising that nearly 75 years after the United Nations resolution that partitioned the British mandate in Palestine, scholars are still trying to make sense of it all. Two new books will help readers better understand how the aftermath of World War II and the beginning of the Cold War affected Israel’s rebirth.

The first twist in the story comes early in Nick Reynold’s The 1945–1952 British Government’s Opposition to Zionism and the Emergent State of Israel. After a decade in power, Great Britain’s Tories lost the July 1945 election to the Labour Party, then led by Clement Attlee. Labour’s party platform called for abolishing restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine and reaffirmed the Balfour Declaration. Hugh Dalton, who subsequently became chancellor of the exchequer, thundered at the party conference, “It is morally wrong and politically indefensible to impose obstacles to the entry into Palestine now of any Jews who desire to go there.”

(full article online)









						How British and American Elites Failed to Stop the Jewish State
					

Two new books bring to life the knife-edge moment when the British Empire was being liquidated and the U.S. national security establishment tried and failed to block the birth of Israel




					www.tabletmag.com


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine had a *local nationalism* to liberate the country from foreign British-Zionist control.


_"Local nationalism"..._

Those greedy* Arab imperialists*
demanding  an exclusive domination
over the entire Middle East and North Africa?

Tell us why they don't deserve a humiliating defeat by a minority.

**


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN, and the British Mandate 
※→ P F Tinmore,  et al,

I am confused thas to what part in Posting #1804 (supra) was not understandable.



P F Tinmore said:


> The mandate entrenched the Zionist political right with the American British intervention against the Palestinian side.


[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

There was no intervention by the Americans and the British.  The purpose of the Mandate was articulated in the Preamble of the Mandate.



P F Tinmore said:


> It was a direct challenge to the international law which gave the native population a right for independence. A right that was acceded by the article 22 of the League Charter which gave the Turkish liberated areas, like Palestine a right for independence with the League administrative advice by the mandated power.


[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

In 1924, there was no "International Law" concerning the "native populations."  

The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention "natives" or "native populations."

The Treaty of Lausanne was binding between the parties to the treaty.  The Arab Palestinians were NOT a party to the treaty.  The treaty does not promise the Arab Palestinians anything.



P F Tinmore said:


> The imposition of the Balfour Declaration as the bases of the mandate contravened the self-determination principle which the League came to uphold.


[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

The League of Nations was formed AFTER the Great War (WWI).  The League of Nations did NOT come to hold up the principles of self-determination. The Treaty of Lausanne did NOT mention the principle f "Self-Determination even once.



P F Tinmore said:


> In the words of Henry Cattan, a specialist in international law, "... the implementation of the mandate has created an irregular and abnormal situation which continues at this time, and even constitutes the basis of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The invalidity of the mandate and its one sided implementation in favor of the Jews are matters that would have to be taken into account in any eventual settlement of the conflict. And to ignore these facts [...] can hardly be accepted by legal theory or by international law"<51>. The illegality of the mandate came from its illegal basis of the Balfour Declaration which gave a non-owner (Britain) the right to donate Palestine to the Jews in contradiction with its agreements with the Arab for independence.


[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

This theme is out of context with the ground truth as it evolved between the Armistice of Mudros (1918) and the Declaration of Israeli Independence (1948).  

It is a matter of perspective as to whether the Mandate was the proximate cause of the conflict, or if it was the uncooperative attitude of the Arab Palestinian.

The Mandate was not invalidated in any fashion by either the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers or any are of the League of Nations.  The Mandate was created by the agreement of the Allied Powers.

There may never be an "eventual settlement of the conflict."  The Egyptians made peace (1979) with the Israelis, and the Jordanians made peace (1994) with the Israelis.  That treaties covered the international boundaries between the Mediterranean Sea at Rafah and Aqaba, and then north, from Aqaba to the border with Syria.  And the northern border with Lebanon (2000), covered by the Letter from the Lebanese Government.  Please take notice that the international border encapsulates both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
*(∑Ω)*

Just as the "Tinmore" commentary implies that the actions taken by the Allied Powers ... can hardly be accepted by legal ... is an attempt to retroactively apply 21st Century Customary Practice to an early 20th Century (100 years ago) way in which the Allied Powers handling of the small area of the overall territory the Mandate covered.  And once again you use this statement (non-owner (Britain)] Real Estate termonology.  We are discussing sovereignty and self-governing institutions.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> And once again you use this statement (non-owner (Britain)] Real Estate termonology. We are discussing sovereignty and self-governing institutions.


I don't know why this could confuse you. When Balfour made that promise to the Zionists, Palestine was still under Ottoman sovereignty. After the war Britain did not annex or otherwise claim sovereignty over the territory.

It is quite simple. Palestine was not Britain's to give away.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> I don't know why this could confuse you. When Balfour made that promise to the Zionists, Palestine was still under Ottoman sovereignty. After the war Britain did not annex or otherwise claim sovereignty over the territory.
> 
> It is quite simple. Palestine was not Britain's to give away.


What was given away?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The Treaty of Lausanne did not mention "natives" or "native populations."


It did, it just didn't use that term. The people who lived there got the territory. The people who lived there got the nationality. The people who lived there got the citizenship. The people who lived there got the sovereignty.

In article 22 of the LoN Covenant, the people who lived there were to be led to independence.

In the 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order, stated that the people who lived there would become Palestinian citizens.

In subsequent UN resolutions, the people who live there (the Palestinian people in Palestine) have the right to self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.

It is what I call the people of the place. Nowhere does anyone mention that the people from someplace else get anything.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> In subsequent UN resolutions, the people who live there (the Palestinian people in Palestine) have the right to self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.



Do they have it yet?


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Roots of Zionism | Honest Reporting
					

Many young people have been inspired by Herzl's phrase "If you will it, it is no dream." But what are the roots of Zionism and the story behind Israel?




					honestreporting.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Michael Weimers was a strikingly handsome, English-educated immigrant from Germany who earned the moniker “King of the Negev” because of the airlifts he orchestrated to besieged Jewish communities in the south. His efforts to erect vital airfields ultimately helped liberate Israel’s vast Negev desert at that key turning point in the war.

He was a pioneering meteorologist and air force officer who in his day enjoyed the admiration of his peers. But for some reason his memory suddenly disappeared upon death. Unlike ace pilot Modi Alon, the commander of Israel’s first fighter squadron and hero of its first aerial assault, who crashed to death after a bombing mission, and David “Mickey” Marcus, Israel’s first modern general and architect of the Burma Road to Jerusalem, who was accidentally shot dead by a local sentry and later immortalized in film by Kirk Douglas, Weimers’ legacy simply vanished.





Michael Weimers in Israel in an undated photoCOURTESY OF MICHAEL WEIMERS’ FAMILY

(full article online)









						The Forgotten Savior of the Southern Israeli Desert
					

How an awkward German refugee helped liberate southern Israel in the 1948 War of Independence




					www.tabletmag.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

From left, Fred Stevenson, Michael Wimers, Wilf Canter, Leon Lightman, and Willy FisherORIGINAL PHOTOS COURTESY THE AUTHOR

Late on the night of Oct. 24, 1948, on the last night of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot and amid Israel’s War of Independence, a Douglas C-47 Dakota transport plane took off from Tel Aviv’s Sde Dov military airport. It was a routine supply mission to the besieged Negev community of Sdom, near the southern tip of the Dead Sea. Sdom, like many such settlements, was encircled by enemy forces and only accessible by air. Moments after takeoff, the right engine began to overheat and spit out flames. The pilot redirected for an emergency landing at the Tel Nof air base, but the engine exploded within sight of the airfield, breaking off a wing and sending the plane spiraling to the ground just before midnight. It exploded on impact, and all five of the passengers were killed, in one of the first fatal aerial transport accidents in Israel’s history. Still, it barely registered on the radar of a young Jewish state suffering daily casualties as it engaged in a bloody war. There was not even a reference to it in several newspapers over the following days.

There was nothing glorious about an overloaded, rickety plane long overdue for servicing that crashed while delivering flour, coffee, and soap to besieged Israelis when heroic military sacrifices were happening all around. But while the accident itself was hardly extraordinary, its circumstances offer a snapshot of Israel’s makeshift early days, and its victims shine a light on those long forgotten. Together they made up some of the ragtag outfit of unsung foreign volunteers who flocked to the Holy Land in 1948—thousands of idealistic WWII veterans without whom Israel likely would not have won its independence. But when the fighting subsided, and Israel finally came around to telling its story, there was simply no one around to tell of these impressive young men. Four of the five officers—the pilot Wilf Canter, his co-pilot Fred Stevenson, navigator Willy Fisher, and radio operator Leon Lightman—were overseas volunteers, without local family to lobby for their commemoration. The fifth, Michael Wimers, was a single Jewish German immigrant. For decades, the military itself had little biographical information on the disparate men whose varied backgrounds and life stories made up the palette of early Israel’s fight for survival.

But now, 70 years later, we can finally get a fuller picture of these previously anonymous fighters amid the historic times in which they lived, thanks to the dogged determination of a devoted air force official, an obsessive campaign of a bereaved woman, and, surprising as it is to me, my last-ditch efforts to convince my paternal grandfather, Mickey Heller, to tell me something—anything!—about his WWII experiences.

(full article online)



			https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/[sectionSlug]/articles/dakota-fighters-of-israels-war-of-independence


----------



## Sixties Fan

The true history of the fight for Tel Hai is less one of Jews and Arabs squaring off, and more one of an apparent misunderstanding in a period of high stress and generally heightened tensions that turned deadly and quickly escalated out of control.

Nevertheless, the event almost immediately became a rallying cry for the pre-state “Yishuv,” or Jewish proto-government in Palestine. It has remained a Zionist cultural touchstone for the past century. Each year the government continues to host annual ceremonies to mark the battle, with Prime Minister Naftali Bennett this year discussing how the significance of the Battle of Tel Hai continues to resonate today.

Indeed, the purported, though disputed, final words of the battle’s hero, Joseph Trumpeldor — “No matter: It is good to die for our country” — still serve as a central element in the Zionist military ethos, and the eight people killed in the confrontation and in two preceding attacks are commemorated in the name of the nearby city of Kiryat Shmona (literally, Town of the Eight).

Yet for all of the lofty importance given to the battle and to the Jewish men and women who were killed in it, shockingly little is known about two of them, Jacob Tucker and William Scharff, two members of the British Jewish Legion who had joined the Jewish outfit from the United States and served in then-Palestine until their release a few days before the battle.

(full article online)









						The hidden American history of one of Zionism’s foundational battles: Tel Hai
					

Two of those killed in the 1920 clash were veterans of the American 39th Jewish Battalion, Jacob Tucker and William Scharff, but for years their roles, and even names, were unknown




					www.timesofisrael.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

*Question.*

Israel's declaration of independence.

Independent from what?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> It did, it just didn't use that term. The people who lived there got the territory. The people who lived there got the nationality. The people who lived there got the citizenship. The people who lived there got the sovereignty.
> 
> In article 22 of the LoN Covenant, the people who lived there were to be led to independence.
> 
> In the 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order, stated that the people who lived there would become Palestinian citizens.
> 
> In subsequent UN resolutions, the people who live there (the Palestinian people in Palestine) have the right to self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
> 
> It is what I call the people of the place. Nowhere does anyone mention that the people from someplace else get anything.


All the same bogus cut and paste nonsense you have used repeatedly.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Research over the years into what did happen in the village that Friday for sure has provided a fuller and more comprehensive insight into the events of that day when fighters of the Irgun and Stern Group, the two pre-state undergrounds that attacked the village, with the approval of Jerusalem Hagana commander David Shaltiel. There are memoirs of the participants, their commanders and, as well, those of their detractors – of the Hagana and Palmah. Yet, for many years there was no credible counter-retelling to offset the claims of a “massacre.”

The Zionist Organization of America’s 1998 pamphlet for the first time published Hebrew material previously unavailable in English. Uri Milstein published The Birth of a Palestinian Nation: The Myth of the Deir Yassin Massacre. The “best” that Benny Morris could do in his 2005 study was to conclude there had been no massacre but a “haphazard slaughter of one or more families and of small batches of prisoners of war and the execution of individuals.”

Most of all, what was lacking was a genuine insight into reliable Arab sources.

The first breakthrough came in 1987 with Bir Zeit academics Sharif Kan’ane and Nihad Zeitawi’s study. Instead of 245–254 killed, as claimed until then, the fatalities dropped to 107, based only on interviews with the survivors, but not with documentation. Thanks to the BBC’s television series shown in 1998, central Arab figures revealed more of the truth of the episode in English.


Hazen Nusseibeh, who edited news for the Palestine Broadcasting Service’s Arabic division in 1948, retold his conversation with Hussein Khalidi, the secretary of the Arab Higher Committee. He had asked Khalidi on the Saturday following the fighting how to cover the story, and the reply was “We must make the most of this.” That “most” was a press release stating that “at Deir Yasin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped. All sorts of atrocities.”


WE HAVE now The Massacre That Never Was, Prof. Eliezer Tauber’s book, which, incidentally, itself has a back story in that no academic press would agree to publish it, as, seemingly, it goes against the accepted narrative.


There are three main elements to the narrative of Deir Yasin as well as several minor ones.


The first is the term “massacre,” as the AP communiqué of April 11 termed the events, or as the Deir Yassin Remembered website has it, the villagers “had been systematically murdered.” Is it justified, and what was its role in the flight of Palestine’s Arabs?


The second is the downplaying of Deir Yasin’s own history within the context of the terrorist campaign of Palestine’s Arabs against their Jewish neighbors.


The third is the defamation campaign waged by the Mapai elite against the Revisionist dissidents, against the backdrop of their responsibility for massacres.

(full article online)









						Did the Deir Yasin massacre actually happen? New book investigates
					

Was there a massacre or a battle, with many fewer killed civilians than portrayed?




					www.jpost.com


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> *Morocco and the cause of Zionism*





rylah said:


> *Rabbi Yehudah Bivas -** Binyamin Herzl link to Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar*
> *and the role of Moroccan Jewry in initiating the Zionist revolution
> 
> | Lesson series by Rabbi Mosheh Elharar*
> 
> What You see here is the picture of Rabbi Yehudah Bibas Z"l, the grandson of Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar HaKadosh, who had only daughters.
> 
> Some take in the nonsense, maybe intentionally that he had neither sons nor daughters, this is incorrect. For example here is the book about Rabbi Meir Yehudah Getz,  and on the 1st page of the book (after all the forewards), the 1st line: "HaRav Meir Yehudah Getz, born 15 Av 5684 (1924), to his parents HaRav Tzemah Getz and Rabbanit Simhah Mas'oudah Getz, descendants of Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar, author of the renowned commentary 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh".
> 
> Here in the book is not written how he's specifically linked to Or HaHayyim HaKadosh. I have asked a great friend of mine, Dr. Shlomah Sheish, who lives in the village of El'azar in Gush 'Atzion, who was also a regular doctor, surgeon, obstetrician, expert in pediatrics, then an expert in Chinese and various other treatment methods he brought to the country. Dr. Shlomah Sheish is a student of HaRav Getz, the Rabbi of the Kotel (Western Wall), I've asked him about the link to the descendants of HaKaDosh Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar? He says he has always heard from him that he was 7th generation, son after son from the daughter Rabbi Hayiim Ben-Attar. His daughter Rahel, he's the 7th generation, descendant of Rabbi 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh.
> 
> Dr Shleish told me, now I call the Gaon HaRav Yisrael Avihay, the chair of the Kabalist Yeshivah 'Beit El' in the ancient city of Jerusalem, he took the chair after HaRav Getz who was the chair of the Yeshivah prior to him, and he confirmed, especially on the day of his Hillulah. And HaRav says 'look at his gravestone, it's not as at the beginning of the book, it says HaRav Meir Yehudah Getz' he says, 'incorrect, look at his gravestone - HaRav Meir Yehudah Nahum Hayyim Getz, why Hayyim? Hayyim is after the name of 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar, he's 7th generation to Or HaHayyim HaKadosh.
> 
> And Rabbi Yehudah Bivas, the son of HaRav Shmuel Bivas, passed away 120 years ago, and he following his grandfather saw the horrific troubles done to his grandfather 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh, so he left and ran away from Sali to Gibraltar and established there a Yeshivah in Gibraltar.
> 
> This started from his father, HaRav Shmuel Bivas then passed to his son, who later was in Livorno and went around Europe, why? Following his grandfather, who said what? The moment trouble rises abroad to leave everything.
> 
> The Torah portion 'Balak' is on the week of the passing of 'Or HaHayyim HaKadosh, let's see what he writes. Bil'am wants to curse Israel that they don't merit a kingdom, that the kingdom doesn't last long for the nation of Israel. Anf of course the sages say in Gmarah, that the blessings of Bil'am are what he wanted to curse Israel. What does he bless Israel with, yet reluctantly -
> 
> _"What I see for them is not yet,
> What I behold will not be soon:
> A star rises from Jacob,
> A scepter comes forth from Israel;"_
> - BaMidbar 24​
> Meaning, "A star rises from Jacob", says Or HaHayyim HaKadosh, that the redemption of the nation of Israel can be as a big star, as in suddenly appearing in the heavens, which is a sped-up miraculous redemption, like the exodus of Egypt, everything this manner is redemption sped-up. This is when the nation of Israel merits ideal unity and love, no despise or neglect, ideal respect for each other, the redemption is sped-up, up as a star that rises in the heavens suddenly and miraculously.
> 
> But the manner of redemption can be different, sped-up how?
> "A scepter (also tribe) comes forth from Israel", meaning, Or HaHayyim HakaDosh says, "that one tribe rises from Israel in a normal worldly way, through the nature". Through the nature, means the need to go reach the UN, and reach the world nations, get their agreement, and the need for war,  need for the establishment of military and state and great devotion to Torah.
> 
> Rabbi 'Amram Abourabiyah who had a great devotion to Torah, used to say to his sons and grandsons who are all themselves devoted to Torah, but this is not enough, to establish the kingdom, says Or HaHayyim HaKadosh - everything through nature.
> 
> To establish the kingdom in Israel, there is a need also for science, need for wisdom, of course, Torah has to lead everything, therefore the Rabbi's father advised him on what to do, he told him to study, and he became one of the greatest atomic physicists in the world, all by the support of the father HaRav 'Amram Abourabiyah, the way of Rabbi Or HaHayyim Ben-Attar, who says it's all through the nature.
> 
> And following Or HaHayyim HaKadosh, following Rabbi Yehudah Bivas, who came to Yaffo, he was 50 years before Herzl and had an influence by leaving a detailed political plan. And HaRav Yehudah Elkal'ey who quotes him in his books, in Zemlin Yugoslavia.
> 
> Professor Zeev Vilnaee says this as well, HaRav Yehudah Bivas together with HaRav David Ben-Shim'on came to Yaffo -and they are the pioneers of the establishment of Eretz Yisrael, before the 1st and the 2nd Aliyah and the rest. They prepared the infrastructure for all the future Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael.
> 
> This is Rabbi Yehudah Bivas the grandson of Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar, following the grandfather. And HaRav David Yehudah Shim'on who came from Rabat, he writes the book 'Sha'ar HeHatzer' (the gate of the court'). The student of Rabbi Yehudah Bivas is Rabbi Aharon Shloush, who builds the 1st house in Yaffo and all of Tel Aviv, villages, and cities today in Gush Dan region started from Rabbi Yehudah Bivas.
> 
> His students, Rabbi Avraham Shloush, and Rabbi Aharon Shloush had purchased 800 dunams. How does Rabbi David Ben Shim'on start the book 'Sha'ar HeHatzer'? "Everyone must buy land in Eretz Yisrael if they want a part in the world to come".
> 
> As I've taught in the lesson about Ya'akov Avinu A"H, "and purchased the parcel of the field" (Beresheet 33), Ya'akov Avinu the first thing in Eretz Yisrael, purchases a parcel of land - there's trouble, leave the exile, purchase a dunam of land in Eretz Yisrael, and the parcel of the field in Eretz Yisrael brings the person to his part in the world to come, this is Torah portion 'Vayishlah' in the Zohar, and this how the book 'Sha'ar HeHatzer' starts, in which 613 differences between Eretz Yisrael and abroad.
> 
> And I'm wondering how some wise students in our generation try to be pedantic about certain traditions but not this great thing - that the time has come, the nation of Israel must return to the land of Israel, build it, and we need Torah in devotion, and army and state and all the rest. How does one leave the teaching of all these sages and all who followed Or HaHayyim HaKadosh.
> 
> We should know about Rabbi 'Amram Abourabiyah, what he wrote and taught daily - Or HaHayyim HaKadosh was his table book, and he translated it into action. I've given separate lessons on how he merited in his holy spirit to envision all the redemption of the nation of Israel. He wrote 5 months before it happened, how the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces liberate Jerusalem - and we, with the help of HaShem, in the merit of these sages, that we learn from their ways, learn their teaching to merit the full redemption quickly in our days amen!











						The forgotten vision of Rabbi Bibas
					

I first encountered Bibas’s name in another excellent 1997 volume – Restoring the Jews to their Homeland: Nineteen Centuries in the Quest for Zion by Joseph Adler.




					www.jpost.com


----------



## sergiobramasole

Sixties Fan said:


> Nothing like deciding that the Arabs called themselves Palestinians pre 1964, and that all the Jews were new immigrants to the area.
> 
> Nice rewriting of history.


Jews were a majority in Jerusalem decades before the Balfour Declaration.


----------



## sergiobramasole

P F Tinmore said:


> This guy is all wet.
> 
> Jordan was intended to be a separate entity as per article 25 of the Mandate document.
> 
> There was not to be any transfer of territory to a so called Jewish state. The "Jewish national home" was Palestinian citizenship for Jews who immigrated to Palestine along with all the other people who already lived there.


The San Remo Conference allotted all territory on  both  banks of the Jordan river to the Jewish National Home. Britain unilaterally tore a huge chunk of it to set up shop for the Hashemites driven out of Mecca and Medina by the Saudis. Article 5 of the 1922 League of Nations expressly forbade land transfer to foreign rule. Jews declaring sovereignty in 1948 were  within their inalienable right to claim full jurisdiction over all land from the river to the sea, stemming from the League of Nations' stare decisis. To declare Jerusalem a corpus separatum was arbitrary and unlawful. Jewish land belongs to Jews.


----------



## rylah

*Itamar Ben-Yehudah | The Revival Of Hebrew Vision*

Born in Jerusalem in 1885, to Eli'azer Ben-Yehudah "the redeemer of the Hebrew language" and Dvorah, daughter of Shlomah Naftali Hirz Yunes, student of the wise and man of Haskalah.






At birth the decision of his parents, at which insisted his father, to speak to every Jew only in Hebrew thus forcing them to revive the language, and raise their child as the 'first Hebrew child' keeping him away from any other sounds. With that, many saw that with pity predicting he would be intellectually challenged. all his life. However with years, found social life among his peers and close to his family, as well as his sister Ymimah who grew as well speaking only Hebrew.

On the 22nd of Elul 1851his mother passed away and on the 8th of Nisan 1802 his aunt Hemda, his mother's sister, immigrated to Israel, married his father, and continued the education and upbringing of the two children in Hebrew.

He learned the basic knowledge of TaNaCh and Hebrew literature from his parents in Hebrew and later in French. and at the age of 17, he went to study at the Alliance's teachers' seminary in Paris. Thre was among the regulars of Nordau's home and other bold Zionist figures, getting impressed by the intellectual free spirit of the French press. Later returned not wanting to study abroad any longer.
At the same time his father was already comprising the Major  Hebrew Dictionary , and knowing that it was a great work for the rest of his life he instructed his son to continue his enterprise and therefore sent him to study Semitic languages at the Institute of Oriental Studies at the University of Berlin.

In 1906 he went with his sister Ymimah, and with the help of A. Sh. Yehudah, a Jerusalemite, Ymimah was accepted into the teacher's seminary, despite little knowledge of German, however, quickly advanced. Later they learned other languages, English, Spanish, Italian and Arabic.

In Berlin he got to know Bonnefon, the French journalist who offered him work. Later he was given much of Bonnefon's work becoming a political writer for the major French publications. After returning to Jerusalem in 1908, assisted his father in the publication of the newspapers "HaZvi", and "HaOr", in which he wrote the main political articles, in a wide context and lively style in an attempt to bring the reader closer to the various difficult world events. In order to accurately describe the modern world events he had to renew and come up with new renewed and completely new terms, which though didn't always comply with the rules of Hebrew etymology, however at the time fulfilled the journalistic and day-to-day needs, becoming common.

Out of admiration for his father, in his eyes, a unique historic figure which not every generation merits thought of the family's following use of the Ben-Yehudah surname sort of 'desecration'. In his opinion it was unique to the 'redeemer of the Hebrew language' and no one else, therefore called himself Itarmar Ben-E'by, and only in acronyms (E"by - E. Ben-Yehudah) mentioned his relationship with his father.






Before going to study abroad, used to write in his father's ideological publication "Hashkafh", with excitement about the revival happening in the country. Then in Berlin came into contact with various major Jewish figures in literature and science working there, writing about it in "Hashkafah" at length. This way he visited the 6th Zionist congress in Bazel, in 1903 (the 'Uganda congress') meeting Herzl with whom he spoke French (not yet fluent in German) of which he reported in "Hashkafah" under the pseudonyms 'Ben-Zion Ben Yehudah, B.Y" B"Z Ben-Yehudah, Ben Eby the "Dreamer" etc.

He was free not only from the exile-feeling of inferiority but also the ties of the tradition of thousands of years sanctified in the nation, seeking to create a free culturally Hebrew nation, seeing the ideals of western enlightenment at the height of ideals - to which he dedicated his writing. Both in style and constant linguistic updates, Jerusalemites found it difficult to digest, however getting drawn to the renewal and pathos without adopting it.

Since the Turkish constitution was given, wanted to see in it the Eastern revival in the spirit of the West, seeking hope for Jews and the many nations of the East establishing likely cultural cooperation among neighbors. However the sparks of hope didn't remove the centuries-old rot remaining underneath, and writing in sharp criticism of the situation was arrested by the Turkish authorities and put in jail. After his release continued the activity for the Jewish-Hebrew idea.

On Passover eve of 1901 married Leah Bat Rahamim Shlomah Abushdid (Ben Avraham, of the pioneers of North Africa, leaders of the Ma'arvi community, laying the foundation for the Hekdesh near Yaffo Gate, the sister of Dr. Avraham Abushdid).

During WW1 he and his fathers were thorns in the eyes of the Ottomans, at the advice of friends went to the US, and stayed until the end of the war. In the US, recruited support for the Hebrew revival speaking among major international leaders, and those subjugated in Europe, to seek national revival and liberation following coming world changes, due to the end of the war, with the victory of the allies. In 1917 took part in the international conference, during the 'liberty bell' ceremony carrying the flag of Zion as the representative of the Hebrew nation. Later was sent to the Sevres conference, however, was opposed by the Zionist leaders. In any way, he kept functioning as the communicator in London, between the Zionist Federation and Arab delegates, at the period as well as the secretary of Hayim Weizman.

After returning from abroad, for some time wrote in 'Ha'Aretz' as the main redactor, but couldn't get along with the framework of the Russian Zionists and spirit. Later participated in founding the 'Solel', among whom the natives were main workers, and establishment of 'DerHaYom' as the main redactor until 1929, and since -1924 edited the 'Palestine Weekly', and contributed to Times and Daily Mail. Under his influence, lord Northcliff sent modern printing equipment for the developing Hebrew press. As well-founded the 'Bareed al-Youm' in Arabic, investing a lot of effort to bring journalism to a level with its Western counterparts, following similar complicated technological changes. Similarly edited the comic 'Hemer-Gemel', the first of its kind in Hebrew, which was also published in French newspapers. Participated in the foundation of the 'Bnei-Binyamin' Federation as Vice-President.

Despite recruiting support for "Independent Judea" around the world, fighting his public speeches against Arab incitement and violence, nonetheless British, made a lot of enemies among fellow Jews when suggesting a canton Swiss-style establishment, drawing accusations of treason. However he didn't give up on the idea, and while working as a librarian for a while in Netanyah, tried to Latinise the Hebrew literature in the 'Weekly Palestine' which drew attention neither from the new locals nor new immigrants, virtually ignored.

Was active in support of the 'sea conquest, seeing the result of his writings in the establishment of the Tel Aviv port and development of the Hebrew sea fare.

In Tel Aviv established the Hebrew-Italian club, and had a friendly visit with Mussolini during the visit to Italy, representing eagerly the idea of Israeli hope for liberty and friendly partnership among the Middeteranean nations.

With similar excitement attempted to motivate a 'religious renewal', as a modern feeling, turning towards major religious leaders, who didn't see the need at the. Managed the Sephardic Federation, as the father of his Sephardic daughters on their mother's side, and as a Hebrew of status above diaspora differences.

Due to the conditions at the time, and the alienating attitude was forced to accept the proposition to be employed for the efforts of the US community. With a saddened heart left in 1930, with his family, hoping to return but didn't manage. Passed away in East Orange, New Jersey, on the eve of Passover. Buried in the Bnei-Zion cemetery there, until his remains were transferred by the US community to Haifa, then Netanyah (Tel Aviv was under blockade), eventually ascending to Jerusalem, where he was buried next to his father on the Mount of Olives.










						1305 | Encyclopedia of the Founders and Builders of Israel
					

A biographical dictionary or encyclopedia of 19th and 20th century Israelis



					www.tidhar.tourolib.org


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> *Morocco and the cause of Zionism*



*Rabbi Calfon Mosheh HaCohen | North African Zionism*
*Early Zionist leader and 'Global Village' visionary *






Rabbi Calfon Mosheh HaCohen (1874-1950) was the chief rabbi of Djerba, of the greatest scholars of Tunisia. Wrote numerous books, among them on the topics of Hebrew law, education, morality, sermons, and responsa.

An enthusiastic supporter of Zionism, all his life activity was to return to Eretz Yisrael.
Wrote a cosmopolitan vision, professing world peace and the establishment of an organization similar to the UN in Jerusalem. Passed away in Jerbah on the eve of moving to Israel, and in 2005 his bones were buried in Jerusalem.

The family of Rabbi HaCohen was from the attributed family Cohen Abri"sh, according to tradition descendants of 'Ezra HaSofer. His grand-grandfather Rabbi Shaul HaCohen was the head of court in the small quarter on the island of  Djerba. His grandfather from the father's side is Rabbi Moseh HaCohen, the author of the book "Pnei Mosheh", after whom he was named. His father, Rabbi Shalom, authored the books "Nahar Shalom", "Hefetz Yakar", and "Hayyim Shalom", who was the head of court in Jirjis near Djerba.






Born in 1874 to Rabbi Shalom Vetraci, on the island of Djerba in south Tunisia. During childhood, his family knew years of prosperity and wealth and was known for generous support for scholars and the poor of Jerbah. During their teenage years, the family's situation worsened and he had to help the housing economy, for which among other things he used to proofread and copy books. Studied with his father and with Rabbi Yosef Barabi, later the Chief Rabbi of Djerba.

When his father was called to lead the community of Jirjis, Rabbi Calfon Mosheh HaCohen was asked to be the Shohet. At 17, learned Shhitah from Rabbi Binyamin Hadad, and served as a Shohet and examiner. Following the hard working conditions, during the summer days under the sun, became ill with fever and his vision was injured. Despite that, initially didn't want to stop his work to support the house, but after many entreaties returned to Djerba to continue his study.






In 1895 Rabbi HaCohen married Msi'adah, a cousin on his mother's side, and the couple had 3 sons and 4 daughters. One of the sons, Rabbi Shushan HaCohen, after making Aliyah,  was appointed the Rabbi of the village of Eitan in Israel.

When he was 25 was asked to accept membership in the Beit Din (Hebrew court) of Jerbah, but rejected arguing he didn't want to receive any goods from the public. Despite his rejection, over the years various propositions kept reaching him, to serve in various Rabbinic positions, sometimes with promises of major respected rewards, but he always rejected.






In 1917, at 43 years, was eventually appointed as a member of the Beit Din in Jerbah, however then as well rejected the offer to head the court, rather only as of the 3rd judge, and only at certain hours of the day. In practice, the conditions didn't fulfill, and all-day he was busy with almost all of Jerbah's cour carried on his shoulders. Several times considered leaving the position due to his health conditions and the load of work.










His leadership stood out at critical times when the Nazi invaders into Djerbah demanded 50kg of gold from the Jewish community. This was on Sabbath and he drove with them all over the Jewish neighborhoods, obliging every Jew to bring all the gold in possession.

At 75 Rabbi Calfon fell fataly ill. After a short improvement, he passed on Sabbath, 7th of June 1950. On the day of his burial, the surrounding towns were almost emptied of Jews, and the main marketplace in Jerbah (owned mostly by Jews) was closed. Tens of thousands, among whom were Tunisian and French governors took part in the funeral.

Was buried in Djerbah, but in 2005, 55 years after his passing, his bones were brought from Tunisia to Israel, and buried on the mountain of Menuhot in Jerusalem, by Rabbi Shalom Msas.

In the funeral procession that lasted  3 days, took part tens of thousands from Israel, Tunisia, and France, among them Rabbi Mordechai Elyahu and Rabbi 'Ovadiah Yosef.

Named after him, are various synagogues, schools, as well as streets in the cities of Netivot, Ashkelon, and a street in Jerusalem.

Due to the establishment of the 'Alliance' schools in Tunisia, objected with his cousin Rabbi Mordechai Amyas HaCohen against many, including Rabbi Yisrael Zayton, the Chief Rabbi of Tunisia, preferring to keep traditional Torah education. After the school was established, most Djerba residents listened to Rabbi Calfon, and didn't send their children to study there.

Despite opposing modernization in the Alliance schools, Rabbi Calfon was an enthusiastic supporter of the Zionist movement, despite knowing its central figures were far from tradition, he wrote -

_*"In our days, many of our brothers of the house of Israel though didn't grow up on the knees of Judaism, Torah, and commandments, and their judgment is as of abducted children among the nations. However, in their heart awakened a nationalist emotion, for the love of existence of the Israeli nation, and its persistence to be a separate nation from the nations of the world." *_- from the pamphlet "Geulat Mosheh" in his book "Zchut Mosheh".

Referring to Binyamin Zeev Herzl he wrote -

_*"In our days, an exalted man has risen among us, a man of character with a clear mind and sharp ideas, Binyamin Zeev Herzl is his name...came up with a wonderful idea, fo everyone to gather under the shade of the Zionist community and be called Zionists...and knocked on the gates of kings and counts - to take from them a clear ruling, for Eretz Yisrael to be for us as before". *_

In 1919 was among the founders of the Zionist movement "Ateret Zion" in Djerba, which acted in coordination with KKL and Keren HaYesod, to strengthen the Hebrew language, and her members were constantly updated about news from the land of Israel, through Hebrew newspapers like "HaLevanon", "HaMagid", "HaTzfirah" and "HaHavatzelet".

In his lesson during Shabat of Torah portion "Naso", 12th of Sivan, several days after the San Remo conference and confirmation of the Balfour Declaration by the League of Nations said that this was "the beginning of the redemption". He wrote and edited the lesson at the end of Shabat, and published it as the "The Fifth Sermon For The Beginning Of Redemption" in his book "Matte Mosheh", writing the following - "from now on there is no doubt this is the beginning of the redemption, and every man of Israel should thank thousands of time to G-d for the redemption and salvation, for G-d has commanded his nation and brought us from bondage to redemption".

Rabbi Calfon explained that getting familiar with Eretz Yisrael will significantly increase Aliyah, and in a vision, he wrote in the 1920s, suggested organizing visits of young Jews from around the world to Eretz Yisrael with the funding of the Zionist movement. A similar idea was fulfilled with the establishment of the "Taglit" organization in the year 2000.

Rabbi Calfon supported 'Aliyah and made sure the community members support the immigrants. He also called for purchasing parcels of land in the country and worked for the revival of the Hebrew language. With the establishment of the state of Israel, ruled for the Israeli Independence Day to be celebrated on the island of Djerba* for entire 3 days.*

In the year 1897, when at 24, tried for the first time to make 'Aliyah with the help of a friend from Tripoli, with whom he befriended during visits to cure his eyes. However, after the journey had already been organized, his father heard of this and wanted to talk him out of it, arguing that according to his counting the Mashiah comes in the year 1916 and he would wait till then. In order not to sadden his father Rabbi Mosheh Calfon HaCohen listened to his father and gave up on the opportunity to make 'Aliyah, an opportunity he regretted all his days.

In preparation for the 'Aliyah bought a parcel of land in the Beit HaCerem neighborhood in Jerusalem, and in his late days, while his health was precarious, decided to try making 'Aliyah once again. In the year 1949, he acquired a permit for 'Aliyah, and his son Shushan went to Tunis to order the documents. However, due to illness, his 'Aliyah was postponed as his health condition deteriorated, which didn't improve till his passing.

In his early writings, before the state of Israel was established, he judged detailed practical governmental ideas, not only in reference to the Zionist idea but also clearly cosmopolitan ideas.

Following the Russia-Japan war breaking out in 1904, Rabbi Calfon came to the conclusion, that Torah of Israel is not complete with only the liberation of Israel, but seeks to build a whole corrected world for all humanity. He formulated a wide cosmopolitan vision, which are mechanisms and institutions which will establish world peace. Due to his suspicion that his word won't be accepted, due to his status and the status of the relatively sideline country in which he lived, Rabbi Calfon archived the vision. An Arabic newspaper reached him 15 years later, revealing before him to his surprise similar political ideas to which he wrote about in 1905. Since then decided it was his duty to publish his ideas publically.

In the early 20s of the 20th century, Rabbi Calfon gave speeches in which he focused on the need to deal with international law, and formulated in detail a practical proposition for the establishment of a world government and the establishment of international law. He advanced mechanisms for solving international conflicts and formulated a political-state program including many goals.

Rabbi Calfon called for the establishment in Jerusalem of an international committee and an international court to examine the conduct of the countries according to the wellbeing of all humanity, to include representatives from all countries which together decide in international conflicts and prevent the use of force and violence. This idea, which was realized later with the establishment of the UN, included several additional ideas, among which, an International army to treat countries not willing to follow the counsel of the nations, a council to act for education to tolerance in a moral way, the idea for the establishment of a central world bank, which partial income will be leveraged to the poor of the countries, and an international currency for trade, which value is equal in all countries. The latter idea was realized as well, with the invention of the BitCoin, a couple of decades later.

Rabbi Calfon explained that the establishment of the major center of the international committee should be in Jerusalem, _'for there is great hope for all nations - we Jews, the Christians and Ishmaelites'._

With the strengthening of the movement for the return to Zion and the Belfour Declaration, the revival of the Hebrew language and the improvement of the conditions for Jews in developed countries Rabbi Calfon saw the beginning of the redemption age.

Rabbi Calfon saw technological development as a means for the world to become a global village, requiring the world countries to come to the help of countries in distress as part of mutual guarantee and world peace. The last term was also a religious obligation, and technological development symbolized in his view the basis for a higher spiritual level.

Among his books, more than 50 writings have been published dealing with all aspects of Judaism.










						"הרב כלפון היה מנהיג ציוני שעודד סדר עולמי כלל אנושי"
					

מרכז דהאן למורשת קהילות ישראל עורך כנס המתמקד ביצירתם, פועלם והשפעתם שלחכמי תוניסיה בעת החדשה לרגל 70 שנים לפטירתו של אחד מגדולי רבני ג@@@רבה



					www.maariv.co.il


----------



## P F Tinmore

sergiobramasole said:


> The San Remo Conference allotted all territory on  both  banks of the Jordan river to the Jewish National Home. Britain unilaterally tore a huge chunk of it to set up shop for the Hashemites driven out of Mecca and Medina by the Saudis. Article 5 of the 1922 League of Nations expressly forbade land transfer to foreign rule. Jews declaring sovereignty in 1948 were  within their inalienable right to claim full jurisdiction over all land from the river to the sea, stemming from the League of Nations' stare decisis. To declare Jerusalem a corpus separatum was arbitrary and unlawful. Jewish land belongs to Jews.





sergiobramasole said:


> Britain unilaterally tore a huge chunk of it to set up shop for the Hashemites driven out of Mecca and Medina by the Saudis.


Not true.The division was planned before the Mandate document was written.


sergiobramasole said:


> Jews declaring sovereignty in 1948 were within their inalienable right to claim full jurisdiction over all land from the river to the sea,


Do you have a link for that? I didn't think so.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Not true.The division was planned before the Mandate document was written.
> 
> Do you have a link for that? I didn't think so.


Can we see your links?

I don't think so.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Can we see your links?
> 
> I don't think so.


The pre planned division was written into the document. It wasn't something they decided to do later.



> ART. 25.





> In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


----------



## sergiobramasole

P F Tinmore said:


> Not true.The division was planned before the Mandate document was written.
> 
> Do you have a link for that? I didn't think






P F Tinmore said:


> The San Remo Conference established a stare decisis (legal precedent); the subsequent !922 League of Nations Mandate to facilitate self-rule for Jews on both banks of the Jordan River stemmed from it. Moreover, the Golan Heights too were allotted to Jews. Look it up.


----------



## sergiobramasole

Sixties Fan said:


> Can we see your links?
> 
> I don't think so.


Here you go. The San Remo Conference


----------



## sergiobramasole

sergiobramasole said:


> Here you go. The San Remo Conference


----------



## sergiobramasole

sergiobramasole said:


> View attachment 642703


----------



## sergiobramasole

sergiobramasole said:


> View attachment 642703











						April 18, 1920 San Remo Conference
					

The San Remo Conference outlined the Peace Treaty with Turkey by dividing the former Ottoman Empire. “The mandatory (e.g. Great Britain) will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration …



					cojs.org


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> *Morocco and the cause of Zionism*


----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> _"Local nationalism"..._
> 
> Those greedy* Arab imperialists*
> demanding  an exclusive domination
> over the entire Middle East and North Africa?
> 
> Tell us why they don't deserve a humiliating defeat by a minority.
> 
> **


----------



## rylah




----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> *Morocco and the cause of Zionism*





rylah said:


> *Rabbi Calfon Mosheh HaCohen | North African Zionism*
> *Early Zionist leader and 'Global Village' visionary *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rabbi Calfon Mosheh HaCohen (1874-1950) was the chief rabbi of Djerba, of the greatest scholars of Tunisia. Wrote numerous books, among them on the topics of Hebrew law, education, morality, sermons, and responsa.
> 
> An enthusiastic supporter of Zionism, all his life activity was to return to Eretz Yisrael.
> Wrote a cosmopolitan vision, professing world peace and the establishment of an organization similar to the UN in Jerusalem. Passed away in Jerbah on the eve of moving to Israel, and in 2005 his bones were buried in Jerusalem.
> 
> The family of Rabbi HaCohen was from the attributed family Cohen Abri"sh, according to tradition descendants of 'Ezra HaSofer. His grand-grandfather Rabbi Shaul HaCohen was the head of court in the small quarter on the island of  Djerba. His grandfather from the father's side is Rabbi Moseh HaCohen, the author of the book "Pnei Mosheh", after whom he was named. His father, Rabbi Shalom, authored the books "Nahar Shalom", "Hefetz Yakar", and "Hayyim Shalom", who was the head of court in Jirjis near Djerba.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Born in 1874 to Rabbi Shalom Vetraci, on the island of Djerba in south Tunisia. During childhood, his family knew years of prosperity and wealth and was known for generous support for scholars and the poor of Jerbah. During their teenage years, the family's situation worsened and he had to help the housing economy, for which among other things he used to proofread and copy books. Studied with his father and with Rabbi Yosef Barabi, later the Chief Rabbi of Djerba.
> 
> When his father was called to lead the community of Jirjis, Rabbi Calfon Mosheh HaCohen was asked to be the Shohet. At 17, learned Shhitah from Rabbi Binyamin Hadad, and served as a Shohet and examiner. Following the hard working conditions, during the summer days under the sun, became ill with fever and his vision was injured. Despite that, initially didn't want to stop his work to support the house, but after many entreaties returned to Djerba to continue his study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1895 Rabbi HaCohen married Msi'adah, a cousin on his mother's side, and the couple had 3 sons and 4 daughters. One of the sons, Rabbi Shushan HaCohen, after making Aliyah,  was appointed the Rabbi of the village of Eitan in Israel.
> 
> When he was 25 was asked to accept membership in the Beit Din (Hebrew court) of Jerbah, but rejected arguing he didn't want to receive any goods from the public. Despite his rejection, over the years various propositions kept reaching him, to serve in various Rabbinic positions, sometimes with promises of major respected rewards, but he always rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1917, at 43 years, was eventually appointed as a member of the Beit Din in Jerbah, however then as well rejected the offer to head the court, rather only as of the 3rd judge, and only at certain hours of the day. In practice, the conditions didn't fulfill, and all-day he was busy with almost all of Jerbah's cour carried on his shoulders. Several times considered leaving the position due to his health conditions and the load of work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His leadership stood out at critical times when the Nazi invaders into Djerbah demanded 50kg of gold from the Jewish community. This was on Sabbath and he drove with them all over the Jewish neighborhoods, obliging every Jew to bring all the gold in possession.
> 
> At 75 Rabbi Calfon fell fataly ill. After a short improvement, he passed on Sabbath, 7th of June 1950. On the day of his burial, the surrounding towns were almost emptied of Jews, and the main marketplace in Jerbah (owned mostly by Jews) was closed. Tens of thousands, among whom were Tunisian and French governors took part in the funeral.
> 
> Was buried in Djerbah, but in 2005, 55 years after his passing, his bones were brought from Tunisia to Israel, and buried on the mountain of Menuhot in Jerusalem, by Rabbi Shalom Msas.
> 
> In the funeral procession that lasted  3 days, took part tens of thousands from Israel, Tunisia, and France, among them Rabbi Mordechai Elyahu and Rabbi 'Ovadiah Yosef.
> 
> Named after him, are various synagogues, schools, as well as streets in the cities of Netivot, Ashkelon, and a street in Jerusalem.
> 
> Due to the establishment of the 'Alliance' schools in Tunisia, objected with his cousin Rabbi Mordechai Amyas HaCohen against many, including Rabbi Yisrael Zayton, the Chief Rabbi of Tunisia, preferring to keep traditional Torah education. After the school was established, most Djerba residents listened to Rabbi Calfon, and didn't send their children to study there.
> 
> Despite opposing modernization in the Alliance schools, Rabbi Calfon was an enthusiastic supporter of the Zionist movement, despite knowing its central figures were far from tradition, he wrote -
> 
> _*"In our days, many of our brothers of the house of Israel though didn't grow up on the knees of Judaism, Torah, and commandments, and their judgment is as of abducted children among the nations. However, in their heart awakened a nationalist emotion, for the love of existence of the Israeli nation, and its persistence to be a separate nation from the nations of the world." *_- from the pamphlet "Geulat Mosheh" in his book "Zchut Mosheh".
> 
> Referring to Binyamin Zeev Herzl he wrote -
> 
> _*"In our days, an exalted man has risen among us, a man of character with a clear mind and sharp ideas, Binyamin Zeev Herzl is his name...came up with a wonderful idea, fo everyone to gather under the shade of the Zionist community and be called Zionists...and knocked on the gates of kings and counts - to take from them a clear ruling, for Eretz Yisrael to be for us as before". *_
> 
> In 1919 was among the founders of the Zionist movement "Ateret Zion" in Djerba, which acted in coordination with KKL and Keren HaYesod, to strengthen the Hebrew language, and her members were constantly updated about news from the land of Israel, through Hebrew newspapers like "HaLevanon", "HaMagid", "HaTzfirah" and "HaHavatzelet".
> 
> In his lesson during Shabat of Torah portion "Naso", 12th of Sivan, several days after the San Remo conference and confirmation of the Balfour Declaration by the League of Nations said that this was "the beginning of the redemption". He wrote and edited the lesson at the end of Shabat, and published it as the "The Fifth Sermon For The Beginning Of Redemption" in his book "Matte Mosheh", writing the following - "from now on there is no doubt this is the beginning of the redemption, and every man of Israel should thank thousands of time to G-d for the redemption and salvation, for G-d has commanded his nation and brought us from bondage to redemption".
> 
> Rabbi Calfon explained that getting familiar with Eretz Yisrael will significantly increase Aliyah, and in a vision, he wrote in the 1920s, suggested organizing visits of young Jews from around the world to Eretz Yisrael with the funding of the Zionist movement. A similar idea was fulfilled with the establishment of the "Taglit" organization in the year 2000.
> 
> Rabbi Calfon supported 'Aliyah and made sure the community members support the immigrants. He also called for purchasing parcels of land in the country and worked for the revival of the Hebrew language. With the establishment of the state of Israel, ruled for the Israeli Independence Day to be celebrated on the island of Djerba* for entire 3 days.*
> 
> In the year 1897, when at 24, tried for the first time to make 'Aliyah with the help of a friend from Tripoli, with whom he befriended during visits to cure his eyes. However, after the journey had already been organized, his father heard of this and wanted to talk him out of it, arguing that according to his counting the Mashiah comes in the year 1916 and he would wait till then. In order not to sadden his father Rabbi Mosheh Calfon HaCohen listened to his father and gave up on the opportunity to make 'Aliyah, an opportunity he regretted all his days.
> 
> In preparation for the 'Aliyah bought a parcel of land in the Beit HaCerem neighborhood in Jerusalem, and in his late days, while his health was precarious, decided to try making 'Aliyah once again. In the year 1949, he acquired a permit for 'Aliyah, and his son Shushan went to Tunis to order the documents. However, due to illness, his 'Aliyah was postponed as his health condition deteriorated, which didn't improve till his passing.
> 
> In his early writings, before the state of Israel was established, he judged detailed practical governmental ideas, not only in reference to the Zionist idea but also clearly cosmopolitan ideas.
> 
> Following the Russia-Japan war breaking out in 1904, Rabbi Calfon came to the conclusion, that Torah of Israel is not complete with only the liberation of Israel, but seeks to build a whole corrected world for all humanity. He formulated a wide cosmopolitan vision, which are mechanisms and institutions which will establish world peace. Due to his suspicion that his word won't be accepted, due to his status and the status of the relatively sideline country in which he lived, Rabbi Calfon archived the vision. An Arabic newspaper reached him 15 years later, revealing before him to his surprise similar political ideas to which he wrote about in 1905. Since then decided it was his duty to publish his ideas publically.
> 
> In the early 20s of the 20th century, Rabbi Calfon gave speeches in which he focused on the need to deal with international law, and formulated in detail a practical proposition for the establishment of a world government and the establishment of international law. He advanced mechanisms for solving international conflicts and formulated a political-state program including many goals.
> 
> Rabbi Calfon called for the establishment in Jerusalem of an international committee and an international court to examine the conduct of the countries according to the wellbeing of all humanity, to include representatives from all countries which together decide in international conflicts and prevent the use of force and violence. This idea, which was realized later with the establishment of the UN, included several additional ideas, among which, an International army to treat countries not willing to follow the counsel of the nations, a council to act for education to tolerance in a moral way, the idea for the establishment of a central world bank, which partial income will be leveraged to the poor of the countries, and an international currency for trade, which value is equal in all countries. The latter idea was realized as well, with the invention of the BitCoin, a couple of decades later.
> 
> Rabbi Calfon explained that the establishment of the major center of the international committee should be in Jerusalem, _'for there is great hope for all nations - we Jews, the Christians and Ishmaelites'._
> 
> With the strengthening of the movement for the return to Zion and the Belfour Declaration, the revival of the Hebrew language and the improvement of the conditions for Jews in developed countries Rabbi Calfon saw the beginning of the redemption age.
> 
> Rabbi Calfon saw technological development as a means for the world to become a global village, requiring the world countries to come to the help of countries in distress as part of mutual guarantee and world peace. The last term was also a religious obligation, and technological development symbolized in his view the basis for a higher spiritual level.
> 
> Among his books, more than 50 writings have been published dealing with all aspects of Judaism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "הרב כלפון היה מנהיג ציוני שעודד סדר עולמי כלל אנושי"
> 
> 
> מרכז דהאן למורשת קהילות ישראל עורך כנס המתמקד ביצירתם, פועלם והשפעתם שלחכמי תוניסיה בעת החדשה לרגל 70 שנים לפטירתו של אחד מגדולי רבני ג@@@רבה
> 
> 
> 
> www.maariv.co.il


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

Willer’s escape from Germany was hatched by his mother, Franziska Willer, after the Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938. Willer was previously married to a Christian man who left her in 1933 and later became a Nazi sympathizer. He committed suicide in 1964.

Through her brother, who was residing in London, and a pastor from Attlee’s area, it was arranged for Paul Willer to come live in the Attlee home for some four months.

“They took me inside what was a very large house,” Willer said of his first encounter with the Attlees. “They had a maid and a cook too. The next morning, their son Martin [the late Lord Attlee], who was my age, took me upstairs and ran a cold bath, bathed, and encouraged me to do the same. I thought, ‘Is this what they do for Easter?’ It turned out that cold baths were what the males in the family did every day.”

At the time, Attlee was composing his opposition to Nelson Chamberlain’s appeasement policy, according to The Guardian.

“He was a gentle man and a gentleman. He was very good with the children and affectionate. At breakfast, we would gather around the table and he played this game where he held out a coin and asked whose monarch’s head was on it. Whoever gave the correct answer was allowed to keep the coin,” said Willer.

As the war drew to an end in 1945, Attlee was elected prime minister, a post he held until 1951. He was preceded and succeeded in the position by Winston Churchill.

It was under his watch that the British Mandate was dissolved to make way for the State of Israel. Before the establishment of Israel, thousands of European Jews, many of them Holocaust survivors, were barred from settling in Palestine under British immigration policy.

(full article online)









						Jewish refugee who fled Nazis, was hosted by future British PM Attlee, dies at 94
					

In 1939, then-opposition leader opened home to 10-year-old Paul Willer, who left Germany with mother and brother; Attlee never spoke of the story




					www.timesofisrael.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

In January 1939, the London Times published documents such a letters and reports of Arab terrorists found at Bani Naim by British forces. The Palestine Post then republished the story on January 25, 1939.





The highlight was the extensive use made of the Haram A-Sharif compound as a base for the terrorist gangs, sniping positions, arms storerooms, etc. as well as the presence, within the compound, of security personnel of the Mandate.

An extract:





> _Rebel Arab documents seized by the troops in some recent engagements,, particularly that at Beni Na'im on December 15, when the Worcestershires. with R.A.F. cooperation, engaged a large band, provide sensational proof that the sacred Haram esh-Sharif has been the scene of murder, bomb-throwing, and rebel courts-martial, and evidence that even the rebels themselves are disgusted and alarmed at the terrorism of Arabs by Arabs which has marked the lateit stages of the campaign.
> The documents are from the files of 'Abu Mansur," the nora de guerre of Abdel Khader Husseini. With such evidence as this of the Moslems' violation of their own sanctuary, and the proof , witnessed by members of the Moslem Supreme Council , after the recapture' of the old city of Jerusalem on October 19, that the Haram has been used as a vantage point for snipers. As the sheikhs have locked the old police post next to the Dome of the Rock, the present post has been placed in a sheikh's room farther from the sacred rock..._




The following day, the paper's editorial read, in part:





> the desecration of the Haram esh Sharif for terrorist attacks both against individual Arabs and against the police and the troops.The propaganda agents of the Mufti and their helpers in the foreign press launched a wide campaign of insinuation and slander against the security authorities in this country when the latter found themselves obliged to station a small post of Moslem and British police in the Haram area in order to prevent its being used as a point of vantage for gunmen. It is now revealed from the files of the terrorist leaders themselves that not only was the Haram turned into a haunt of snipers, but that it also served as a venue of trials by terrorist "courts" and that the "holy warriors" murdered fellow Arabs within its sacred precincts.


From The Times Archives, thanks to EV: 

(full article online)









						An Historical Desecration of the Haram A-Sharif
					

In January 1939, the London Times published documents such a letters and reports of Arab terrorists found at Bani Naim by British forces. Th...




					myrightword.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> *Rabbi Yehudah Bivas -** Binyamin Herzl link to Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar*
> *and the role of Moroccan Jewry in initiating the Zionist revolution
> 
> | Lesson series by Rabbi Mosheh Elharar*
> 
> What You see here is the picture of Rabbi Yehudah Bibas Z"l, the grandson of Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar HaKadosh, who had only daughters.
> 
> Some take in the nonsense, maybe intentionally that he had neither sons nor daughters, this is incorrect. For example here is the book about Rabbi Meir Yehudah Getz,  and on the 1st page of the book (after all the forewards), the 1st line: "HaRav Meir Yehudah Getz, born 15 Av 5684 (1924), to his parents HaRav Tzemah Getz and Rabbanit Simhah Mas'oudah Getz, descendants of Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar, author of the renowned commentary 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh".
> 
> Here in the book is not written how he's specifically linked to Or HaHayyim HaKadosh. I have asked a great friend of mine, Dr. Shlomah Sheish, who lives in the village of El'azar in Gush 'Atzion, who was also a regular doctor, surgeon, obstetrician, expert in pediatrics, then an expert in Chinese and various other treatment methods he brought to the country. Dr. Shlomah Sheish is a student of HaRav Getz, the Rabbi of the Kotel (Western Wall), I've asked him about the link to the descendants of HaKaDosh Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar? He says he has always heard from him that he was 7th generation, son after son from the daughter Rabbi Hayiim Ben-Attar. His daughter Rahel, he's the 7th generation, descendant of Rabbi 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh.
> 
> Dr Shleish told me, now I call the Gaon HaRav Yisrael Avihay, the chair of the Kabalist Yeshivah 'Beit El' in the ancient city of Jerusalem, he took the chair after HaRav Getz who was the chair of the Yeshivah prior to him, and he confirmed, especially on the day of his Hillulah. And HaRav says 'look at his gravestone, it's not as at the beginning of the book, it says HaRav Meir Yehudah Getz' he says, 'incorrect, look at his gravestone - HaRav Meir Yehudah Nahum Hayyim Getz, why Hayyim? Hayyim is after the name of 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar, he's 7th generation to Or HaHayyim HaKadosh.
> 
> And Rabbi Yehudah Bivas, the son of HaRav Shmuel Bivas, passed away 120 years ago, and he following his grandfather saw the horrific troubles done to his grandfather 'Or HaHayyim' HaKadosh, so he left and ran away from Sali to Gibraltar and established there a Yeshivah in Gibraltar.
> 
> This started from his father, HaRav Shmuel Bivas then passed to his son, who later was in Livorno and went around Europe, why? Following his grandfather, who said what? The moment trouble rises abroad to leave everything.
> 
> The Torah portion 'Balak' is on the week of the passing of 'Or HaHayyim HaKadosh, let's see what he writes. Bil'am wants to curse Israel that they don't merit a kingdom, that the kingdom doesn't last long for the nation of Israel. Anf of course the sages say in Gmarah, that the blessings of Bil'am are what he wanted to curse Israel. What does he bless Israel with, yet reluctantly -
> 
> _"What I see for them is not yet,
> What I behold will not be soon:
> A star rises from Jacob,
> A scepter comes forth from Israel;"_
> - BaMidbar 24​
> Meaning, "A star rises from Jacob", says Or HaHayyim HaKadosh, that the redemption of the nation of Israel can be as a big star, as in suddenly appearing in the heavens, which is a sped-up miraculous redemption, like the exodus of Egypt, everything this manner is redemption sped-up. This is when the nation of Israel merits ideal unity and love, no despise or neglect, ideal respect for each other, the redemption is sped-up, up as a star that rises in the heavens suddenly and miraculously.
> 
> But the manner of redemption can be different, sped-up how?
> "A scepter (also tribe) comes forth from Israel", meaning, Or HaHayyim HakaDosh says, "that one tribe rises from Israel in a normal worldly way, through the nature". Through the nature, means the need to go reach the UN, and reach the world nations, get their agreement, and the need for war,  need for the establishment of military and state and great devotion to Torah.
> 
> Rabbi 'Amram Abourabiyah who had a great devotion to Torah, used to say to his sons and grandsons who are all themselves devoted to Torah, but this is not enough, to establish the kingdom, says Or HaHayyim HaKadosh - everything through nature.
> 
> To establish the kingdom in Israel, there is a need also for science, need for wisdom, of course, Torah has to lead everything, therefore the Rabbi's father advised him on what to do, he told him to study, and he became one of the greatest atomic physicists in the world, all by the support of the father HaRav 'Amram Abourabiyah, the way of Rabbi Or HaHayyim Ben-Attar, who says it's all through the nature.
> 
> And following Or HaHayyim HaKadosh, following Rabbi Yehudah Bivas, who came to Yaffo, he was 50 years before Herzl and had an influence by leaving a detailed political plan. And HaRav Yehudah Elkal'ey who quotes him in his books, in Zemlin Yugoslavia.
> 
> Professor Zeev Vilnaee says this as well, HaRav Yehudah Bivas together with HaRav David Ben-Shim'on came to Yaffo -and they are the pioneers of the establishment of Eretz Yisrael, before the 1st and the 2nd Aliyah and the rest. They prepared the infrastructure for all the future Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael.
> 
> This is Rabbi Yehudah Bivas the grandson of Rabbi Hayyim Ben-Attar, following the grandfather. And HaRav David Yehudah Shim'on who came from Rabat, he writes the book 'Sha'ar HeHatzer' (the gate of the court'). The student of Rabbi Yehudah Bivas is Rabbi Aharon Shloush, who builds the 1st house in Yaffo and all of Tel Aviv, villages, and cities today in Gush Dan region started from Rabbi Yehudah Bivas.
> 
> His students, Rabbi Avraham Shloush, and Rabbi Aharon Shloush had purchased 800 dunams. How does Rabbi David Ben Shim'on start the book 'Sha'ar HeHatzer'? "Everyone must buy land in Eretz Yisrael if they want a part in the world to come".
> 
> As I've taught in the lesson about Ya'akov Avinu A"H, "and purchased the parcel of the field" (Beresheet 33), Ya'akov Avinu the first thing in Eretz Yisrael, purchases a parcel of land - there's trouble, leave the exile, purchase a dunam of land in Eretz Yisrael, and the parcel of the field in Eretz Yisrael brings the person to his part in the world to come, this is Torah portion 'Vayishlah' in the Zohar, and this how the book 'Sha'ar HeHatzer' starts, in which 613 differences between Eretz Yisrael and abroad.
> 
> And I'm wondering how some wise students in our generation try to be pedantic about certain traditions but not this great thing - that the time has come, the nation of Israel must return to the land of Israel, build it, and we need Torah in devotion, and army and state and all the rest. How does one leave the teaching of all these sages and all who followed Or HaHayyim HaKadosh.
> 
> We should know about Rabbi 'Amram Abourabiyah, what he wrote and taught daily - Or HaHayyim HaKadosh was his table book, and he translated it into action. I've given separate lessons on how he merited in his holy spirit to envision all the redemption of the nation of Israel. He wrote 5 months before it happened, how the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces liberate Jerusalem - and we, with the help of HaShem, in the merit of these sages, that we learn from their ways, learn their teaching to merit the full redemption quickly in our days amen!


----------



## Sixties Fan

This is the 74th anniversary of the surrender of the Old City of Jerusalem.

This article shows how both the Jordanians and the Swiss acted like the Arabs were supreme humanitarians - because they didn't massacre every man, woman and child and "allowed' them to leave their homes with only a few possessions.






This was ethnic cleansing. 

Not a single Jew remained in the Jordanian administered part of Jerusalem for 19 years. But since Arabs are assumed to be vicious animals, when they act a little less horribly, everyone praises them.

And in another article in the Palestine Post on May 30, 1948:





Of course, within days some 50 synagogues were deliberately destroyed by the humane Transjordanians. 











						74 years ago: World compliments Arabs on how humanely they ethically cleansed Jews from Jerusalem
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Sixties Fan said:


> This is the 74th anniversary of the surrender of the Old City of Jerusalem.
> 
> This article shows how both the Jordanians and the Swiss acted like the Arabs were supreme humanitarians - because they didn't massacre every man, woman and child and "allowed' them to leave their homes with only a few possessions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Not a single Jew remained in the Jordanian administered part of Jerusalem for 19 years. But since Arabs are assumed to be vicious animals, when they act a little less horribly, everyone praises them.
> 
> And in another article in the Palestine Post on May 30, 1948:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, within days some 50 synagogues were deliberately destroyed by the humane Transjordanians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 74 years ago: World compliments Arabs on how humanely they ethically cleansed Jews from Jerusalem
> 
> 
> Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elderofziyon.blogspot.com


Tinmore gave this post a "Thanks".

Being a fake humanitarian is ok with Tinmore.

Because ethnically cleansing all Jews from their ancient homeland is totally ok with all antisemitic fools like Mr. T.

Bravo for the fake good samaritans of the "Palestinian People"

After all, hating Jews, and kicking them out from anywhere in the world, is an impossible habit to break.


----------



## Sixties Fan

The blog at Israel's National Library put out an interesting post:



> Just as Jewish merchants moved between Jerusalem, Damascus, Halab, and Beirut during the days of the Ottoman Empire, citizens of Mandatory Palestine – both Jews and Arabs – continued to visit their northern neighbors while living under British rule. The local tourist industry in particular, flourished during this period. Lebanon was considered a fascinating and attractive destination: its southern shores, the vibrant metropolis of Beirut and the beautiful snow-capped mountains – a rare sight in the Middle East. The Hebrew press and bulletin boards were filled with advertisements appealing to the Jewish readers to come and relax in Lebanon.


They show advertisements to visit Lebanon, Syria and Transjordan:










Jewish tourists were so desirable that Lebanese hotels competed by offering kosher food:





I found this 1932 article in the Palestine Bulletin about a successful trip to Lebanon and Syria:





The YWHA sponsored many of these trips, and also went to Egypt (1933):

(full article online)










						Palestine Jews were encouraged to visit Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan and Egypt in the 1920s-40s
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

In November 1917, Sassoon was passed fit for service. He was sent to Ireland where he served until February 1918 and was then transferred to Palestine as part of General Allenby’s army. He hated it there and described Jerusalem as ‘not a very holy-looking place’ and referred to the natives as ‘Hebrews’. His vague Jewish connections through his father meant nothing to him. After three months in Palestine, Sassoon returned to the Western Front.


(full article online)









						When Siegfried Sassoon was in Palestine at the Same Time as Jabotinsky
					

Siegfried Sassoon (1886 – 1967) was a scion to the wealthy India Jewish merchant family on his father's side with his mother being Anglican,...




					myrightword.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

One hundred years ago this week, the United States Congress unanimously embraced Zionism. The story of how that came about involves some surprising twists and turns, and a stormy debate about Jews and Arabs that could have been taken straight out of today’s headlines.

In the spring of 1922, the League of Nations—forerunner of the United Nations—was weighing Great Britain’s request to be granted the mandate over Palestine. The approval process was slowed as France and Italy jockeyed for regional influence and the Vatican sought to prevent Jews from gaining a “privileged” position or “preponderant influence” in the Holy Land.

In the wake of England’s 1917 Balfour Declaration, pledging to facilitate creation of a Jewish national home, American Zionists were eager to see the British receive the Palestine mandate. They hoped an endorsement of Zionism by President Warren Harding would accelerate the process. But Harding proved noncommittal, so Zionist activists turned to Congress.

Senators Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, and Charles Curtis, of Kansas (a future vice president) and Rep. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, all Republicans, agreed to take the lead on a pro-Zionist resolution. They were isolationists and immigration restrictionists—not exactly the Jewish community’s favorite kind of politicians. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, head of the American Jewish Congress, had recently denounced Lodge as “un-American and anti-American” because he opposed U.S. participation in the League of Nations.

Successful lobbying, however, is the art of the possible. Many Jewish leaders may have been personally more comfortable with  Democrats, but in 1922, the president was Republican and the GOP enjoyed large majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. If three powerful Republican congressmen were ready to champion the Zionist cause, why should they be turned away?

The Lodge-Fish resolution, as it came to be known, declared that “the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” It added that “the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine” and “the holy places and religious buildings and sites” should “be adequately protected.”

Hearings were held before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs over four days in April.

The testimony by Zionist officials emphasized both justice and rescue. The Jewish people were entitled to rebuild their biblical homeland, and European Jews urgently needed a haven; 100,000 Jews had been slaughtered in pogroms in Ukraine and Poland in 1918-1921. Moreover, Zionist development of the land would benefit Palestine’s Arab population.

Two Arab-American activists, Selim Totah and Fuad Shatara, appeared as witnesses. Their extremism and conspiracy theories won them little sympathy. Totah claimed the British administration in Palestine was “in the hands of the Jews.” Shatara said the suffering of Jewish pogrom victims in Europe was “nothing to compare” with the burden of heavy taxes that Palestine’s Arabs endured under Turkish rule. Both men insisted that they were not antisemitic—Totah because “I have a lot of Jewish friends,” Shatara because “I am a Semite myself.”

Then as now, Jewish anti-Zionists were front and center in the debate. Two prominent Reform rabbis, Isaac Landman of New York and David Philipson of Cincinnati, testified against Lodge-Fish, claiming the resolution could endanger the status of American Jews. “We resent the idea that the Jews constitute a nation,” Landman argued. “America is my national home.”

The anti-Zionist publishers of the _New York Times_ were among the most vociferous critics of the resolution. A _Times_ editorial warned that Lodge-Fish could turn American Jews into “hyphenated citizens.” The _Times_ also highlighted the alleged misbehavior of radical Jewish settlers; it published reports from its Palestine correspondent claiming that Arab violence against Jews was “stirred up” by “Jewish Bolshevists.”

Another aspect of the episode with contemporary echoes was the role of prominent academics. Yale professor Edward Bliss Reed testified at the congressional hearings that the Balfour Declaration was the product of a Zionist-British conspiracy, complete with secret additional paragraphs that supposedly were being withheld from public view.

In speeches and writings around the same time, Harvard professor Albert Bushnell Hart called Zionism “a dangerous doctrine” and demanded that American Jews either renounce it or surrender their U.S. citizenship. Princeton’s Henry Adams Gibbons, explaining his opposition to Zionism, wrote: “We do not hold in abhorrence the Jews, but we do hold in abhorrence the Jewish nation.”

Despite the critics, the Lodge-Fish resolution received overwhelming bipartisan support. It was unanimously adopted by the Senate on May 3 and the House on June 30, and signed by President Harding later that year.

(full article online)









						100 Years Ago This Month: When Congress Embraced Zionism—Unanimously
					

One hundred years ago this week, the United States Congress unanimously embraced Zionism.




					jewishjournal.com


----------



## rylah




----------



## rylah

rylah said:


> *Morocco and the cause of Zionism*


----------



## Sixties Fan

*Keren Hayesod (Palestine Foundation Fund)* was established in 1920 in London, England, to finance the Zionist movement’s work to bring about the return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. Leading figures from Chaim Weizmann to Ze’ev Jabotinsky were involved in its fundraising efforts. Keren Hayesod helped raise the seed money to establish the Hebrew University and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra. It also helped develop the Haifa Bay suburbs to settle German Jewish refugees in the 1930s, and established dozens of communities to house the waves of immigrants after Israel’s creation. It continues to serve as a link between the people of Israel and Jewish communities around the world. This plaque recognizes a contribution made 100 years ago.


(full article online)









						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

Anton Alexander writes in Malaria World Journal about the remarkable achievement of Zionists, specifically Dr. I. Kligler, in eliminating malaria from Palestine - the first time such an accomplishment was achieved on a national scale, anywhere. The methods that were successful then are not being copied now in areas that are still rife with the disease, and Alexander believes that this is largely because so many do not want to accept the scope of this Zionist achievement and instead pretend that a Palestinian state could have arisen on its own had Jews not moved to the region and created such solutions.




> After the defeat by the British Army of the Turkish Army in 1918, in the final year of World War I, Palestine was administered by the British Mandate, in effect a colony-like structure. It is little appreciated today that Palestine was then thinly populated or even uninhabitable in many areas. Indeed, Palestine was then almost empty. It is also usually not appreciated that if malaria had not been eliminated in Palestine, it is doubtful the State of Israel could ever have come into existence.
> 
> The following brief extract from a previous paper may assist in appreciating the severity of the malaria that existed in Palestine 100 years ago.
> 
> _In 1919, Dr. Manson-Bahr, a future director of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, described Palestine as one of the most highly malarious countries in the world. He knew the conditions in Palestine as in 1918, in the final months of WWI, whilst an officer in the Royal Army Medical Corps with the British Army in Palestine, he had witnessed a force of 40,500 men lose 20,427 men in 9 weeks due to malaria. Of the 100,000 Turkish prisoners-of-war taken after their defeat in 1918 by the British Army in Palestine, 20 per cent had to be hospitalised immediately, suffering from malaria._
> 
> ...For many years, historical narratives have been promoted providing a hostile account of the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 from out of Palestine. These narratives have often assumed the form of the Emperor’s New Clothes, misleadingly omitting reference to the malaria which devastated the country. Such narratives for years have thereby provided an incorrect impression that malaria in Palestine 100 years ago did not exist. In effect, it may have been an attempt to make the disease invisible!
> 
> The world has been done a great disservice by the failure before now to declare ‘the emperor is wearing nothing at all’, to call out that Palestine 100 years ago was drenched in malaria, that it was accordingly uninhabitable in many areas. Palestine, in fact, had become desolate and neglected in many areas, and was then almost empty of inhabitants. The method and approach begun by the Zionists in 1922 to eliminate malaria in Palestine were successful, there was much to learn from the method, and the lessons from that malaria elimination are still relevant around the world and could still be applied today.
> 
> Due to the omission of reference to malaria in these misleading narratives, today’s malaria-community is likely to be unaware of the steps taken in the successful malaria elimination in Palestine all those years ago and which experience could be saving lives today. Sadly, it is likely such misleading narratives by these malaria omissions will have done harm, costing many lives over the years throughout the world today wherever malaria has existed.



Dr. Kliger's methods were respectful to all inhabitants of the land, Arab and Jew, and education was key. Alexander wonders whether today's approaches to control malaria have the same respect for the inhabitants that the Zionists did a century ago.




> But before such instruction or education could take place, it was necessary firstly to interest the inhabitants in malaria control or elimination, to cause the inhabitants to realise that a death from malaria was not just a fact of life. Instead, the inhabitants had to realise that such a death was a tragedy. The inhabitants had to believe malaria was not inevitable, therefore fatalism had to be overcome. The commencement of the successful Zionist malaria elimination in Palestine 100 years ago was a demonstration of an effective engagement with the community. Palestine was one of the first places to throw off some of the world’s old colonial attitudes which it did by engaging with dignity and respect all the inhabitants (both Arabs and Jews). This resulted in an extraordinarily strong and resilient cooperation by the inhabitants, Jews and Arabs, in the necessary anti-malaria works, lasting for years and years, and which cooperation was to rid the country of the disease.
> 
> I ponder the point and ask the question to the malaria-community: Are inhabitants today truly treated with respect and dignity? Is the approach and engagement with inhabitants the same that each one in the malaria community would honestly want for themselves? Is there a whiff of old-style patronage about the malaria community’s approach?











						The world chooses to forget the amazing Zionist achievement to eliminate malaria from Palestine
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 1

Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) was the famed  20th century Greek writer whose novels included Zorba the Greek and The Last Temptation of Christ.

In 1926 and 1927, he traveled to Palestine and wrote of his experiences. 

He had a very telling conversation with a young Jewish woman where he - less than a decade before the rise of Nazism - claimed that Zionism was a disaster in the making because Jews belong in the diaspora, forever.

Even though he professed his love for Jews, he proved himself to be a racist and, in hindsight, his young adversary bested him. 
-------------
We walked along the broad, dusty road bordering the Valley of Josephat at the foot of the Mount of Olives. The tombstones on the Jewish graves, deeply imbedded in the ground, were drowned in the glaring noonday light. The little village of Gethsemane, just two paces ahead, was blotted out in darkness, so blinding was the brilliance of the sun. Unexpectedly, there among the graves, two camels filed silently by, one behind the other, their necks swaying slowly. For a moment their patient black eyes, with the long lashes, gazed at us gently and my heart lightened as I felt the presence of a warm living thing moving through this inhuman wilderness.

Walking and breathing easily beside me in this furnace was a young Jewess, a teacher named Judith, who had come to show me a garden for Jewish children. She was about twenty years old, short, lissom, with hooked nose and restless jet-black eyes. Her hair was curly and coarse, her chin broad, firm, wilful.

“How did you happen to become a Zionist?” I asked.

“I was studying medicine. I had no ties to either religion or country. People had always interested me. I felt compassion and pity for all mankind, knowing how every one shares in illness and joy and grief. But I was restless. All of Europe seemed old and familiar and archaic to me. I was thirsty for something new. And so I came to Palestine.”

“Why didn't you go to Russia? They say a new world is being created there . ."

“Because there's no freedom there. A small, harsh circle governs all the others. The fact that this circle is the proletariat didn't comfort me at all. I wanted freedom.”

“And you found it here in Palestine?”

“Here we work free. We try, we experiment, we search to find. You can meet people here and work together according to your individual temperament - from the most revolutionary to the most conservative. Freedom. Here, for the first time. I feel alive, strengthened, able to love the earth that I had never even noticed in Europe, and able to feel joy that I am from the Jewish race.”

“You are beginning, in other words, to lose your freedom. You're beginning to tie yourself down to a certain corner of the Earth, and to constrict your heart; first it had room for all the world, now it's beginning to distinguish and choose and to accept only the Jews. Don't you feel the danger?”

The Jewess protested angrily, slightly fearful:

“What danger?”

“What danger? I'll tell you: The leader of the gypsies forbids his people to build houses or plant trees or put up fences. They prop up their tents on the ground for a while and then move on freely. One day, as they were taking down their tents, a young girl was bending over the earth and tarrying. The leader approached and saw the girl had broken his order and had planted a sprig of basil at the entrance of her tent. And now the little sprig of basil had blossomed and the young girl was crouched over it crying, reluctant to leave it. In a rage, the leader uprooted the basil and trampled on it. He struck the girl with his riding whip and shouted: ‘Why do you break my order? Don't you know that whoever builds a house is tied to it and whoever plants a tree is tied to that tree?'











						Nikos Kazantzakis vs. a 20 year old Jewish woman, 1926
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 2

“We don't want to be Wandering Jews any longer!” the Jewess cried out.

“But that is exactly the danger I'm talking about; you don't want to advance any longer. If the purpose of life is happiness - to eat well, to sleep in peace, to live in security - then you are justified in wanting to escape the persecutions and scorn and take roots finally in your own country. Although I'm encouraged by the belief - thank God - that you will not find happiness and security here in Palestine!

“But if the purpose of life, and especially the purpose of a people, is much harder: to struggle to convert as much matter as possible into action, thought and beauty; to climb upward with agony - then, without a doubt, the Zionist movement is contrary to the highest interest of your race.”

“Why don't the English or French or Greeks undertake this role of the Wanderer? Or could you possibly think that their contribution to the Whole was lessened because they had a country?”

“Every race has its special virtues and vices and, consequently, its special road to reach its summit. The Jews have this supreme quality: to be restless; not to fit into the reality of the time; to struggle to escape; to consider every status quo and every idea a stifling prison. With this poignant quality of theirs they save mankind from his contrived efforts at contentment - that is to say, from his impasse. This spirit of the Jews shatters the equilibrium, pushes evolution further, sparks off the proudest element of life: never to be satisfied, never to stop anywhere, to leap from plants to animals and from animals to man and again to torment man, as though wanting to go further still.”

“Our fathers in the land of Canaan were farmers; rooted to their country they created their civilization.”

“That was the nature of your race then. The Jews didn't always have the Lucifer quality of rebellion. They acquired it. The persecutions, slaughters, scorn, exile, all the things you call Diaspora, hammered away at the Hebrew race for two thousand years and forged it, against its will, by force, into the leaven of the earth.”

“By force?”

“Does the word annoy you? Isn't it true that force is the most secret law of history? Many races would have wanted to escape their bloody and glorious fate and live without History, happily - clandestinely. But economic necessities, wars and some prophets who are born in their midst don't leave them alone. With force and with the lash, they prod them upward.

“Thus, scattered over the world for so many centuries, the Jews suffered, trembled and were killed. And this dyed their soul indelibly and created in them the hatred for every tyranny - either from individuals or from systems or ideas. This is why they agitated nations, undermined the status quo and set fire to all the old ideas. This is their fate; without them the world would rot.”











						Nikos Kazantzakis vs. a 20 year old Jewish woman, 1926
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 3

Judith laughed. “*Thank you for the role you assign us. I must confess we are greatly honoured to be slaughtered, to be forever restless, to make others restless. But we don't want to any more*.”

“You're tired? But the historical necessity that pushes the races doesn't ask you. It prods you relentlessly, whether you want it or not. And this modern Zionist movement, too, is a mask that your unsmiling Pate wears to deceive you for an instant. This is why I don't fear Zionism: how many of the fifteen million Jews will be able to squeeze themselves in here? You will never find security here. Behind you, don't forget, you have the dark fanatical swarm of Arabs.

“And so, like it or not, you will become the instruments of the spirit of our age. And our age is an age of revolution. That is, a Jewish age. Someone once said: “The twenty-second of March, 1832, when Goethe died, an era closed and a new one opened: the era of the reigning of the Jews.” And it's true. Goethe was the last complete representative of Harmony; after Goethe our contemporary age truly begins the violence, which is equally valuable, to rupture the old harmony and create a new one. This is why the Hebrew race prevails today, because its substance is precisely this rupturing of every harmony. This is why the highest intellects and leading men of action are Jews. Why all this flowering? Because you are restless, scattered all over the world in a transient age that destroys. Diaspora is your country. In vain you struggle to escape your Fate and you seek out happiness and security in this out-of-the-way province. *I hope I hope, because I love the Jews - that sooner or later the Arabs will drive you out of here and again scatter you all over the world*.”

We had finally arrived at the children's garden. Blond, brunette and raven-haired Jewish youngsters were playing beneath the trees, chirping away like birds. I caressed their soft curly hair with unexpected emotion; a sudden, tragic foreboding overwhelmed my heart.
---------------------------------------------------------
His foreboding was misplaced - anticipating (and also cheering) a slaughter of Jews by what he considered a "dark fanatical swarm of Arabs," when it was the sophisticated Europeans who were preparing the slaughter of the Jews he pretended to love.













						Nikos Kazantzakis vs. a 20 year old Jewish woman, 1926
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

How Zionists Came to Palestine Under British Protection (Documentary)​


----------



## RoccoR

RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC:  Arab Palestinians and the Judeophobia (Irrational hatred and/or fear of the Jewish people)
※→  P F Tinmore, et al,

No matter how it is sliced, no matter what perspective is comparatively chosen, in contemporary times, it is a classic struggle classic struggle between the "Haves and the Have nots."  The jewish have it, and the Arab Palestinians want it.


P F Tinmore said:


> How Zionists Came to Palestine Under British Protection (Documentary)​


*(COMMENT)*
.
The question is "WHY" the Arab Palestinians want it.

All the major Talking Heads over complicate the issue.  It is all about Wealth, Power and Influence.  Now I will not ignore that their are elements that focus on the exploitation of Religious issues and racism (the Apartheid Campaign).  But in the end, for the Arab Palestinians particularly in the areas of financial fraud and political corruption, it is Wealth, Power, and Influence for a selected few.  It is NOT about the benefits or fairness for the Arab Palestinian people.

Putting an actual face on the problem, Israel is the country considered highest in Human Development.  Below is a screen shot of the table showing the overall rankings.   I think you all can picture in your mind, what Tokyo looks like.  Well, Israel and Japan (Ranked 19th) are considered to be at the same level of Human Development.  Just think about that for a moment.  Those  Israelis are have the Highest Ranking in Human Development of any country in the entire Arab League, the Gulf Oil States, or any country in the Middle East North African Region (MENA).  The next highest country is the United Arab Emirates UAE • ranked as the 31st.  





.
Now to you, it might seem like the problems are the Occupation, The Temple Mount, Annexation, Settlements Boundaries, Apartheid, etc, etc, etc...  All those issues are important (to be sure), but they are ancillary political tools to takedown Israel.

In comparison, you should consider the fact that Lebanon ranked 92d, Jordan Ranked 102nd, Syria Ranked 151st, Saudi Arabia Ranked 40th, and Egypt Ranked 116th, the rankings of these adjacent countries to Israel.  With the exception of Saudi Arabia, the adjacent countries are all countries that tangled militarily with the Israelis over the issues pertaining to this Palestine Conflict (Ranked 115th) conflict.

If you think it is all about the issues outlined by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department.  Many Palestinian Officials will suffer financially should the conflict come to an abrupt end.  If you are the Palestinians (or any other Arab nation) and want the top spot in in MENA Region (the big fish in the little pond), first you have to neutralize Israeli Influence.

Just My Thought,




Most Respectfully,
R

.


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC:  Arab Palestinians and the Judeophobia (Irrational hatred and/or fear of the Jewish people)
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> No matter how it is sliced, no matter what perspective is comparatively chosen, in contemporary times, it is a classic struggle classic struggle between the "Haves and the Have nots."  The jewish have it, and the Arab Palestinians want it.
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> The question is "WHY" the Arab Palestinians want it.
> 
> All the major Talking Heads over complicate the issue.  It is all about Wealth, Power and Influence.  Now I will not ignore that their are elements that focus on the exploitation of Religious issues and racism (the Apartheid Campaign).  But in the end, for the Arab Palestinians particularly in the areas of financial fraud and political corruption, it is Wealth, Power, and Influence for a selected few.  It is NOT about the benefits or fairness for the Arab Palestinian people.
> 
> Putting an actual face on the problem, Israel is the country considered highest in Human Development.  Below is a screen shot of the table showing the overall rankings.   I think you all can picture in your mind, what Tokyo looks like.  Well, Israel and Japan (Ranked 19th) are considered to be at the same level of Human Development.  Just think about that for a moment.  Those  Israelis are have the Highest Ranking in Human Development of any country in the entire Arab League, the Gulf Oil States, or any country in the Middle East North African Region (MENA).  The next highest country is the United Arab Emirates UAE • ranked as the 31st.
> 
> View attachment 659497
> .
> Now to you, it might seem like the problems are the Occupation, The Temple Mount, Annexation, Settlements Boundaries, Apartheid, etc, etc, etc...  All those issues are important (to be sure), but they are ancillary political tools to takedown Israel.
> 
> In comparison, you should consider the fact that Lebanon ranked 92d, Jordan Ranked 102nd, Syria Ranked 151st, Saudi Arabia Ranked 40th, and Egypt Ranked 116th, the rankings of these adjacent countries to Israel.  With the exception of Saudi Arabia, the adjacent countries are all countries that tangled militarily with the Israelis over the issues pertaining to this Palestine Conflict (Ranked 115th) conflict.
> 
> If you think it is all about the issues outlined by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department.  Many Palestinian Officials will suffer financially should the conflict come to an abrupt end.  If you are the Palestinians (or any other Arab nation) and want the top spot in in MENA Region (the big fish in the little pond), first you have to neutralize Israeli Influence.
> 
> Just My Thought,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R
> 
> .





RoccoR said:


> The jewish have it, and the Arab Palestinians want it.


The Jews stole it, the Palestinians want it back.

It is not a complicated issue.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Theft Complaint
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,


P F Tinmore said:


> The Jews stole it, the Palestinians want it back.
> 
> It is not a complicated issue.


*(QUESTION)*
Specifically, what was stolen? 
When was it stolen?
Who was it stolen from?




Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Theft Complaint
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> *(QUESTION)*
> Specifically, what was stolen?
> When was it stolen?
> Who was it stolen from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


>



LOL!


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


>



 Among your best commentary.


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The Jews stole it, the Palestinians want it back.
> 
> It is not a complicated issue.



Indeed let's not make it a complicated issue.

Greedy Arab supremacists claim Africa
because _'Jews stole it'_ from them?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Theft Complaint
※→ rylah, et al,


rylah said:


> Indeed let's not make it a complicated issue.
> 
> Greedy Arab supremacists claim Africa
> because _'Jews stole it'_ from them?


*(COMMENT)*

Take care my friend.  Watch-out_*!*_
I think I saw them measuring your front lawn.  You know, My lawn was once British Occupied Territory.  Do You think they might make a bit on my lawn?





 Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Similarities developed over differences
> ⁜→ rylah, et al,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> 
> Last week I was on the Nature Stone porch appreciating a few Canadian Whiskeys with a couple of friends.   We were celebrating Lammas _(Harvest Eve)_ July 31st _(First Harvest)_.  In some cultures _(and particularly Landowners)_, it is celebrated as the "Feast of the First Fruits."  And the ancient Israelite crop harvests (Deuteronomy 8:8) approximately at the same time.  Many major cultures had, one time or another, celebrated or performed ceremonies pertaining to the Planting and Harvest Seasons for their crops.  The Egyptians also have a ceremony and blessing with prayers to the God of the Nile in mid-August.
> 
> The reason I mention this is only to keep in mind the the five of us from different descents, came from ancesters that celebrated the same things for much the same reason. Well, except for my cousin who is Wiccan.  But no one holds that against her because she is so very good looking and everyone wants to dance with her.
> 
> View attachment 521643
> So, let's remember, this is the time of the year when we should put our differences aside and celebrate something in common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,
> R_



Curious remark, especially when put in the context of nature.
I think the similarity between the cosmopolitan and universal ideals -
is the innate human need, for civilization to function as a living organism.
However, a body is only healthy when the cells function as distinct organs.

The question of unity versus conformity,
explains no harvest festivals in Islam.


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Similarities developed over differences
⁜→ Sixties Fan, et al,

I'm thinking that if even a few of the Hostile Arab Palestinian were as savvy as the Celtic Women, it might change things.



Sixties Fan said:


> [Good Incert]


*(COMMENT)*
.
They were absolutely amazing.  You have to be psychotic not to feel good about yourself and others → after the performance.




_Most Respectfully,
R_


----------



## Sixties Fan

He was the Chief Rabbi of Jaffa and the small settlements nearby. Rabbi Kook was known for taking a positive approach to the non-religious pioneers in the Land of Israel. This endeared him to many, but also led to criticism by others. Rabbi Kook tirelessly encouraged all Jews to move to the Land of Israel, always striving to raise up the religious observance in the Land of Israel. 

During World War I, Rabbi Kook was stuck in Europe, unable to return to his beloved Land of Israel. He ended up becoming a Rabbi of a community in England, where he was involved in urging for what would become known as the Balfour Declaration, a critical exclamation by the British government that would play a vital role in the establishment of the State of Israel. 

In the end, Rabbi Kook’s philosophies proved prophetic. The future of the Jewish people was in the Land of Israel. Europe would become a mass cemetery for millions of Jews, while the Return to Zion would lead to a massive return that would see millions of Jews returning to the Land of Israel following the establishment of the State of Israel.









						Watch One Of The Greatest Rabbi's Of Religious Zionism - Israel Unwired
					

n the end, Rabbi Kook's philosophies proved prophetic. The future of the Jewish people was in the Land of Israel.




					www.israelunwired.com


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Similarities developed over differences
⁜→ Sixties Fan, et al,


Sixties Fan said:


> He was the Chief Rabbi of Jaffa and the small settlements nearby. Rabbi Kook was known for taking a positive approach to the non-religious pioneers in the Land of Israel. This endeared him to many, but also led to criticism by others. Rabbi Kook tirelessly encouraged all Jews to move to the Land of Israel, always striving to raise up the religious observance in the Land of Israel.


*(COMMENT)*
.
For many of us, in the theater of the common world;  → have no real perception of the matters that  → there are very few questions that open that see The Rabbi as a dehumanizing figure.  I read in the 2014 Research Book that 
The Rabbi was viewed as "the premier spiritual representative of religious support for the Zionist enterprise."  (I'm not really sure what that means.). But maybe whatever it means, we know it is real, very thin, and damn near entirely universal.  And yet The Rabbi brings it to life.  It is mystical → and yet not.  The Rabbi makes it appear that you could, given the right circumstance, that you hold it in your hand.

Remarkable.




_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## Sixties Fan

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Similarities developed over differences
> ⁜→ Sixties Fan, et al,
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> For many of us, in the theater of the common world;  → have no real perception of the matters that  → there are very few questions that open that see The Rabbi as a dehumanizing figure.  I read in the 2014 Research Book that
> The Rabbi was viewed as "the premier spiritual representative of religious support for the Zionist enterprise."  (I'm not really sure what that means.). But maybe whatever it means, we know it is real, very thin, and damn near entirely universal.  And yet The Rabbi brings it to life.  It is mystical → and yet not.  The Rabbi makes it appear that you could, given the right circumstance, that you hold it in your hand.
> 
> Remarkable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_


I believe it mainly means that most religious Jews were waiting for the Messiah.  Only via the Messiah coming the Jews could have their nation back, free of its invaders as in olden times.  This Rabbi supported Zionism, regardless of the Messiah having come at the time.


----------



## Sixties Fan

One Jewish story leads to another. After posting “The Hebron Massacre Saved My Cousin’s Life” in The Times of Israel (May 12, 2022), I received a phone call from Ayala Mizrachi of San Jose, California, who told me that her father was also living in Hebron in 1929. But instead of being attacked by Arabs, he was saved by them.

When I first listened to her message, recorded in a strong Israeli accent, I thought I must have heard it wrong. Something about Arab neighbors hiding them in the basement. Could that be? After learning how my cousin had been brutally stabbed and left for dead, this sounded most unlikely.

I couldn’t wait to call her. When we finally connected a week later, this is what she said:

“My father’s family was living in Hebron in 1929. My grandfather was a carpenter. He and my grandmother had seven children, three boys and four girls. The family spoke Ladino and traced their ancestry back to Spain. My father, the second oldest, was 17 years old at the time of the pogrom.

“Until that Shabbos afternoon, the Arabs and Jews in Hebron had been on friendly terms. True, there were a few stabbings and knifings over the years, but generally, relations were good. In fact, the Arabs had been reassuring the Jews that they were safe, not to worry, and so the family had no inkling that an attack was in the making.

“When the Arabs started pouring onto the street, their neighbor bade them, ‘Come to our house!’ and hid them in the basement. The matriarch of that Arab family was a righteous woman who had made the Hajj to Mecca. When the mob came pounding on the door, saying, ‘We know you are hiding Jews inside,’ she told them, ‘No, we’re not!’ and shut the door.

“Toward evening, buses came and took the survivors to Jerusalem. Some cousins, who also survived, remained in Jerusalem, but my father’s family moved to Tel Aviv. Both my parents but especially my father, his siblings, and all his cousins served in the Irgun.



(full article online)









						‘Arabs hid my father’s family during the Hebron massacre’
					

The matriarch of the family was a righteous woman who had made the Hajj to Mecca. When the mob said, 'We know you are hiding Jews’ she told them, ‘No, we’re not!’




					blogs.timesofisrael.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Eighty years ago, an ominous and devastating policy was enacted by the British government that would cause severe destruction upon the Jewish people.

The MacDonald White paper, issued by the colonial Foreign Secretary Malcolm Macdonald was proposed on May 17 and ratified on May 22, 1939. That week, British commitments to facilitate a Jewish state under the terms of the 1917 Balfour Declaration were essentially nullified. The White paper also denied Jews desperately seeking refuge as the Nazi threat increased.

On November 9, 1938, the British Government announced their intention to invite representatives of the Arabs in Palestine and nearby countries to confer with Jewish representatives at a London conference in search of a solution to their vast differences. The proposed meetings were from the start a futile venture as the Arabs refused to even sit with the Jews. Separate meetings were held and they ended predictably with no resolution.

The Macdonald White Paper rejected the 1937 Peel Commission’s recommendation of the partition of the land. Jewish immigration would be restricted to 15,000 per year over the next five years, and land purchases by Zionists would be severely restricted. Any further immigration after the five years would be determined by the Arab majority, which would essentially terminate the Zionist enterprise.

This move by the British came at the culmination of over twenty years of intermittent waves of Arab terror and at the end of three years of devastating Arab riots in British mandatory Palestine. The initially proposed borders of a Jewish State by the 1917 Balfour Declaration were downsized until there would be no Jewish State at all. The demands of the opponents of Zion were met.

The fact that the British Mandate over Palestine was a responsibility that was granted by an outside party, the League of Nations at San Remo in 1922, and therefore did not exclusively grant cart blanch to the British to act as they pleased meant little since that organization by the 1930’s was of little importance. Anyway, who would hold the British accountable when their respective nations also had imposed severe quotas on Jewish immigration during these desperate times for European Jewry facing the increasing threat of Nazism?


The Jewish Agency swiftly responded with indignation. “The Jewish people regard this policy as a breach of faith and a surrender to Arab terrorism…….It is in the darkest hour of Jewish history that the British Government proposes to deprive the Jews of their last hope and to close the road back to their homeland.” The following day, a general strike was called for Jews in Palestine. That day, 300,000 Jews in Palestine attended protests, in which 120 Jews were wounded during clashes with British police. At one protest, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi, Yitzchak HaLevi Herzog, burned a copy of the White Paper. The protests continued over the following weeks. Zionist leader, Chaim Weizmann called it a “Death sentence for the Jewish people.”

Emergency funds were sent to Palestine by the Jewish National Fund to purchase lands while the opportunity still existed.

Three days later, on May 21, protests in the United States had begun. Thousands of Jews demonstrated in cities throughout the US. At the same time, 230 American Jewish leaders urged Secretary of State Cordell Hull to refuse recognition of the White Paper.

(full article online)










						The White Paper: Eighty Three Years Later
					

Share on FacebookTweet WhatsappEighty years ago, an ominous and devastating policy was enacted by the British government that would cause severe destruction upon the Jewish people. The MacDonald White paper,…




					www.israelunwired.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> It did, it just didn't use that term. The people who lived there got the territory. The people who lived there got the nationality. The people who lived there got the citizenship. The people who lived there got the sovereignty.
> 
> In article 22 of the LoN Covenant, the people who lived there were to be led to independence.
> 
> In the 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order, stated that the people who lived there would become Palestinian citizens.
> 
> In subsequent UN resolutions, the people who live there (the Palestinian people in Palestine) have the right to self determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
> 
> It is what I call the people of the place. Nowhere does anyone mention that the people from someplace else get anything.


Is nobody going to refute this.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Is nobody going to refute this.


And you totally omit the existence of the Mandate for Palestine during that time and why the British chose the word Palestine and not Israel.  

The Arabs who migrated there because of the Jewish building of cities and businesses at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century,  are "People of someplace else" as you put it.

The Jews living there, or migrating back to their own ancient homeland, are STILL and always have been, and always will be the "People of the Place".

Your inability to accept it because of your extremist Christian views is your problem and nobody else's .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Is nobody going to refute this.



*In the 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order, stated that the people who lived there would become Palestinian citizens.*

Sounds good. 
In 1948, the Arabs were going to get a country and the Jews were going to get a country.
Then the Arabs screwed up. And they continue, to do this day, screwing up. Very sad.


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Challenge to *Posting #1877* (_supra_)
⁜→  et al,

The Covenant of the League of Nations:

◈   Was only relevant during the life of the League.​*✦   Location:* Paris Peace Conference​*✦ *Expiration: April 20, 1946​*✦  Effective:* 10 January 1920​*✦  Signed:* 28 June 1919​


P F Tinmore said:


> Is nobody going to refute this.


*(COMMENT)*
.
The Covenant only applied to those nations that signed and ratified the Covenant. It did not apply to any Arab State in the Territory to which the Order-in-Council applied.  The Covenant did not IMPOSE impose on other signatories any duty, or requirement to provide activities in a certain way.  The Covenant is not a promissory note.  The Covenant does NOT entangle a signatory into Providing an act or service for an unlimited entitlement.  That is particularly true if a party to the Covenant is NOT a direct beneficiary - OR - is not an if a third party is NOT a party to the Covenant.

Thus; anyone would be hard-pressed in an argument if they were a complainant - not a  member of the Covenant.

It is important to note that the main body of the Covenant → Articles 1 thru 26.

What is it that caught your eye?





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> And you totally omit the existence of the Mandate for Palestine during that time and why the British chose the word Palestine and not Israel.


Y'all keep bringing up the Mandate like it meant something. The Allied Powers decided *not* to annex the new states that were broken off of the defunct Ottoman empire. The land was transferred to Palestine. Former Ottoman subjects became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.

The Mandate had no land, no territory, and no sovereignty. It had no authority to change that status.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Y'all keep bringing up the Mandate like it meant something. The Allied Powers decided *not* to annex the new states that were broken off of the defunct Ottoman empire. The land was transferred to Palestine. Former Ottoman subjects became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Mandate had no land, no territory, and no sovereignty. It had no authority to change that status.



*The land was transferred to Palestine.*

No it wasn't.

*Former Ottoman subjects became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.*

And then some became Israeli citizens.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The land was transferred to Palestine.*
> 
> No it wasn't.


Link?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Y'all keep bringing up the Mandate like it meant something. The Allied Powers decided *not* to annex the new states that were broken off of the defunct Ottoman empire. The land was transferred to Palestine. Former Ottoman subjects became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Mandate had no land, no territory, and no sovereignty. It had no authority to change that status.


Why do you insist on cutting and pasting this nonsense?


----------



## RoccoR

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBTOPIC: Challenge to *Posting #1877* (_supra_)
⁜→ et al,
.
Much of what you said here is true.  But even if it were 100% false, a change decision made between the Allied Powers at the time have long since faded away.  The League of Nations (LoN) expired in September 1946 (76 years ago).   
.


P F Tinmore said:


> Y'all keep bringing up the Mandate like it meant something. The Allied Powers decided *not* to annex the new states that were broken off of the defunct Ottoman empire. The land was transferred to Palestine. Former Ottoman subjects became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.
> 
> The Mandate had no land, no territory, and no sovereignty. It had no authority to change that status.


*(COMMENT)*
.
The concepts, following the end of WWI Treaty of Lausanne (1923) (AKA:  Treaty of Peace with Turkey), was not influenced much by the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians were not a signatory to the Treaty.  The Treaty was one consolidated set of understandings that had to cover the concerns of the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the Serbian-Creation-Slovenian Territory.  A very important piece of the Treaty (as it pertains to the Palestinian Territory) was Article 3:
PART I.  POLITICAL CLAUSES. SECTION I. TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.

*ARTICLE 3* (EXCERPT of the TREATY):  Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923)​​From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:​​(I ) With Syria:​​The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​​(2) With Iraq:​​The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.​​In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.​​The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.​
The Arab Palestinians, more often than not, attempt to justify their various claims by dragging in all types of agreement covenants, treaties, and other arrangements.  But until the Oslo Accords





_Most Respectfully,_
_R_


----------



## Sixties Fan

RoccoR said:


> RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
> SUBTOPIC: Challenge to *Posting #1877* (_supra_)
> ⁜→ et al,
> .
> Much of what you said here is true.  But even if it were 100% false, a change decision made between the Allied Powers at the time have long since faded away.  The League of Nations (LoN) expired in September 1946 (76 years ago).
> .
> 
> *(COMMENT)*
> .
> The concepts, following the end of WWI Treaty of Lausanne (1923) (AKA:  Treaty of Peace with Turkey), was not influenced much by the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians were not a signatory to the Treaty.  The Treaty was one consolidated set of understandings that had to cover the concerns of the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the Serbian-Creation-Slovenian Territory.  A very important piece of the Treaty (as it pertains to the Palestinian Territory) was Article 3:
> PART I.  POLITICAL CLAUSES. SECTION I. TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.
> 
> *ARTICLE 3* (EXCERPT of the TREATY):  Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne, July 24, 1923)​​From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:​​(I ) With Syria:​​The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921​​(2) With Iraq:​​The frontier between Turkey and Iraq shall be laid down in friendly arrangement to be concluded between Turkey and Great Britain within nine months.​​In the event of no agreement being reached between the two Governments within the time mentioned, the dispute shall be referred to the Council of the League of Nations.​​The Turkish and British Governments reciprocally undertake that, pending the decision to be reached on the subject of the frontier, no military or other movement shall take place which might modify in any way the present state of the territories of which the final fate will depend upon that decision.​
> The Arab Palestinians, more often than not, attempt to justify their various claims by dragging in all types of agreement covenants, treaties, and other arrangements.  But until the Oslo Accords
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Most Respectfully,_
> _R_


Let us all understand that it was never about Palestinians, be it  Arab, Jews, Druze, etc.
The Arab rejection of the The Mandate for Palestine from the start caused by Al- Husseini, was and continues to be a rejection of the Jews being sovereign over Muslims, even on any part of their ancient Jewish homeland.

Proof?

1948 to 1967

Both Gaza, Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem were taken by Egypt and Transjordan.  And the Muslims and Christians of the those areas did not complain for one second.  Not one.

Tinmore can say all he wants that the land was to go back to its natives.  The Jews are the Indigenous, native people of the land.  The Mandate for Palestine was to go to the Indigenous people of the land, with all others continuing to live there under Jewish governance.

As we know, the Al-Husseini clan could not allow it to happen.  Defeated Arab clans which were pro a rebuilding of the Jewish Nation and started riots against the Jews.


Tinmore will never own up that it is about Christian and Islamic lack of acceptance of the Jews as equal to themselves.  As having the same rights.  The extremists, like Tinmore, want the Jews to remain stateless and "wandering" without a place where they can go and be protected, where they can protect themselves.


Does Tinmore misunderstand what the treaties say?  Who knows.  Maybe he just wishes to understand them that way because he cannot accept that Jews did manage to secure their rights to any part of their ancient land.  Which is why he and others keep wanting the Jews to "give back" the land which is theirs by right, to begin with, to those who want them unprotected and easier to attack.

Not that they are not attacking Jews all over the world, as it is .

It was never about Israel, it is about Jews having equal rights to being sovereign over any piece of land.  Especially any land conquered by any Islamic group.


----------



## Hollie

Sixties Fan said:


> Let us all understand that it was never about Palestinians, be it  Arab, Jews, Druze, etc.
> The Arab rejection of the The Mandate for Palestine from the start caused by Al- Husseini, was and continues to be a rejection of the Jews being sovereign over Muslims, even on any part of their ancient Jewish homeland.
> 
> Proof?
> 
> 1948 to 1967
> 
> Both Gaza, Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem were taken by Egypt and Transjordan.  And the Muslims and Christians of the those areas did not complain for one second.  Not one.
> 
> Tinmore can say all he wants that the land was to go back to its natives.  The Jews are the Indigenous, native people of the land.  The Mandate for Palestine was to go to the Indigenous people of the land, with all others continuing to live there under Jewish governance.
> 
> As we know, the Al-Husseini clan could not allow it to happen.  Defeated Arab clans which were pro a rebuilding of the Jewish Nation and started riots against the Jews.
> 
> 
> Tinmore will never own up that it is about Christian and Islamic lack of acceptance of the Jews as equal to themselves.  As having the same rights.  The extremists, like Tinmore, want the Jews to remain stateless and "wandering" without a place where they can go and be protected, where they can protect themselves.
> 
> 
> Does Tinmore misunderstand what the treaties say?  Who knows.  Maybe he just wishes to understand them that way because he cannot accept that Jews did manage to secure their rights to any part of their ancient land.  Which is why he and others keep wanting the Jews to "give back" the land which is theirs by right, to begin with, to those who want them unprotected and easier to attack.
> 
> Not that they are not attacking Jews all over the world, as it is .
> 
> It was never about Israel, it is about Jews having equal rights to being sovereign over any piece of land.  Especially any land conquered by any Islamic group.



"_Does Tinmore misunderstand what the treaties say?"_


Not at all. After a decade of various posters providing the facts, relevant documents and references, he still insists on spamming most threads with his silly Treaty of Lausanne, new states, Oslo is dead, etc., etc., etc., wasting of bandwidth.

Jew hating consumes his every waking moment. .


----------



## P F Tinmore

RoccoR said:


> The concepts, following the end of WWI Treaty of Lausanne (1923) (AKA: Treaty of Peace with Turkey), was not influenced much by the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians were not a signatory to the Treaty.


They did not have to be. The Allied Powers decided to not annex the territory. That the territory would be carved into new states. That the people would be the nationals and citizens of their respective new state.

Some people want to monkey motion more into it but these are the basics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Link?



No country, no transfer. 

Not complicated.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No country, no transfer.
> 
> Not complicated.


More Israeli bullshit.

And still no link.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> And still no link.



You want me to link to "Palestine isn't a country today and wasn't a country when the Allies didn't 'transfer land to Palestine'"?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You want me to link to "Palestine isn't a country today and wasn't a country when the Allies didn't 'transfer land to Palestine'"?


You said it. You prove it.

Link?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> You said it. You prove it.
> 
> Link?



Yes. I said Palestine was never a country. Because it never was a country.

Not then. Not now. Not ever.

What proof would you accept?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes. I said Palestine was never a country. Because it never was a country.
> 
> Not then. Not now. Not ever.
> 
> What proof would you accept?


Links.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> They did not have to be. The Allied Powers decided to not annex the territory. That the territory would be carved into new states. That the people would be the nationals and citizens of their respective new state.
> 
> Some people want to monkey motion more into it but these are the basics.


Allied Powers decided to not annex the territory to what other territory?

And which territory was going to be carved into new states?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> More Israeli bullshit.
> 
> And still no link.


What do you believe is served by spamming threads with this nonsense?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Links.



I looked for a link to when Palestine was a nation.
Couldn't find one.
Sorry.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> They did not have to be. The Allied Powers decided to not annex the territory. That the territory would be carved into new states. That the people would be the nationals and citizens of their respective new state.
> 
> Some people want to monkey motion more into it but these are the basics.


What ''new states''?

Link?

Was one of those ''new states'' the ''state of Pal'istan''?

Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I looked for a link to when Palestine was a nation.
> Couldn't find one.
> Sorry.


Decisions of international and national tribunals​
The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne  provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]

For John Quigley, Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate (1918–1948), an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned." He says that in explicitly referring to the Covenant, the 1988 declaration was reaffirming an existing Palestinian statehood.









						State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

I saw a couple of Wiki links


P F Tinmore said:


> Decisions of international and national tribunals​
> The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne  provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]
> 
> For John Quigley, Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate (1918–1948), an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned." He says that in explicitly referring to the Covenant, the 1988 declaration was reaffirming an existing Palestinian statehood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


I saw a couple of Wiki links.
​No links to international and national tribunals?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Decisions of international and national tribunals​
> The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne  provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[25]
> 
> For John Quigley, Palestine's existence as a state predates the 1988 declaration. Tracing Palestine's status as an international entity back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, he recalls that the Palestine Mandate (1918–1948), an arrangement made under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, held as its "ultimate objective", the "self-determination and independence of the people concerned." He says that in explicitly referring to the Covenant, the 1988 declaration was reaffirming an existing Palestinian statehood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


Time to trot out the Zebra, again.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Tinmore,

You posted:

"They did not have to be. The Allied Powers decided to not annex the territory. That the territory would be carved into new states. That the people would be the nationals and citizens of their respective new state."

So, I asked Which territory did the Allied Powers decide to not annex?  And to what other territory?
[ Did they decide to not annex all the territory the Ottomans lost to the UK or France?

And that territory was going to be carved into which new States?
[Are you talking about all the 4 Mandates?]

So, Palestine was actually to become Israel.  Were all the Jews, Arabs, Druze, etc who lived there going to become Citizens of Israel?

Because the Jews were not going to call their rebuilt country Palestine, right?

You are aware that the British only called the Jewish State Mandate Palestine in order to continue to humiliate the Jews.  That the British had no intention at all, as proven later, to allow the Jews to actually rebuild their State on the whole, or any, of the British Mandate for Palestine.

Isn't that what happened?

The British almost immediately gave away 78% of the Jewish Homeland , TransJordan, to the foreign Arab clan, the Hashemites.

And then, the British never meant to allow the Jews, or even the Arabs, have the remaining 22%.  They wanted to keep it for themselves.  
In place of India, which they had recently lost.

None of the other 3 Mandates had any problems becoming States.  Iraq in 1932.  All of them became States much earlier than Israel.

Not one of the others, had the British or the French getting in the way of those mandates, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, of becoming States.

The great thing today is how many Arabs, Christians and Muslims, are happy and proud of being Israeli Citizens.


The British lost on their intent to never allowing the Jews to rebuild and have their sovereign State.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> So, Palestine was actually to become Israel. Were all the Jews, Arabs, Druze, etc who lived there going to become Citizens of Israel?


Do you have a link for that?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> That the British had no intention at all, as proven later, to allow the Jews to actually rebuild their State on the whole, or any, of the British Mandate for Palestine.


The Jewish national home was not to be a Jewish state. The Jews would get Palestinian citizenship and live together in one state with all the other Palestinians.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Do you have a link for that?


You do know that the Mandate for Palestine was created to rebuild the Jewish State.

Stop playing at not knowing things.
-----------

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 



			The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


----------



## Sixties Fan

ARTICLE 1.​The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate. 

ART. 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. 

ART. 3.​The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy. 

ART. 4.​*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. *

ART. 5.​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. 

ART. 6.​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. *

ART. 7.​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 Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The Jews would get Palestinian citizenship and live together in one state with all the other Palestinians.



And then the palestinians, with help from their Arab neighbors, screwed it up.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And then the palestinians, with help from their Arab neighbors, screwed it up.


Palestinian Arabs, as opposed to Palestinian Jews.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Sixties Fan said:


> Palestinian Arabs, as opposed to Palestinian Jews.



The Jews screwed up the Arab plans by repeatedly kicking Arab ass.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> ART. 7.​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.*


Like I said. Palestinian citizenship like all the other Palestinians. A shared state.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Like I said. Palestinian citizenship like all the other Palestinians. A shared state.



The Jews have their state.
They call their citizenship.....Israeli.

Where is the Palestinian state?


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> Like I said. Palestinian citizenship like all the other Palestinians. A shared state.


But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

His Majesty's Government are unable at present to foresee the exact constitutional forms which government in Palestine will eventually take, but their objective is self  government, and they desire to see established ultimately an independent Palestine State. It should be a State in which the two peoples in Palestine, Arabs and Jews, share authority in government in such a way that the essential interests of each are shared.





__





						The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939
					





					avalon.law.yale.edu


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Like I said. Palestinian citizenship like all the other Palestinians. A shared state.


It was to become Israel.  100% of the Mandate.  Arabs, Druze, Bedouins, etc would become Israelis, just as they are now in what is left of the Mandate for the Jews.

They would have Israeli citizenship, as so many non Jews have now.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Jews have their state.
> They call their citizenship.....Israeli.
> 
> Where is the Palestinian state?


It is right under Israel's fat ass.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> It was to become Israel.  100% of the Mandate.  Arabs, Druze, Bedouins, etc would become Israelis, just as they are now in what is left of the Mandate for the Jews.
> 
> They would have Israeli citizenship, as so many non Jews have now.


Do you have a link for that?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> It is right under Israel's fat ass.


Get ugly when you cannot find the right answer.

The Mandate for Palestine was NEVER going to become the "State of Palestine", as Lebanon remained Lebanon, Syria remained Syria, and Mesopotamia became Iraq.

The Muslims and Christians want to deny the Jews sovereignty over any part of their ancient homeland.  You do know that.

One state solution, with 80% already in Muslim hands, means that Israel would cease to exist, making the British, Hashemite and Al Husseini clan's dream come true.

Vile people want the destruction of the Jewish people.

It will never come to be


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Get ugly when you cannot find the right answer.
> 
> The Mandate for Palestine was NEVER going to become the "State of Palestine", as Lebanon remained Lebanon, Syria remained Syria, and Mesopotamia became Iraq.
> 
> The Muslims and Christians want to deny the Jews sovereignty over any part of their ancient homeland.  You do know that.
> 
> One state solution, with 80% already in Muslim hands, means that Israel would cease to exist, making the British, Hashemite and Al Husseini clan's dream come true.
> 
> Vile people want the destruction of the Jewish people.
> 
> It will never come to be


Nice rant.

Not true.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.



Well, if they want to move to Jordan or Saudi Arabia or Gaza, Israel won't stop them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> It is right under Israel's fat ass.



Poor Arab losers.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Nice rant.
> 
> Not true.


You do know that it is true.  It was to be the State for the Jewish People.  It says so on the Mandate, just as I posted it.   Deny all you like.  On their ancient homeland.  All 100% of it, until the British decided otherwise.
Something they would never had done had the Mandate been promised to Muslims, as the other 3 Mandates were.

The Kurds did not get their State.
The Assyrians did not become the government of Syria.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> You do know that it is true.  It was to be the State for the Jewish People.  It says so on the Mandate, just as I posted it.   Deny all you like.  On their ancient homeland.  All 100% of it, until the British decided otherwise.
> Something they would never had done had the Mandate been promised to Muslims, as the other 3 Mandates were.
> 
> The Kurds did not get their State.
> The Assyrians did not become the government of Syria.





Sixties Fan said:


> You do know that it is true. It was to be the State for the Jewish People.


Who said?

Link?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Who said?
> 
> Link?


LOL, now you are playing at not having read the Mandate for Palestine.

Too funny.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> LOL, now you are playing at not having read the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Too funny.


I have.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> LOL, now you are playing at not having read the Mandate for Palestine.
> 
> Too funny.


Here it is. Quote the passage.





__





						The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
					





					avalon.law.yale.edu


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Here it is. Quote the passage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu


I quoted the articles in the previous page.

Go read it.  Pay attention to the words in Bold.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> I quoted the articles in the previous page.
> 
> Go read it.  Pay attention to the words in Bold.


Do you mean the part that did not say Jewish state?


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Do you mean the part that did not say Jewish state?


Where did it say that it was going to be a national home or even the word state sovereign to any other people there at the time, other than the Jewish People?


----------



## Sixties Fan

[ Here is another reason why the Jews needed to rebuild their Nation on their homeland.  One anti Jewish lie turns eventually into more lies about Jews, which lead to attacks on Jews anywhere and everywhere ]


The New Arab, which is considered one of the saner Arab publication, starts off a Sunday article with this:




> The Jewish Rabbi Rijkorner said at a secret meeting held by the Jews in Prague, in 1869: “If gold is the primary force, then the press is the secondary force, but the second does not work without the first, and we must, by means of gold, seize the press, and when we seize them, we strive to destroy family life, morals, religion and virtue."


In extreme antisemitic circles, there is a story circulating of a Rabbi Reichorn who supposedly made a speech describing hw the Jews will take over the world - decades before the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The New Arab article is based on that lie.




This wholly fictional speech was published in 1921 in antisemitic French magazine La Vieille France It claimed to have copied this speech from the book La Russie Juive.

Here are the supposed Protocols of 1869:




> 1. Every hundred years, We, the Sages of Israel, have been accustomed to meet in Sanhedrin in order to examine our progress towards the domination of the world which Jehovah has promised us, and our conquests over the enemy, Christianity.
> 
> 2. This year, united over the tomb of our reverend Simeon ben-Ihuda, we can state with pride that the past century has brought us very near to our goal, and that this goal will be very soon attained.
> 
> 3. Gold always has been and always will be the irresistible power. Handled by expert hands it will always be the most useful lever for those who possess it, and the object of envy for those who do not. With gold we can buy the most rebellious consciences, can fix the rate of all values, the current prices of all products, can subsidize all State loans, and thereafter hold the states at our mercy.



The text is actually derived from a chapter of an 1868 novel by Hermann Goedsche called "Biarritz."   After he died, antisemites turned the fictional chapter into a leaflet purported to be true. 

The chapter includes an entire scene of representatives of the Twelve Tribes each meeting in a cemetery in Prague and each reciting a protocol. The New Arab version quotes from this novel, not from the "protocols" listed above. There seem to have been some major changes between the novel and the 19 protocols listed above.

And mainstream Arab media still embraces this antisemitic libel. 

Strangely, this French text published during the Nazi era in France is in an online Museums of Paris collection today, without mentioning its antisemitic nature.


(full article online)










						The Proto-Protocols of Jewish Domination, 1868
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> It is right under Israel's fat ass.


Do you have a link for that?


----------



## Sixties Fan

There were two postwar American foreign policy decisions that directly affected Jewish interests, the Johnson-Reed Act that drastically cut Jewish immigration and the Lodge-Fish Resolution in support of the Balfour Declaration. The majority of American Jews opposed both. A vocal Zionist minority was strongly in support of Lodge-Fish, and many other American Jews viewed any increase in Jewish settlement in Palestine as a good thing without embracing the political ambitions of the Zionist movement. But on the whole, right up through World War II, the American Jewish community would have gladly traded Lodge-Fish away in order to repeal Johnson-Reed. Both laws, however, remained on the books, and they would shape American policy toward the Zionist movement and the Jewish people for many years.

Of the two laws, Johnson-Reed, which American Jews overwhelmingly opposed, had more impact on events on the ground in Palestine. Without Johnson-Reed’s immigration cap and strict quota system, fewer Polish and German Jews would have been trapped in Europe for Hitler to kill, a thought that must always strike the American conscience with a pang, but many fewer would also have made their way to the swamps and deserts of Palestine. Whether the struggling population of idealistic Zionists could have established their state if the Jewish masses had been free to choose between Palestine and America can never be known. The prewar percentages, however, with only 2 to 3 percent of Jewish emigrants choosing Palestine, strongly suggest that without the restrictive American immigration legislation the Jewish population in Palestine might never have reached numbers large enough to build and maintain an independent state.

This, at least, deserves to be remembered: If “the Jews” ran America, immigration would not have been restricted and Israel would likely not exist. This is part of a more general truth: Zionism only succeeded among Jews as it became clear that the options that most Jews initially preferred—integration into the countries where they lived or, failing that, free immigration into more hospitable places—had failed.



(full article online)









						The American Zionist Dream
					

How William Blackstone, Henry Cabot Lodge, and their fellow Christians saw a Jewish state as deeply American




					www.tabletmag.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

(full article online)










						Remembering the Road of Heroism on Jerusalem Day
					

In the fourteen-day-old State of Israel, the future of the New City of western Jerusalem hung in the balance. It was a week since vital supplies had arrived. One road supplied the people of Jerusalem when they faced a dire situation.




					www.israelunwired.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Western Wall is seen on this stereoscopic card with a picture (actually two pictures—you’re not seeing double) capturing how “the outer wall of Solomon’s Temple” appeared in Jerusalem in 1896. Produced by Underwood & Underwood, the largest publisher of stereoviews in the world—with an office in Toronto—it was designed to be placed in a viewing device called a stereoscope and appear as a three-dimensional image. The card’s reverse quotes Psalm 79 in English, French, German, Spanish, Norwegian and Russian: “How Long, Lord? Wilt Thou Be Angry Forever?” There are several hundred of these cards of Palestine, which enabled people to see the Holy Land at a time when a trip to the region was costly and difficult. _Find more from David Matlow at herzlcollection.com_









						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

A postcard from the first Maccabiah, 1932.

The 2022 Maccabiah Games, a.k.a. the 21st Maccabiah Games, are scheduled to start on July 12 and continue through July 26, in Israel. The Maccabiah Games are open to Jewish athletes from around the world, and to all Israeli citizens regardless of their religion (bet you didn’t know that – DI). 10,000 athletes from 80 countries are expected to compete in 42 sports categories.






The 3rd Maccabiah games in Ramat Gan, 1950. / Courtesy of KKL-JNF

In celebration of the 2022 Maccabiah, KKL-JNF released historical photos from the first years of the Jewish Olympic tournaments, among them a unique photo from the first Maccabiah in 1932.






Jewish athletes at the Maccabiah games. / Courtesy of KKL-JNF

(full article online)









						KKL-JNF Releases Old Maccabiah Images to Celebrate the 2022 Games
					

The Maccabiah Games were proposed by Yosef Yekutieli in 1929 at the Maccabi World Congress.




					www.jewishpress.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

In April 1921, British High Commissioner of Palestine Herbert Samuel met with Amin al-Husseini who assured him that he was supportive of British rule and would work hard to keep things peaceful. Samuel said:



> I saw Haj Amin Husseini on Friday [April 8] and discussed with him at considerable length the political situation and the question of his appointment to the office of grand Mufti. Mr. Storrs was also present, and in the course of conversation, he declared his earnest desire to cooperate with the government and his belief in the good intentions of the British Government towards the Arabs. He (e.g. Haj Amin al-Husseini) gave assurance that the influence of his family and himself *would be devoted to maintaining tranquility in Jerusalem* and he felt sure that *no disturbances need be feared this year. He said that the riots of last year were spontaneous and unpremeditated.* If the government took reasonable precautions, he felt sure they would not be repeated.






He was referring to the 1920 Nebi Musa riots which killed 5 Jews - and which Husseini had himself provoked.

Nevertheless, Samuel accepted Husseini's assurances and supported his appointment to the position of Mufti of Jerusalem.

Here is an account of the new Mufti's appearance at the Nebi Musa festival procession only two days later, on Easter Sunday, April 10:


> Although we were less than a mile away from the place where the procession first came into sight several hours elapsed before they passed the place where we stood. The procession of which* the mufti of Jerusalem, who had but recently been inducted into office*, and other Moslem dignitaries made up the rear, moved so slowly because dozens of circles composed of dervishes moved forward ahead of the mufti only as the dancing circle advanced. Terrible fanaticism was discernible in their distorted faces as they danced. In the characteristically Oriental rhythmic song, or call, *repeated in chorus after their leader*, they called out sentences that they were interpreted to me as follows: "*This place has been conquered by the sword*. Jerusalem is the city of Allah. Our banner enters into it. *Get out, you dogs, you Jews,* you Zionists. Our banner enters Medina. *We will draw the sword against any one that opposes us.*"
> 
> While they spoke these threatening words a dervish who as lifted on the shoulders of others frantically brandished two swords over his head. Last year a number of Jews were killed at this festival. _(The Evening Kansan-Republican, _July 5, 1921_)_



Samuel's quote above was made on the following day. It is unclear if he was aware of the blatant incitement that the Mufti was provoking.

What is clear is that this appointment resulted in the deaths of thousands of Jews at the hands of the Mufti's own people as well as his followers during the 101 years since. The Jew-hating Mufti is still considered an "icon" of Palestinian history and is universally venerated by all Palestinians. 











						The Mufti of Jerusalem threatened to murder Jews within 48 hours of promising the British he was peaceful
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> In April 1921, British High Commissioner of Palestine Herbert Samuel met with Amin al-Husseini who assured him that he was supportive of British rule and would work hard to keep things peaceful. Samuel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to the 1920 Nebi Musa riots which killed 5 Jews - and which Husseini had himself provoked.
> 
> Nevertheless, Samuel accepted Husseini's assurances and supported his appointment to the position of Mufti of Jerusalem.
> 
> Here is an account of the new Mufti's appearance at the Nebi Musa festival procession only two days later, on Easter Sunday, April 10:
> 
> 
> Samuel's quote above was made on the following day. It is unclear if he was aware of the blatant incitement that the Mufti was provoking.
> 
> What is clear is that this appointment resulted in the deaths of thousands of Jews at the hands of the Mufti's own people as well as his followers during the 101 years since. The Jew-hating Mufti is still considered an "icon" of Palestinian history and is universally venerated by all Palestinians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mufti of Jerusalem threatened to murder Jews within 48 hours of promising the British he was peaceful
> 
> 
> Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elderofziyon.blogspot.com





Sixties Fan said:


> The Jew-hating Mufti is still considered an "icon" of Palestinian history and is universally venerated by all Palestinians.


Israel is the only one who mentions him.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 1

Will Israel act to reclaim its sovereign legal rights after a century of British corruption over their maladministration of the Mandate for Palestine?

This is a subject that irks me a great deal because collectively, we Jews, do not seem to have what it takes to hold tight to our sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Subverted Mandate For Palestine​After World War I, Great Britain received the power to be the holder, mind you a shameful one, of the Mandate for Palestine in the Land of Israel.

In order to understand the injustice that was done, we must remind ourselves and remember how that country treated Israel then and its current claim to Jerusalem today.

Britain’s Perfidy​Pursuing Great Britain receiving the Mandatary role for the Land of Israel, its first perfidy was to cease to apply the Mandate’s provisions to all of the mandate’s originally assigned territory. Those provisions had to do with _“facilitating Jewish immigration”_and _“encouraging close settlement by Jews on the land.”_ However, those in control in Britain decided that these provisions would not apply to any of the Mandate’s territory east of the Jordan River.

That territory, today known as Jordan (then named Transjordan), constituted 78% of the area that was intended to be part of a future Jewish National Home, the state of Israel, and was closed off by Britain to Jews. In place of having Jews settle in their land, that territory was perfidiously stolen by Britain to become the Hashemite Tribe’s Emirate of Transjordan, created by the British to satisfy the Hashemite Emir Abdullah’s territorial ambitions.

Abdullah, like his brother Feisal, whom the British had put on the Iraqi throne, wanted a place to rule. Subsequently, Britain deprived the Jewish-Zionists of land they had been led to believe would be included in the Mandate for Palestine. The British had gifted the Arabian Hashemite family, belonging to the Dhawu Awn, one of the branches of the Hasanid Sharif of Mecca, with what was addressed then as _“Transjordan.”_










						A centenary of the Mandate for Palestine's land rights - whose land rights?
					

The British perfidy everyone shies away from: 100 years of lies, deceit and untruth added to its corrupt Mandate maladministration.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 2

_The real land mass of Israel – British mandate Palestine map Wikipedia_

The local Arabs, who later named themselves _“Palestinians,”_ anti-Semites and one-sided critics of Israel have little interest, if at all, in historical facts and nothing can penetrate their veil of elected ignorance. The only hope to change minds is to teach Arab students whose minds have not yet been tainted and poisoned by propaganda.

A good place to start with that is to end the propagated myth about the Jews stealing _“Palestinian”_land. The region’s history must be taught correctly. The real thieves of that land are the Hashemites of Jordan assisted by Britain as early as 1921.

The Hashemites had no connection to the land until the 1936-39 Arab revolt, and then imperial Britain imposed Abdullah on the residents.

The British Despised The Idea That Jews Could Defend Themselves​In April 1920 local Arabs attacked the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem. In response, Vladimir Jabotinsky, the Zionist leader, organized Jewish self-defense units. Instead of the British arresting the violent Arabs, they arrested Jabotinsky, who they interned in Acre Prison after they accused him of illegally training and arming Jews and using British military forces – former members of the Jewish Legion, no longer part of the British army, who fought in WWI as part of the British army against the Ottoman forces – without their permission.

Of course, the British charge was unjust, but Jews defending themselves was not part of the Brits’ lexicon.

For his belief that Jews must and can defend themselves, rather than always being the victims of all types of attacks, Jabotinsky received a long prison sentence. International outcry led to his early release from prison after three months of incarceration. However, this incident made it clear about the British in Palestine; they had very little affinity and sympathy for the Jews in Eretz Yisrael.

Other evidence shows that in 1929, save to evacuate a handful of Jews, when Jews were being bestially massacred by Arabs in Hebron, the British did nothing to protect them.

The same was true during the Arabs’ 1936-1939 revolt; the British did little, if anything, to help the Jews defend themselves.

Teaching the Jews How to Fight Back​British Captain Orde Wingate, killed in a plane crash in Burma on March 24, 1944, has been called the father of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and a hero during the British Mandate in Palestine-Eretz Yisrael.

Wingate, a son of Christian missionaries who carried a Bible wherever he went and trumpeted Jewish claims to the land just as British Mandatory policy turned anti-Zionist, arrived in September 1936. He was assigned with ending the Arabs’ sabotage of an oil pipeline running from Iraq to Haifa through the Jezreel Valley. He also trained Jewish fighters to repel Arab attacks during the Arab Revolt, the nationalist uprising by the Arabs against the British Mandate.

Captain Wingate took it upon himself to teach the Jews to take the fight to the Arabs; he organized _“Night Squads”_ that soon had the Arabs on the run. He was forced to leave the area in 1938 because his Zionism and Jews fighting back had made him unpopular with many of the British officers.










						A centenary of the Mandate for Palestine's land rights - whose land rights?
					

The British perfidy everyone shies away from: 100 years of lies, deceit and untruth added to its corrupt Mandate maladministration.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 3

The White Paper​The White Paper, passed in London in 1939, was another British betrayal of Jews. The decree limited Jewish immigration to the Mandate of Palestine to 15,000 for each of the next five years, after which any Jewish immigration would be subject to an Arab veto. The British put the anti-Semitic Arabs in charge of the number of Jews arriving in the Jewish homeland.

This immigration limitation denied Jews who sought to escape the murderous Nazi acts, to save their lives. That action puts the British in the same category with the Nazis, having the blood of untold number of Jews on their hands.

The facts: During the time of maximum peril for European Jews, instead of facilitating immigration, as they were obligated to do according to the Mandate’s provisions, the British chose to carry out anti-Semitic favor with the Arabs, implementing cruel limitations on Jewish immigration.

At a time when hundreds of thousands of European Jews could have been saved, the British prevented desperate Jewish refugees from reaching Eretz Yisrael’s shores. Even after World War II ended, the British, still ruling mandatory Palestine, continued to prevent ships full of Jewish refugees, who had survived the Nazi concentration camps, the Holocaust, from landing in British Mandate-Palestine.

(full article online)











						A centenary of the Mandate for Palestine's land rights - whose land rights?
					

The British perfidy everyone shies away from: 100 years of lies, deceit and untruth added to its corrupt Mandate maladministration.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

In the early 1930s, the antisemitic Mufti of Jerusalem convened a series of meetings where Arab sheikhs pledged not to sell their land to Jews - a policy that continues today with the Palestinian Authority.

November 21,1934 Palestine Post:





January 1, 1935 Palestine Post:





But as this was happening, landowners in Transjordan compared their poverty with the prosperity in neighboring Palestine, and concluded that Jewish investments was what Transjordan needed.

JTA reported on January 18, 1933:




> The Hebrew paper “Davar” discloses today that Transjordanian tribe heads have for some time been approaching the Jewish Agency with offers for the sale of land. *The miserable situation of Transjordania as compared with the prosperity in Palestine convinces them that the salvation of Transjordania can come only through the Jews*, the tribe leaders are reported to have said. These same leaders have* urged Emir Abdullah to encourage the Jews to settle in Transjordan,* the paper writes.



From JTA, February 6, 1933:








> Permission to sell Transjordan land to foreigners is requested in a petition signed by twenty-one of the most influential Transjordan tribal leaders and members of the Legislative Assembly, which has been submitted to the Palestine Government and Emir Abdullah.
> 
> The petition emphasizes that the precarious condition of the country calls for such action.
> 
> The petition, which was drawn up following a meeting of Arab chieftains, in Amman, adds a new chapter to the Transjordan matter which was apparently closed on January 25th when Emir Abdullah announced the cancellation of an option he had granted to a Jewish company for the lease of 70,000 dunams of his personal domain in Transjordan.
> 
> The Arab chieftains at their meeting in Amman discussed Emir Abdullah’s communique announcing the cancellation of the lease to Jews. *The majority of those present, however, found that the sale of land to Jews is the only solution for the present acute situation*.
> 
> Seventy percent of the cattle owned by the Arabs in Transjordan have perished from starvation, it was stated.



Transjordan and Palestine had similar climates, similar resources, and the Arabs were from similar tribes. The only reason Palestine was thriving and Transjordan was failing was because of Jewish energy and investments. This was obvious to everyone at the time, including Arabs.











						As the Mufti forbade selling land to Jews, Transjordanian sheikhs WANTED Jews to buy their land
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

On This Day: 75 years since Exodus 1947 took 4,500 Jews to Israel
					

More than 60 ships attempted to take illegal Jewish immigrants to Mandatory Palestine during Aliyah Bet with mixed results. But Exodus 1947 was the largest,




					www.jpost.com


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

6 EPISODE SERIES​Herzl Explained is a six part series of three or four minute videos in which David tells Herzl’s story aided by items in his collection.  Herzl Explained was produced in 2020 by Canada’s Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs with the support of the American Zionist Movement, the Canadian Zionist Federation and the Department of Diaspora Affairs of the World Zionist Organization.  









						The Matlow Collection  of Herzl Memorabilia
					






					herzlcollection.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

July 24, 1922 is the date when the League of Nations—predecessor to the United Nations—resolved to establish the British Mandate, which gave recognition “to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Great Britain became responsible for preparing conditions “as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home.” The resolution was unanimously approved by all 51 member nations (all League resolutions required unanimity). It implemented the agreement reached at the San Remo conference two years prior, commemorated on this 1920 Dutch-minted medal, which depicts a hammer-wielding modern pioneer meeting an ancestor from the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. _Find more from David Matlow at herzlcollection.com










						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca
				



_


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> 6 EPISODE SERIES​Herzl Explained is a six part series of three or four minute videos in which David tells Herzl’s story aided by items in his collection.  Herzl Explained was produced in 2020 by Canada’s Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs with the support of the American Zionist Movement, the Canadian Zionist Federation and the Department of Diaspora Affairs of the World Zionist Organization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Matlow Collection  of Herzl Memorabilia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> herzlcollection.com


The Palestinian Nakba: What Happened in 1948 and Why It Still Matters​


----------



## Sixties Fan

_"The Jews created the refugee problem by expelling the Palestinians."_

*FACT*

Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs.

The beginning of the Arab exodus can be traced to the weeks immediately following the announcement of the UN partition resolution. The first to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arabs who anticipated the upcoming war and fled to neighboring Arab countries to await its end. Less affluent Arabs from the mixed cities of Palestine moved to all-Arab towns to stay with relatives or friends.6  By the end of January1948, the exodus was so alarming the Palestine Arab Higher Committee asked neighboring Arab countries to refuse visas to these refugees and to seal their borders against them.7

On January 30, 1948, the Jaffa newspaper, _Ash Sha'ab_, reported: "The first of our fifth-column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere....At the first signs of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle."8

Another Jaffa paper, _As Sarih_ (March 30, 1948) excoriated Arab villagers near Tel Aviv for "bringing down disgrace on us all by 'abandoning the villages.'"9

Meanwhile, a leader of the Arab National Committee in Haifa, Hajj Nimer el-Khatib, said Arab soldiers in Jaffa were mistreating the residents. "They robbed individuals and homes. Life was of little value, and the honor of women was defiled. This state of affairs led many [Arab] residents to leave the city under the protection of British tanks."10

John Bagot Glubb, the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, said: "Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war."11

Contemporary press reports of major battles in which large numbers of Arabs fled conspicuously fail to mention any forcible expulsion by the Jewish forces. The Arabs are usually described as "fleeing" or "evacuating" their homes. While Zionists are accused of "expelling and dispossessing" the Arab inhabitants of such towns as Tiberias and Haifa, the truth is much different. Both of those cities were within the boundaries of the Jewish State under the UN partition scheme and both were fought for by Jews and Arabs alike.

Jewish forces seized Tiberias on April 19, 1948, and the entire Arab population of 6,000 was evacuated under British military supervision. The Jewish Community Council issued a statement afterward: "We did not dispossess them; they themselves chose this course....Let no citizen touch their property."12

In early April, an estimated 25,000 Arabs left the  Haifa area following an offensive by the irregular forces led by Fawzi al-Qawukji, and rumors that Arab air forces would soon bomb the Jewish areas around Mt. Carmel.13 On April 23, the Haganah captured Haifa. A British police report from Haifa, dated April 26, explained that "every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe."14 In fact,  David Ben-Gurion had sent  Golda Meir to Haifa to try to persuade the Arabs to stay, but she was unable to convince them because of their fear of being judged traitors to the Arab cause.15 By the end of the battle, more than 50,000 Palestinians had left.​

*“Tens of thousands of Arab men, women and children fled toward the eastern outskirts of the city in cars, trucks, carts, and afoot in a desperate attempt to reach Arab territory until the Jews captured Rushmiya Bridge toward Samaria and Northern Palestine and cut them off. Thousands rushed every available craft, even rowboats, along the waterfront, to escape by sea toward Acre.”*​*? New York Times, (April 23, 1948)*​
In Tiberias and Haifa, the Haganah issued orders that none of the Arabs' possessions should be touched, and warned that anyone who violated the orders would be severely punished. Despite these efforts, all but about 5,000 or 6,000 Arabs evacuated Haifa, many leaving with the assistance of British military transports.

Syria's UN delegate, Faris el-Khouri, interrupted the UN debate on Palestine to describe the seizure of Haifa as a "massacre" and said this action was "further evidence that the 'Zionist program' is to annihilate Arabs within the Jewish state if partition is effected."16

The following day, however, the British representative at the UN, Sir Alexander Cadogan, told the delegates that the fighting in Haifa had been provoked by the continuous attacks by Arabs against Jews a few days before and that reports of massacres and deportations were erroneous.17

The same day (April 23, 1948), Jamal Husseini, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah's truce offer, the Arabs "preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town."18

The U.S. Consul-General in Haifa, Aubrey Lippincott, wrote on April 22, 1948, for example, that "local mufti-dominated Arab leaders" were urging "all Arabs to leave the city, and large numbers did so."19

An army order issued July 6, 1948, made clear that Arab towns and villages were not to be demolished or burned, and that Arab inhabitants were not to be expelled from their homes.20

The Haganah did employ psychological warfare to encourage the Arabs to abandon a few villages. Yigal Allon, the commander of the _Palmach_ (the "shock force of the Haganah"), said he had Jews talk to the Arabs in neighboring villages and tell them a large Jewish force was in Galilee with the intention of burning all the Arab villages in the Lake Hula region. The Arabs were told to leave while they still had time and, according to Allon, they did exactly that.21

In the most dramatic example, in the Ramle-Lod area, Israeli troops seeking to protect their flanks and relieve the pressure on besieged Jerusalem, forced a portion of the Arab population to go to an area a few miles away that was occupied by the Arab Legion. "The two towns had served as bases for Arab irregular units, which had frequently attacked Jewish convoys and nearby settlements, effectively barring the main road to Jerusalem to Jewish traffic."22

As was clear from the descriptions of what took place in the cities with the largest Arab populations, these cases were clearly the exceptions, accounting for only a small fraction of the Palestinian refugees.






__





						Myths & Facts - The Refugees
					

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.




					www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> _"The Jews created the refugee problem by expelling the Palestinians."_
> 
> *FACT*
> 
> Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs.
> 
> The beginning of the Arab exodus can be traced to the weeks immediately following the announcement of the UN partition resolution. The first to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arabs who anticipated the upcoming war and fled to neighboring Arab countries to await its end. Less affluent Arabs from the mixed cities of Palestine moved to all-Arab towns to stay with relatives or friends.6  By the end of January1948, the exodus was so alarming the Palestine Arab Higher Committee asked neighboring Arab countries to refuse visas to these refugees and to seal their borders against them.7
> 
> On January 30, 1948, the Jaffa newspaper, _Ash Sha'ab_, reported: "The first of our fifth-column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere....At the first signs of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle."8
> 
> Another Jaffa paper, _As Sarih_ (March 30, 1948) excoriated Arab villagers near Tel Aviv for "bringing down disgrace on us all by 'abandoning the villages.'"9
> 
> Meanwhile, a leader of the Arab National Committee in Haifa, Hajj Nimer el-Khatib, said Arab soldiers in Jaffa were mistreating the residents. "They robbed individuals and homes. Life was of little value, and the honor of women was defiled. This state of affairs led many [Arab] residents to leave the city under the protection of British tanks."10
> 
> John Bagot Glubb, the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, said: "Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war."11
> 
> Contemporary press reports of major battles in which large numbers of Arabs fled conspicuously fail to mention any forcible expulsion by the Jewish forces. The Arabs are usually described as "fleeing" or "evacuating" their homes. While Zionists are accused of "expelling and dispossessing" the Arab inhabitants of such towns as Tiberias and Haifa, the truth is much different. Both of those cities were within the boundaries of the Jewish State under the UN partition scheme and both were fought for by Jews and Arabs alike.
> 
> Jewish forces seized Tiberias on April 19, 1948, and the entire Arab population of 6,000 was evacuated under British military supervision. The Jewish Community Council issued a statement afterward: "We did not dispossess them; they themselves chose this course....Let no citizen touch their property."12
> 
> In early April, an estimated 25,000 Arabs left the  Haifa area following an offensive by the irregular forces led by Fawzi al-Qawukji, and rumors that Arab air forces would soon bomb the Jewish areas around Mt. Carmel.13 On April 23, the Haganah captured Haifa. A British police report from Haifa, dated April 26, explained that "every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe."14 In fact,  David Ben-Gurion had sent  Golda Meir to Haifa to try to persuade the Arabs to stay, but she was unable to convince them because of their fear of being judged traitors to the Arab cause.15 By the end of the battle, more than 50,000 Palestinians had left.​
> 
> *“Tens of thousands of Arab men, women and children fled toward the eastern outskirts of the city in cars, trucks, carts, and afoot in a desperate attempt to reach Arab territory until the Jews captured Rushmiya Bridge toward Samaria and Northern Palestine and cut them off. Thousands rushed every available craft, even rowboats, along the waterfront, to escape by sea toward Acre.”*​*? New York Times, (April 23, 1948)*​
> In Tiberias and Haifa, the Haganah issued orders that none of the Arabs' possessions should be touched, and warned that anyone who violated the orders would be severely punished. Despite these efforts, all but about 5,000 or 6,000 Arabs evacuated Haifa, many leaving with the assistance of British military transports.
> 
> Syria's UN delegate, Faris el-Khouri, interrupted the UN debate on Palestine to describe the seizure of Haifa as a "massacre" and said this action was "further evidence that the 'Zionist program' is to annihilate Arabs within the Jewish state if partition is effected."16
> 
> The following day, however, the British representative at the UN, Sir Alexander Cadogan, told the delegates that the fighting in Haifa had been provoked by the continuous attacks by Arabs against Jews a few days before and that reports of massacres and deportations were erroneous.17
> 
> The same day (April 23, 1948), Jamal Husseini, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah's truce offer, the Arabs "preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town."18
> 
> The U.S. Consul-General in Haifa, Aubrey Lippincott, wrote on April 22, 1948, for example, that "local mufti-dominated Arab leaders" were urging "all Arabs to leave the city, and large numbers did so."19
> 
> An army order issued July 6, 1948, made clear that Arab towns and villages were not to be demolished or burned, and that Arab inhabitants were not to be expelled from their homes.20
> 
> The Haganah did employ psychological warfare to encourage the Arabs to abandon a few villages. Yigal Allon, the commander of the _Palmach_ (the "shock force of the Haganah"), said he had Jews talk to the Arabs in neighboring villages and tell them a large Jewish force was in Galilee with the intention of burning all the Arab villages in the Lake Hula region. The Arabs were told to leave while they still had time and, according to Allon, they did exactly that.21
> 
> In the most dramatic example, in the Ramle-Lod area, Israeli troops seeking to protect their flanks and relieve the pressure on besieged Jerusalem, forced a portion of the Arab population to go to an area a few miles away that was occupied by the Arab Legion. "The two towns had served as bases for Arab irregular units, which had frequently attacked Jewish convoys and nearby settlements, effectively barring the main road to Jerusalem to Jewish traffic."22
> 
> As was clear from the descriptions of what took place in the cities with the largest Arab populations, these cases were clearly the exceptions, accounting for only a small fraction of the Palestinian refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myths & Facts - The Refugees
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org


The right of return makes no distinction as to why people left. That is irrelevant.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> The right of return makes no distinction as to why people left. That is irrelevant.


The Arab Palestinians  have NO right of return.  None.  Zero.
They forfeited that right when they attempted to kill all the Jews in Palestine/Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> The Arab Palestinians  have NO right of return.  None.  Zero.
> They forfeited that right when they attempted to kill all the Jews in Palestine/Israel.


Israeli bullshit. of course.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Israeli bullshit. of course.


The truth you are incapable of accepting.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> The Arab Palestinians  have NO right of return.  None.  Zero.
> They forfeited that right when they attempted to kill all the Jews in Palestine/Israel.


The vast majority of Palestinians were unarmed civilians. Why are they not allowed to return?


----------



## Sixties Fan

[ Boycotting Jews, always and forever ]






(full article online)









						100 years of the antisemitic boycott movement
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## surada

Sixties Fan said:


> Columbia University’s Rashid Khalidi Is Secure in His Anti-Semitism
> 
> Khalid.....A man who says that the British and other powers were colonial powers.
> 
> But......wait......what were the Ottoman Turks ?  Indigenous people of the land?  For 800 years ?
> 
> By all means, deny the indigenous state of the Jewish people and their right to live and reconstitute their Nation ON their ancient homeland.
> 
> But the Turks were ok, and it does not matter that the Arabs never cried wolf against that power for all the centuries they were there, taking over from the Crusaders what the Arabs had taken from the Byzantine in the 7th Century.
> 
> Yes, to some people who can give speeches and make money off of it, their Arab fellows are "victims" of the indigenous people of the land, but were never victims of the powerful Ottoman Empire.
> 
> Ottomans =  Muslims.  So it is ok to have them as Muslim masters.
> 
> Israel = Jews .  It is never ok to have Jews be sovereign over Muslims, and especially Arabs.
> 
> THAT is the history of the endless attacks on Jews by rioting Arabs from 1920 until 1948.  Why all the Arab Muslim Countries attacked Israel after it declared Independence.  Why they attacked Israel two more times to destroy it.  Why there continues the endless war of Muslims against Jews on their right to recreate their Nation, be free and safe in it.
> 
> Jews, masters of their own destiny?
> No, it is not allowed in the ideology fabricated by Islam.
> 
> So, is Khalid telling the truth?   Did the Arabs, before 1964, ever call themselves Palestinians, or cared to be called Palestinians?
> Is there an "Ancient Palestine" ?
> 
> Why does Khalid distort everything, from the Balfour Declaration to today's on going war on the Jews, as if the Arabs ever had a longer standing history on the land?
> 
> Why does he turn Zionism into something ugly, instead of simply what it was?   A natural consequence to endless Muslim and Christian attacks on Jews and endless non acceptance of Jews as beings as humans as those in those two religions ?
> 
> It does take knowledge of the issues to understand the history of the area for the past 100 years.
> 
> Khalid is gambling on the audience's ignorance of what he says, telling some semi truths, distorting all the rest.
> 
> Oh, the poor, poor Palestinians, who had their "homeland" stolen by total strangers, totally devoid of any history on that land, because it has always been what? .......Palestinian Land.
> Regardless of all of the historical and archeological evidence to the contrary and that the Jews are not from Europe, and therefore not colonizers as he attempts to make them........his speech does sell very well to those who know absolutely nothing about it.
> Or could not care less.
> 
> Muslims are very good at stealing.  Arabs have been very good at stealing land since they got out of Arabia in the 7th Century, although the Kurds were the first to invade and take the land from the Byzantine Empire.
> 
> But, never mind what history really is.  What matters is keeping any land conquered by any Muslim, in the hands of ANY Muslims.



From the Palestine Papers, Avalon project, Yale law school.





__





						The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
					





					avalon.law.yale.edu


----------



## surada

Sixties Fan said:


> The Arab Palestinians  have NO right of return.  None.  Zero.
> They forfeited that right when they attempted to kill all the Jews in Palestine/Israel.



They were just unarmed families fleeing a warzone. The Zionists destroyed over 300 Arab villages.





__





						The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
					





					avalon.law.yale.edu


----------



## surada

Sixties Fan said:


> _"The Jews created the refugee problem by expelling the Palestinians."_
> 
> *FACT*
> 
> Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Arabs.
> 
> The beginning of the Arab exodus can be traced to the weeks immediately following the announcement of the UN partition resolution. The first to leave were roughly 30,000 wealthy Arabs who anticipated the upcoming war and fled to neighboring Arab countries to await its end. Less affluent Arabs from the mixed cities of Palestine moved to all-Arab towns to stay with relatives or friends.6  By the end of January1948, the exodus was so alarming the Palestine Arab Higher Committee asked neighboring Arab countries to refuse visas to these refugees and to seal their borders against them.7
> 
> On January 30, 1948, the Jaffa newspaper, _Ash Sha'ab_, reported: "The first of our fifth-column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere....At the first signs of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle."8
> 
> Another Jaffa paper, _As Sarih_ (March 30, 1948) excoriated Arab villagers near Tel Aviv for "bringing down disgrace on us all by 'abandoning the villages.'"9
> 
> Meanwhile, a leader of the Arab National Committee in Haifa, Hajj Nimer el-Khatib, said Arab soldiers in Jaffa were mistreating the residents. "They robbed individuals and homes. Life was of little value, and the honor of women was defiled. This state of affairs led many [Arab] residents to leave the city under the protection of British tanks."10
> 
> John Bagot Glubb, the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, said: "Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war."11
> 
> Contemporary press reports of major battles in which large numbers of Arabs fled conspicuously fail to mention any forcible expulsion by the Jewish forces. The Arabs are usually described as "fleeing" or "evacuating" their homes. While Zionists are accused of "expelling and dispossessing" the Arab inhabitants of such towns as Tiberias and Haifa, the truth is much different. Both of those cities were within the boundaries of the Jewish State under the UN partition scheme and both were fought for by Jews and Arabs alike.
> 
> Jewish forces seized Tiberias on April 19, 1948, and the entire Arab population of 6,000 was evacuated under British military supervision. The Jewish Community Council issued a statement afterward: "We did not dispossess them; they themselves chose this course....Let no citizen touch their property."12
> 
> In early April, an estimated 25,000 Arabs left the  Haifa area following an offensive by the irregular forces led by Fawzi al-Qawukji, and rumors that Arab air forces would soon bomb the Jewish areas around Mt. Carmel.13 On April 23, the Haganah captured Haifa. A British police report from Haifa, dated April 26, explained that "every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe."14 In fact,  David Ben-Gurion had sent  Golda Meir to Haifa to try to persuade the Arabs to stay, but she was unable to convince them because of their fear of being judged traitors to the Arab cause.15 By the end of the battle, more than 50,000 Palestinians had left.​
> 
> *“Tens of thousands of Arab men, women and children fled toward the eastern outskirts of the city in cars, trucks, carts, and afoot in a desperate attempt to reach Arab territory until the Jews captured Rushmiya Bridge toward Samaria and Northern Palestine and cut them off. Thousands rushed every available craft, even rowboats, along the waterfront, to escape by sea toward Acre.”*​*? New York Times, (April 23, 1948)*​
> In Tiberias and Haifa, the Haganah issued orders that none of the Arabs' possessions should be touched, and warned that anyone who violated the orders would be severely punished. Despite these efforts, all but about 5,000 or 6,000 Arabs evacuated Haifa, many leaving with the assistance of British military transports.
> 
> Syria's UN delegate, Faris el-Khouri, interrupted the UN debate on Palestine to describe the seizure of Haifa as a "massacre" and said this action was "further evidence that the 'Zionist program' is to annihilate Arabs within the Jewish state if partition is effected."16
> 
> The following day, however, the British representative at the UN, Sir Alexander Cadogan, told the delegates that the fighting in Haifa had been provoked by the continuous attacks by Arabs against Jews a few days before and that reports of massacres and deportations were erroneous.17
> 
> The same day (April 23, 1948), Jamal Husseini, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah's truce offer, the Arabs "preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town."18
> 
> The U.S. Consul-General in Haifa, Aubrey Lippincott, wrote on April 22, 1948, for example, that "local mufti-dominated Arab leaders" were urging "all Arabs to leave the city, and large numbers did so."19
> 
> An army order issued July 6, 1948, made clear that Arab towns and villages were not to be demolished or burned, and that Arab inhabitants were not to be expelled from their homes.20
> 
> The Haganah did employ psychological warfare to encourage the Arabs to abandon a few villages. Yigal Allon, the commander of the _Palmach_ (the "shock force of the Haganah"), said he had Jews talk to the Arabs in neighboring villages and tell them a large Jewish force was in Galilee with the intention of burning all the Arab villages in the Lake Hula region. The Arabs were told to leave while they still had time and, according to Allon, they did exactly that.21
> 
> In the most dramatic example, in the Ramle-Lod area, Israeli troops seeking to protect their flanks and relieve the pressure on besieged Jerusalem, forced a portion of the Arab population to go to an area a few miles away that was occupied by the Arab Legion. "The two towns had served as bases for Arab irregular units, which had frequently attacked Jewish convoys and nearby settlements, effectively barring the main road to Jerusalem to Jewish traffic."22
> 
> As was clear from the descriptions of what took place in the cities with the largest Arab populations, these cases were clearly the exceptions, accounting for only a small fraction of the Palestinian refugees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myths & Facts - The Refugees
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org




The Zionists firebomb the refinery in Haifa in December 1947. There had been no previous conflict there.





__





						The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
					





					avalon.law.yale.edu


----------



## Sixties Fan

surada said:


> From the Palestine Papers, Avalon project, Yale law school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu


*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 

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

Surada, is there something in the Avalon Papers you wanted to make clear?

What was it?


----------



## Sixties Fan

surada said:


> They were just unarmed families fleeing a warzone. The Zionists destroyed over 300 Arab villages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu


Where is the evidence that the Arabs were all unarmed and that Jews destroyed 300 Arab villages for no reason, if they did.

The answer is not in the Avalon Papers.


----------



## surada

Sixties Fan said:


> *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
> 
> -------------
> 
> Surada, is there something in the Avalon Papers you wanted to make clear?
> 
> What was it?



The mandate makes it clear that other people lived in Palestine and their rights were to be respected.  Nazism was German nationalism. Do you defend that garbage?


----------



## surada

Sixties Fan said:


> Where is the evidence that the Arabs were all unarmed and that Jews destroyed 300 Arab villages for no reason, if they did.
> 
> The answer is not in the Avalon Papers.



The Zionists looted and leveled Arab villages.


----------



## Sixties Fan

surada said:


> The Zionists firebomb the refinery in Haifa in December 1947. There had been no previous conflict there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu


How is the answer or information about December 1947 in the Avalon Papers?


----------



## Sixties Fan

surada said:


> The Zionists looted and leveled Arab villages.


Give me links


----------



## Sixties Fan

surada said:


> The mandate makes it clear that other people lived in Palestine and their rights were to be respected.  Nazism was German nationalism. Do you defend that garbage?


Surada is equating Zionism with Nazism.


----------



## surada

Sixties Fan said:


> Surada is equating Zionism with Nazism.



Both are rabid nationalism. Nazism is as ugly as Zionism.

There are a hundred sources on Arab villages destroyed by the Zionists.









						Destruction of Palestinian villages is not a matter of perspective
					

An NGO has issued a second edition of its successful Nakba map, showing 601 Palestinian villages and 194 Syrian villages destroyed in 1948 and 1967, respectively, as well as destroyed Jewish communities.




					www.haaretz.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

surada said:


> Both are rabid nationalism. Nazism is as ugly as Zionism.
> 
> There are a hundred sources on Arab villages destroyed by the Zionists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destruction of Palestinian villages is not a matter of perspective
> 
> 
> An NGO has issued a second edition of its successful Nakba map, showing 601 Palestinian villages and 194 Syrian villages destroyed in 1948 and 1967, respectively, as well as destroyed Jewish communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.haaretz.com


You are literally telling us that Jews are Nazis.  That Zionism is Nazism.

Arab nationalism in the region of Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jewish People, is right and pure.

Rioting against Jews in 1920 is right and pure.
Rioting and killing Jews in 1929 and having them expelled from Hebron is right and pure.
Attacking Jews all over the Mandate is right and pure.
Attacking Jews in TransJordan and ethnically cleansing them from that area, is right and pure.

Rejecting any form of Jewish sovereign country on their Jewish ancient homeland is right and pure.

Rejecting the Jewish right to defend themselves against incitements, attacks and murders of their people is right and pure.

During centuries of Christian and Muslim oppression the Jews were not allowed to protect themselves.

When they were put in Ghettos in Europe, they were not allowed to protect themselves.

During the Inquisition, they were not allowed to protect themselves.

During forced conversions, they were not allowed to protect themselves.

During endless, now and then, attacks on their villages, on their people and on their lives, in Europe and in North Africa and Asia, they were not allowed to protect and defend themselves.

Therefore it is natural for one to think, that when the Jewish People finally decide to rebuild their Nation on their ancient homeland, that not only they are seen as not having such a right, but no right to protect their properties and their lives and do what is needed to survive.


Everyone please imagine the Jews taking arms against their Christian or Muslim hosts because they did not like the Ghettos, or the forced conversions, or anything else meant to demean them and make them less humans.



Jews are not ALLOWED to defend and protect themselves ANYWHERE in the world.  For any reason.


The Jews had enough of not being able to defend and protect themselves and legally won the right to rebuild their Nation on their Ancient homeland.


And of course, Christians and Muslims could not accept it.  It went against 1700 years of denying the Jews their human rights.


The Jews fought for their nation.  In the end they won, because they survived.

And by surviving they continue to thrive.


Accuse the Jews of everything and anything under the sun and the moon and the stars.


It is not on the Jews, it is on those who continue to decide to put them in a place where they are not humans, they have no rights, and definitely not the right to not be attacked and maimed and killed by those who have learned to see them only as inhuman.


----------



## surada

Sixties Fan said:


> You are literally telling us that Jews are Nazis.  That Zionism is Nazism.
> 
> Arab nationalism in the region of Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jewish People, is right and pure.
> 
> Rioting against Jews in 1920 is right and pure.
> Rioting and killing Jews in 1929 and having them expelled from Hebron is right and pure.
> Attacking Jews all over the Mandate is right and pure.
> Attacking Jews in TransJordan and ethnically cleansing them from that area, is right and pure.
> 
> Rejecting any form of Jewish sovereign country on their Jewish ancient homeland is right and pure.
> 
> Rejecting the Jewish right to defend themselves against incitements, attacks and murders of their people is right and pure.
> 
> During centuries of Christian and Muslim oppression the Jews were not allowed to protect themselves.
> 
> When they were put in Ghettos in Europe, they were not allowed to protect themselves.
> 
> During the Inquisition, they were not allowed to protect themselves.
> 
> During forced conversions, they were not allowed to protect themselves.
> 
> During endless, now and then, attacks on their villages, on their people and on their lives, in Europe and in North Africa and Asia, they were not allowed to protect and defend themselves.
> 
> Therefore it is natural for one to think, that when the Jewish People finally decide to rebuild their Nation on their ancient homeland, that not only they are seen as not having such a right, but no right to protect their properties and their lives and do what is needed to survive.
> 
> 
> Everyone please imagine the Jews taking arms against their Christian or Muslim hosts because they did not like the Ghettos, or the forced conversions, or anything else meant to demean them and make them less humans.
> 
> 
> 
> Jews are not ALLOWED to defend and protect themselves ANYWHERE in the world.  For any reason.
> 
> 
> The Jews had enough of not being able to defend and protect themselves and legally won the right to rebuild their Nation on their Ancient homeland.
> 
> 
> And of course, Christians and Muslims could not accept it.  It went against 1700 years of denying the Jews their human rights.
> 
> 
> The Jews fought for their nation.  In the end they won, because they survived.
> 
> And by surviving they continue to thrive.
> 
> 
> Accuse the Jews of everything and anything under the sun and the moon and the stars.
> 
> 
> It is not on the Jews, it is on those who continue to decide to put them in a place where they are not humans, they have no rights, and definitely not the right to not be attacked and maimed and killed by those who have learned to see them only as inhuman.



Nope. Use your brain and your morality. Nationalism is racist and brutal.


----------



## Sixties Fan

surada said:


> Nope. Use your brain and your morality. Nationalism is racist and brutal.


Jewish nationalism over their own ancient homeland is racist and brutal and wrong.

Palestinian nationalism, simply because Muslims have lived on the land for centuries after they invaded it,  is self defense from the Jews .  It is normal, it is Noble.  It is right.
Whatever ways and means they take, the Palestinian nationalism is a decent defense against non Muslims who wish to be sovereign over Muslim conquered lands.

But truly, is it Palestinian nationalism or Arab nationalism?

-------------
*Arab nationalism* (Arabic: القومية العربية, romanized: _al-Qawmīya al-ʿArabīya_) is a nationalist ideology that asserts the Arabs are a nation and promotes the unity of Arab people, celebrating the glories of Arab civilization, the languageand literature of the Arabs, and calling for rejuvenation and political union in the Arab world.[1] Its central premise is that the people of the Arab world, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean, constitute one nation bound together by common ethnicity, language, culture, history, identity, geography and politics.[2][3] One of the primary goals of Arab nationalism is the end of Western influence in the Arab world, seen as a "nemesis" of Arab strength, and the removal of those Arab governments considered to be dependent upon Western power. It rose to prominence with the weakening and defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century and declined after the defeat of the Arab armies in the Six-Day War.[1][2]

Personalities and groups associated with Arab nationalism include King Faisal I of Iraq, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Arab Nationalist Movement, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party which came to power in Iraq for some years and is still the ruling party in Syria, and its founder Michel Aflaq. Pan-Arabism is a related concept, in as much as it calls for supranational communalism among the Arab states.[_citation needed_]


-------------
When speaking about the Middle East, it is common to hear about the “need” and “desire” for Palestinian statehood. But exactly what kind of state do the Palestinians want and what are the roots of Palestinian nationalism?

Historically, the Palestinian “desire for statehood” and “need for liberation” was invented in large part by the Soviet Union. It is no coincidence that the blueprint for the PLO Charter was drafted in Moscow in 1964 and was approved by 422 Palestinian representative hand selected by the KGB. At that time, the USSR was in the business of creating people’s liberation fronts. The KGB founded the PLO as well as the National Liberation Army of Bolivia (1964) with Ernesto “Che” Guevara at its head and the National Liberation Army of Colombia (1965).

These “liberation fronts” were seen by the USSR as centers of Marxist indoctrination and opposition to democratic and capitalist movements. In the Middle East, the only foothold of the democratic west is Israel; nurturing the PLO to undermine Israel was therefore quite natural for the Soviets, who not only helped fund and establish the PLO but also trained and supplied its terrorist operations.

*To understand the PLO’s conception of a Palestinian state, it is instructive to examine Article 24 of the original PLO Charter. It reads: “this Organization [the PLO] does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip or the Himmah area.” If not the West Bank and Gaza, then what exactly what did, the PLO claim? The Palestine that the PLO wanted was in fact the State of Israel.*

Consider that it was not until 1968 that Article 24 was amended to include a claim on the West Bank and Gaza. At the time of the original drafting, Jordan and Egypt controlled the West Bank and Gaza after unilaterally and illegally annexing them following the War of Israeli Independence in 1948. It was only after Israel had gained these territories in the War of 1967 that the Palestinian Arabs declared an interest in controlling them.

The evidence that simple autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza was never the PLO’s true goal is everywhere. In 1970, US Secretary of State William Rogers suggested that the West Bank and Gaza be given up by Israel in return for peace and recognition. This plan was accepted by Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Only Yasser Arafat, leader of the PLO, rejected it, opting instead to attempt an overthrow of Jordan’s King Hussein.

The evidence runs deeper. Yassir Arafat, who was head of the PLO until 2004, was under the direct tutelage and control of the KGB. Ion Mihai Pacepa, KGB officer and onetime chief of Romanian Intelligence, was assigned to handling Arafat. Pacepa recorded several of his conversations with Arafat when they met in Romania at the palace of brutal dictators Nicolai and Elena Ceausescu. In these conversations, Arafat unequivocally states that his sole aim is to destroy Israel.

(full article online)






						The Deception of Palestinian Nationalism
					

When speaking about the Middle East, it is common to hear about the “need” and “desire” for Palestinian statehood. But exactly what kind of state do the Palestinians want and what are the roots of Palestinian nationalism?  Historically, the Palestinian “desire for statehood” and “need for...




					stanfordreview.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

surada said:


> They were just unarmed families fleeing a warzone. The Zionists destroyed over 300 Arab villages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avalon.law.yale.edu



Outrageous!!

Only muslims are allowed to destroy villages.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

surada said:


> The mandate makes it clear that other people lived in Palestine and their rights were to be respected.



And then the muslims fucked it up.

Don't they feel stupid?


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

The Jews of the Middle East: Zionists Before Zionism | National Review
					

The Sephardim whose forebears were driven from Middle Eastern countries make a unique contribution to Israel’s culture and character.




					www.nationalreview.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The writers are gleeful that they ethnically cleansed Jews from Transjordan, and they regard this as an honorable story to tell today.

I cannot find English-language  documentation of any of these Jewish settlements in Transjordan in the 19th century. But the story is not altogether implausible. Zionists did buy land across the Jordan, in the Golan Heights. See my previous articles about that here and here. 

Moreover, I found an Arabic book about about a dozen plans for Jews to include parts of Transjordan in the Jewish homeland, from the mid-19th century up until the 1940s. Dr. Issam Muhammad Al-Saadi wrote "Zionist Aspirations in Transjordan, 1862 - 1946." It includes all of these attempts (autotranslated so the names might be misspelled):


■ February 1867 AD, Charles Warren publishes his study, which called for the necessity of beginning Jewish settlement in the region of "Gilead" in eastern Jordan

■ January 1871 AD, Yehoshua Yellin establishes a company to invest and reclaim the lands of the "Nimrin Valley" northeast of the Dead Sea in preparation for the Jewish settlement operations in eastern Jordan

■ April 1879 CE, Lawrence Oliphant after his trip to the Golan and Ajloun lays out the "Gilead Settlement Plan" that called for the establishment of a Jewish political entity in Transjordan

■ June 8, 1880 AD, Ottoman historical document, Sublime Porte rejected Lawrence Oliphant's proposal to establish a Jewish settlement with some privileges in Gilead "Sanjak of Ajloun, Transjordan"

■ July 27, 1888 AD, Eliyahu Shed was able to purchase land as part of Baron Rothschild's plan for the settlement of Jews in northeastern Jordan.

■ January 1891, Paul Friedman put forward the "Midian Project" for Jewish settlement in Midyan / the western region of the Arabian Peninsula

■ May 1891 AD, Lord Ghosh presented to the Ottoman government his project for the settlement of Jews in the regions of Gilead and Moab in eastern Jordan

■ October 7, 1894 AD, Zionist settlement attempts in Karak, Transjordan in 1896, and the letter of the Mutasarrif of Karak to the Mutasarrif of Jerusalem

■ June 1896 AD, the expulsion of Jewish settlers and the destruction of their property in Jerash and Hauran, east of Jordan

■ March 22, 1901 AD, Hillel Yefeh's plan and a meeting with the representative of the Zionist movement "Aes Nattoot" to purchase large lands in Karak, Transjordan, for Jewish settlement

■ March 8, 1903, Aharon Blum signs a lease contract for Zizia lands south of Umm al-Amad for the settlement of Jews in eastern Jordan

■ November 24, 1904 AD, a delegation from the Zionist movement headed by Yitzhak Levy visits Transjordan to learn about the "Lepontine" project for Jewish settlement in southern Jordan

■ On April 29, 1905 AD, Aharon Blum signed a contract to purchase land in Hamra in the Salt region for the settlement of Jews in eastern Jordan.

■ On September 20, 1906 AD, Aharon Blum signed a contract to purchase land in Tanib, in the Madaba region, for the settlement of Jews in eastern Jordan.

■ October 1910 AD, Najib al-Asfar's project for Jewish settlement in the Ottoman princely lands in the Jordan Valley

■ On February 15, 1917 AD, the Zionist movement announced through the "Palestine of Palestine" the borders of the national home it aspired to.

■ On June 28, 1919, the Zionist movement announced its strong protest against the separation of Transjordan from Palestine and expressed the importance of Transjordan for the future of the Jewish state in Palestine
■ July 13, 1928 AD, Pinhas Rotenberg presented to the British commissioner Henry Cox his plan for the Jewish settlement in the lands of Al-Baqura east of Jordan

■ January 18, 1931 AD, The New York Times publishes a land lease agreement in Ghor Kebd.

■ March 8, 1936 AD, Pinhas Rothenberg presented his plan for the Jewish settlement in Wadi Zarqa, east of Jordan

■ August 15, 1936 AD, a meeting was held in Ghor al-Safi for members of a Jewish group to discuss the plan for the Jewish settlement in the al-Safi Valley in eastern Jordan




Outside of Pinhas Rutenberg, I have never heard of any of these plans. But I found Aharon Yitzchak Blum did indeed attempt to buy lands across the Jordan and even founded an organization called "חברת חלוצי עבר הירדן", Association of Pioneers of the Transjordan. 

This may be a very neglected chapter of Zionist history. I found this paperin Hebrew about Blum that begins with confirmation that there were many Jewish attempts to settle across the Jordan as well as the resistance of the local tribes.




> In the second half of the nineteenth century and in the first half of the present century, until close to the establishment of the state, organizations, institutions, individuals and sometimes even private entrepreneurs made attempts to acquire land for settlement across the Jordan. ...There was no hesitation about moving across the Jordan; It was, like the West Bank, part of the Ottoman Empire and was perceived in the minds of the many as an integral part of the land, the land of the patriarchs, *emphasizing the acuteness of the security problem there, due to the Bedouin ruling the land*. The idea of settlement there was intertwined with political ideas, both during the Ottoman rule - to establish Jewish autonomy - and of a desire - especially during the rule of the French and British Mandates - to secure the full territory of the country.




There may be lands in Jordan that were purchased by Jews who were ethnically cleansed by the Arab tribes!

(full article online)









						Did Jews buy land in Transjordan as early as the 1870s?
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## rylah

surada said:


> Nope. Use your brain and your morality. Nationalism is racist and brutal.



Let's use your morality - if nationalism is racist and brutal,

why support Arab nationalism?

Explain the contradiction.


----------



## Sixties Fan

*Who Dispossessed the Palestinian Peasant?*

The Palestinian peasant was indeed being dispossessed, but by his fellow-Arabs: the local sheikh and village elders, the Government tax-collector, the merchants and money-lenders; and, when he was a tenant-farmer (as was usually the case), by the absentee-owner. By the time the season’s crop had been distributed among all these, little if anything remained for him and his family, and new debts generally had to be incurred to pay off the old. Then the Bedouin came along and took their “cut”, or drove the hapless fellah off the land altogether.

This was the “normal” course of events in 19th-century Palestine. It was disrupted by the advent of the Jewish pioneering enterprise, which sounded the death-knell of this medieval feudal system. In this way the Jews played an objective revolutionary role. Small wonder that it aroused the ire and active opposition of the Arab sheikhs, absentee landowners, money-lenders and Bedouin bandits.

--------------
When considering Jewish land purchases and settlements, four factors should be borne in mind:


_Most of the land purchases involved large tracts belonging to absentee owners. (Virtually all of the Jezreel Valley, for example, belonged in 1897 to only two persons: the eastern portion to the Turkish Sultan, and the western part to the richest banker in Syria, Sursuk “the Greek.”)_
_Most of the land purchased had not been cultivated previously because it was swampy, rocky, sandy or, for some other reason, regarded as uncultivable. This is supported by the findings of the Peel Commission Report (p. 242): “The Arab charge that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased . . . there was at the time at least of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” (1937)_
_While, for this reason, the early transactions did not involve unduly large sums of money, the price of land began to rise as Arab landowners took advantage of the growing demand for rural tracts. The resulting infusion of capital into the Palestinian economy had noticeable beneficial effects on the standard of living of all the inhabitants._
_The Jewish pioneers introduced new farming methods which improved the soil and crop cultivation and were soon emulated by Arab farmers. _
The following figures show land purchases by the three leading Jewish land-buying organizations and by individual Jews between 1880 and 1935.

(vide online)

From the above table it will be seen that the proportion of the land purchased from large (usually absentee) owners ranged from about 50 to 90 per cent.

“The total area of land in Jewish possession at the end of June 1947,” writes A. Granott in _The Land System in Palestine _(Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1952, p. 278), “amounted to 1,850,000 dunams, of this 181,100 dunams had been obtained through concessions from the Palestinian Government, and about 120,000 dunams had been acquired from Churches, from foreign companies, from the Government otherwise than by concessions, and so forth. It was estimated that 1,000,000 dunams and more, or 57 per cent, had been acquired from large Arab landowners, and if to this we add the lands acquired from the Government, Churches, and foreign companies, the percentage will amount to seventy-three. From the fellaheen there had been purchased about 500,000 dunams, or 27 per cent, of the total acquired. The result of Jewish land acquisitions, at least to a considerable part, was that properties which had been in the hands of large and medium owners were converted into holding of small peasants.”


(full article online )







__





						Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880–1948 | survival
					






					lessons.myjli.com


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

In June 1936, a significant section of Jaffa was demolished due to the need for British security forces to combat growing Arab terror.

But there was a side concern: what to do with now homeless Arabs?

Here is an academic article on the matter.

And here is a parliamentary question from December:





> DEMOLITIONS, JAFFA (RE-HOUSING).
> HC Deb 16 December 1936 vol 318





> 22. Colonel WEDGWOOD asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has authorised the expenditure of £15,000 which has been assigned from Palestine revenues to build a village for the Jaffa Arabs evicted from that town; and whether anything similar is being done for the Jaffa Jews who were forced to leave Jaffa and live elsewhere?





> Mr. ORMSBY-GORE The Palestine Government has been authorised to expend £15,000 on the erection of houses, for which a suitable rent will be charged, to accommodate 100 Arab families rendered homeless by the special demolitions in Jaffa undertaken by Government in the circumstances explained in my reply to a question in the House on 24th June by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallaeher). I understand that in consultation with the appropriate Jewish bodies the Palestine Government has agreed to contribute about £5,000 towards the cost of maintenance and rehabilitation of Jewish refugees in Tel-Aviv from Jaffa and elsewhere.





> Colonel WEDGWOOD Seeing that the Jewish refugees from Jaffa outnumber the Arab refugees by about 20 to one, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Palestine Government that the rebuilding which they are doing for Arab refugees should be paralleled by rebuilding for the Jewish refugees?
> Mr. ORMSBY-GORE I do not think that I can accept the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's figures, nor can I accept his description of these particular Arabs as refugees. In the military interests, and in the interests of peace and order in Jaffa, it was decided to dynamite two lines through the town. The Royal Engineers blew up the houses, and I think the Palestine Government have the duty of rehousing these people elsewhere, as they are now doing.





> Colonel WEDGWOOD Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that the Jews who were driven out of Palestine owing to the danger of assassination have exactly the same case for rehousing, with Government assistance, as the Arabs?
> Mr. ORMSBY-GORE Then it would be the duty of the Government to re-house almost everybody who have been removed or have removed themselves during a period of disturbance and disorder which we all regret. I cannot commit the Government to that.





> Colonel WEDGWOOD I am sorry to be persistent, but is it possible now for the Jews to go back to Jaffa with safety, or is the protection still inadequate?
> Mr. ORMSBY-GORE I hope that when we know what the policy of the future is to be, when we have the report 2438of the Royal Commission and the whole Palestine question is cleared up, it may be possible for Jews and Arabs to live as they have up to this year in friendly accord in Jaffa.




Photos:























						Arab Rights and Jewish Rights: Jaffa 1936
					

In June 1936, a significant section of Jaffa was demolished due to the need for British security forces to combat growing Arab terror. But t...




					myrightword.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

Hebron: The Aftermath of the 1929 Massacre
					

The Jewish community of Hebron is the heir of the ancient legacy that connects the Jews to their holy city. They are returnees who came back in the aftermath of the expulsions of Hebron’s Jews to build the future.




					www.israelunwired.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

19th century Arab Palestine was a bunch of squabbling groups who hated each other
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

*Life Of Jews In Arab Lands *
By Gerold Frank 

JERUSALEM - The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, now deliberating at Geneva, may ponder the true situation of Jews in Arab states—their treatment, discrimination against them, the entire suffocating framework in which the average Jew finds himself. 

Arab spokesmen. seeking to prove the idyllic status of a Jewish minority in the independent Arab Palestine they demand, are always ready to point out the general lack of anti-Jewish laws on the books in the Arab States. *But there is a long step between statute and practice.* The fact is that the lives of Jews in all Arab states range from generally unenviable to intolerable; from Egypt where the situation of Jews, many of whom are wealthy, is comparatively the best, to Yemen. a backward country where the Jews are the lowest of the low. 

It must be remembered that religion in the Middle East is a much more divisive factor than ,in the West, Religion is the basis of social mores: communities are religious communities. Fear, suspicion and hate have deep roots. Add to this the fact that Jews in Arab lands are mainly in commercial pursuits, vulnerable economically and subject to envy if successful; add also the nationalistic propaganda and anti-Zionist movements, and one better understands the Jewish plight. 

Take the roll-call of countries. 
First, Iraq. Here is the largest Jewish population of any Arab state-130,000 Jews out of 4.000,000 inhabitants. Of the Jewish total, 100,000 live in Bagdad. There were frightful pogroms in Bagdad in June. 1941. The temper of the Iraqi was best expressed by Pedal Jamaili, minister of foreign affairs. who declared, according to the Iraqi Times of March 3, 1946. "The problem of i protecting the Jews of Iraq when disturbances occur in Palestine often is a cause of anxiety and restlessness in Iraq. No Iraq government can for long maintain peace and quiet unless justice is rendered the Arabs of Palestine." *This last sentence may not constitute official incitement, but it comes suspiciously close to it. *

Today, Iraq Jews are unable to  leave the country on the grounds that they might go to Palestine. When a Jew can leave—a medical student, for example—he must pay 2,000 dinars ($8.000) as warrant for his return and his passport is stamped "not valid for Palestine." In Iraq. anti-Jewish laws are kept off the records. but Iraq's raw materials are not currently permitted to be exported to Palestine; the government has begun a boycott of the Haifa port by insisting that exporters send their goods to Europe through Beirut. in the Lebanon. There is a campaign of vilification against Jewish merchants, charging they are trying to break the boycott, in league with Jewish colleagues in Palestine. 

In Iraq today there is no Jewish magistrate, and no Jews of any country. including the United States, are granted transit visas. 

Second. Syria. Here are 10,000 Jews-2.500 in Damascus, 7,500 in Aleppo. The Damascus Jews are in a sorry state. Half live on charity funds contributed by Jewish societies. Eighty percent of the Jews are peddlers. 15 percent are in the middle class and five percent, are '"wealthy." There are six Jewish physicians, but no Jewish industrialists, lawyers. architects or other professionals. Discrimination is practiced in many ways. *Thousands of Syrians flock to Palestine in times of emergency, but if one Jew is caught on the border, the entire press launches a campaign*. Today Syria makes it virtually impossible for Jews to go to Palestine. There are almost no Jewish officials in the Syrian government. Jewish newspapers are not permitted to enter Syria, and when the Syrian press has occasion to speak of Jews it is often derogatory. 

In June. 1946, a regulation was adopted, reading: "Any person who imports. sells. buys or smuggles or tries to smuggle Zionist goods into Syria is liable to life imprisonment or death." In recent elections based on the new constitution, Jews were accorded one parliamentary seat out of 137. At first they refused this, not wishing to have the responsibility. They turned out to be prophetic, for when Jewish Deputy Wahid Mizrachi was elected, he declared he would be faithful to his people and his fatherland. The newspaper Alif Ba of July 15, 1947, demanded, "What people and what fatherland?" 

Third, the Lebanon. Jews from Palestine are not freely allowed Into the Lebanon. Even when the United Nations committee went there, it took official protests to force the Lebanese government to grant visas to a handful of Palestinian Hebrew journalists. The Lebanon today has 6.000 Jews in a population of more than 1,000.000. with the Jews mainly concentrated in Beirut. There is outwardly less discrimination than in other Arab countries because of various population groups such as the Sunnites, Kurds, Armenians and indigenous Christians. The Maronite Patriarch Aridas is a friend of the Jews, Nevertheless. when Jewish students from the United States came to Palestine last year, they were not permitted to disembark at the port of Beirut although other passengers were. Today, large signs on the Palestine-Lebanese border warn against bringing in "Zionist" goods, which means any Jewish-made goods of any kind. 

Fourth, Egypt. There are 70.000 Jews in a population of 17.000,000. Their situation is economically good, but their future is uncertain because of the "Egyptization" of commerce and industry and intensified xenophobia. All accountings of cornpanies, for example, must be written in Arabic, which means that many Jews are replaced. Many Jewish companies are compelled to take Egyptian partners. 

Many Jews do not have Egyptian nationality. This correspondent has seen one Jew proudly unlock a safe and show a certificate of his Egyptian nationality, saying. "This is my most precious possession. very hard to obtain; it is my safeguard for the future." Without this certificate, Jews have no defence against the government. 

There are currently intense nationalistic anti-Jewish campaigns. Only three months ago the newspaper Al Saw. adi denounced Jews in terms reminiscent of Goebbels. 

Fifth. Yemen. Here is an incredible situation for 45 000 Jews in a population of 1,000,000. The treatment of Jews is so bad that even the Arabic paper Aid Ba of Damascus attacked it, pointing out on January 2. 1945, that Jews are not permitted to ride horses—only donkeys: that if a Jew  riding a donkey sees a Moslem ahead of him, he must dismount 30 paces away, wait until the Moslem passes, then mount the donkey again when the Moslem has gone another 30 paces; that a Jew must pass only to the right of a Moslem, and if he does otherwise the Moslem is entitled to force him to return and pass correctly.

Saudi Arabia and Transjordan need no discussion because they have no Jews and no Jews are permitted. 

The things cited here are examples only. but where such things are tolerated, where Jews are coninuously and relentlessly held up to ridicule, denounced as dangerous, called a menace to the community and segregated by word, deed and act-in such a framework the life of the average Jew is an endless ordeal of accumulating cruelty and helplessness. (Copyright 1947. Overseas News Agency) 










						75 years ago: A survey of Arab persecution of Jews
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> *Life Of Jews In Arab Lands *
> By Gerold Frank
> 
> JERUSALEM - The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, now deliberating at Geneva, may ponder the true situation of Jews in Arab states—their treatment, discrimination against them, the entire suffocating framework in which the average Jew finds himself.
> 
> Arab spokesmen. seeking to prove the idyllic status of a Jewish minority in the independent Arab Palestine they demand, are always ready to point out the general lack of anti-Jewish laws on the books in the Arab States. *But there is a long step between statute and practice.* The fact is that the lives of Jews in all Arab states range from generally unenviable to intolerable; from Egypt where the situation of Jews, many of whom are wealthy, is comparatively the best, to Yemen. a backward country where the Jews are the lowest of the low.
> 
> It must be remembered that religion in the Middle East is a much more divisive factor than ,in the West, Religion is the basis of social mores: communities are religious communities. Fear, suspicion and hate have deep roots. Add to this the fact that Jews in Arab lands are mainly in commercial pursuits, vulnerable economically and subject to envy if successful; add also the nationalistic propaganda and anti-Zionist movements, and one better understands the Jewish plight.
> 
> Take the roll-call of countries.
> First, Iraq. Here is the largest Jewish population of any Arab state-130,000 Jews out of 4.000,000 inhabitants. Of the Jewish total, 100,000 live in Bagdad. There were frightful pogroms in Bagdad in June. 1941. The temper of the Iraqi was best expressed by Pedal Jamaili, minister of foreign affairs. who declared, according to the Iraqi Times of March 3, 1946. "The problem of i protecting the Jews of Iraq when disturbances occur in Palestine often is a cause of anxiety and restlessness in Iraq. No Iraq government can for long maintain peace and quiet unless justice is rendered the Arabs of Palestine." *This last sentence may not constitute official incitement, but it comes suspiciously close to it. *
> 
> Today, Iraq Jews are unable to  leave the country on the grounds that they might go to Palestine. When a Jew can leave—a medical student, for example—he must pay 2,000 dinars ($8.000) as warrant for his return and his passport is stamped "not valid for Palestine." In Iraq. anti-Jewish laws are kept off the records. but Iraq's raw materials are not currently permitted to be exported to Palestine; the government has begun a boycott of the Haifa port by insisting that exporters send their goods to Europe through Beirut. in the Lebanon. There is a campaign of vilification against Jewish merchants, charging they are trying to break the boycott, in league with Jewish colleagues in Palestine.
> 
> In Iraq today there is no Jewish magistrate, and no Jews of any country. including the United States, are granted transit visas.
> 
> Second. Syria. Here are 10,000 Jews-2.500 in Damascus, 7,500 in Aleppo. The Damascus Jews are in a sorry state. Half live on charity funds contributed by Jewish societies. Eighty percent of the Jews are peddlers. 15 percent are in the middle class and five percent, are '"wealthy." There are six Jewish physicians, but no Jewish industrialists, lawyers. architects or other professionals. Discrimination is practiced in many ways. *Thousands of Syrians flock to Palestine in times of emergency, but if one Jew is caught on the border, the entire press launches a campaign*. Today Syria makes it virtually impossible for Jews to go to Palestine. There are almost no Jewish officials in the Syrian government. Jewish newspapers are not permitted to enter Syria, and when the Syrian press has occasion to speak of Jews it is often derogatory.
> 
> In June. 1946, a regulation was adopted, reading: "Any person who imports. sells. buys or smuggles or tries to smuggle Zionist goods into Syria is liable to life imprisonment or death." In recent elections based on the new constitution, Jews were accorded one parliamentary seat out of 137. At first they refused this, not wishing to have the responsibility. They turned out to be prophetic, for when Jewish Deputy Wahid Mizrachi was elected, he declared he would be faithful to his people and his fatherland. The newspaper Alif Ba of July 15, 1947, demanded, "What people and what fatherland?"
> 
> Third, the Lebanon. Jews from Palestine are not freely allowed Into the Lebanon. Even when the United Nations committee went there, it took official protests to force the Lebanese government to grant visas to a handful of Palestinian Hebrew journalists. The Lebanon today has 6.000 Jews in a population of more than 1,000.000. with the Jews mainly concentrated in Beirut. There is outwardly less discrimination than in other Arab countries because of various population groups such as the Sunnites, Kurds, Armenians and indigenous Christians. The Maronite Patriarch Aridas is a friend of the Jews, Nevertheless. when Jewish students from the United States came to Palestine last year, they were not permitted to disembark at the port of Beirut although other passengers were. Today, large signs on the Palestine-Lebanese border warn against bringing in "Zionist" goods, which means any Jewish-made goods of any kind.
> 
> Fourth, Egypt. There are 70.000 Jews in a population of 17.000,000. Their situation is economically good, but their future is uncertain because of the "Egyptization" of commerce and industry and intensified xenophobia. All accountings of cornpanies, for example, must be written in Arabic, which means that many Jews are replaced. Many Jewish companies are compelled to take Egyptian partners.
> 
> Many Jews do not have Egyptian nationality. This correspondent has seen one Jew proudly unlock a safe and show a certificate of his Egyptian nationality, saying. "This is my most precious possession. very hard to obtain; it is my safeguard for the future." Without this certificate, Jews have no defence against the government.
> 
> There are currently intense nationalistic anti-Jewish campaigns. Only three months ago the newspaper Al Saw. adi denounced Jews in terms reminiscent of Goebbels.
> 
> Fifth. Yemen. Here is an incredible situation for 45 000 Jews in a population of 1,000,000. The treatment of Jews is so bad that even the Arabic paper Aid Ba of Damascus attacked it, pointing out on January 2. 1945, that Jews are not permitted to ride horses—only donkeys: that if a Jew  riding a donkey sees a Moslem ahead of him, he must dismount 30 paces away, wait until the Moslem passes, then mount the donkey again when the Moslem has gone another 30 paces; that a Jew must pass only to the right of a Moslem, and if he does otherwise the Moslem is entitled to force him to return and pass correctly.
> 
> Saudi Arabia and Transjordan need no discussion because they have no Jews and no Jews are permitted.
> 
> The things cited here are examples only. but where such things are tolerated, where Jews are coninuously and relentlessly held up to ridicule, denounced as dangerous, called a menace to the community and segregated by word, deed and act-in such a framework the life of the average Jew is an endless ordeal of accumulating cruelty and helplessness. (Copyright 1947. Overseas News Agency)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 75 years ago: A survey of Arab persecution of Jews
> 
> 
> Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elderofziyon.blogspot.com


The problems hinge on Zionism.


----------



## alexa

P F Tinmore said:


> The vast majority of Palestinians were unarmed civilians. Why are they not allowed to return?


Not only that, the vast amount of citizens o*f West Jerusalem were Muslim/Christian natives of the country*...but trying to get any reality into any of these threads here is not going to happen .  Basically extreme Zionism much of it Christian, the only intention being to try and make sure no one starts genuinely talking about things.


----------



## Sixties Fan

alexa said:


> Not only that, the vast amount of citizens o*f West Jerusalem were Muslim/Christian natives of the country*...but trying to get any reality into any of these threads here is not going to happen .  Basically extreme Zionism much of it Christian, the only intention being to try and make sure no one starts genuinely talking about things.


Jerusalem was a majority Jewish population.
-----------
Figure 7.1. Population of Jerusalem, 1922-2015 (in thousands)​Until 1946: in the British Mandate borders; since the establishment of the state and until the Six-Day’s War: 1948 borders; following the Six Day War: the borders of a united Jerusalem.

Source: The Jerusalem Center for Israel Studies, Statistical Yearbook, 2015.
As the number of residents has shifted, so too has the balance between Jews and non-Jews (Figure 7.2). In the latter part of the British Mandate, Jews constituted 60 percent of the city’s population. After the city was divided, the western part remained primarily Jewish. The Jewish majority of Jerusalem (western, of course) was more substantial than in the rest of the country – 99 percent of Jerusalem versus 85 percent of the entire country






						The Population of Jerusalem
					

We devote a separate section to an in-depth discussion on the population of Jerusalem. At the outset, it should be noted that in the past seven decades, Jerusalem’s borders and the placement of physical barriers within the city have changed a number of times. According to the UNSCOP Partition Plan (




					jppi.org.il
				




And then.....the Jewish Quarter was expelled in 1948, of what is called " East Jerusalem".


Can you honestly say that the Jews are not the indigenous people of the land of Israel?
Can you honestly say that they have no rights to the land?
Can you honestly say that they had no right to legally rebuild their Nation on their Ancient Homeland?

Muslims and Christians are not Native to the land of Israel.  If they are Arabs they are Native to Arabia, as are the Bedouin and also the Druze.

Now, if you mean in the sense that many were on the land since the Muslim invasion of the 7th Century CE and that some, not most,   do have a long history and heritage from building Mosques, etc........that is another story.

Another thing you do get wrong:   Zionism is NOT much of it Christian, never has been.

*Zionism* (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת _Tsiyyonut_ [tsijoˈnut] after _Zion_) is a nationalist[fn 1] movement that espouses the establishment of, and support for a homeland for the Jewish people centered in the area roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel, the region of Palestine, Canaan, or the Holy Land, on the basis of a long Jewish connection and attachment to that land.[3][4][5]


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The problems hinge on Zionism.


You should get help for your IJH.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The problems hinge on Zionism.



The problems hinge on Islam.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The problems hinge on Islam.


That's not what they said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> That's not what they said.



Well, the UN _does_ suck.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> That's not what they said.


Who is ''they''?


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> The problems hinge on Zionism.



Before Zionism what was the excuse for Arab pogroms?


----------



## Sixties Fan

*Mandate Period*

Ironically, during WWII around 4,000 Yemenite Jews came as legal immigrants, because there were not enough European Jews to fill the quota of legal immigration permits set by the ruling British.

In 1944, it became Zionist policy to encourage immigration from Arab countries: the so-called “One Million Plan”. As Arab antisemitism rose, the plight of Jews became more desperate. But while the British were in charge, the only way into Palestine was to try to run the shipping blockade – or employ an overland smuggling route.

Zionism in French-ruled North Africa became very active in 1943 but emigration did not become legal until 1949. Local Zionist youth groups set up an underground network with the help of smugglers. Almost 1,000 Jews passed through Tanas, a secret camp in Algeria, and boarded Haganah ships bound for Palestine.

Shmuel Sibon, a teenager from Sefrou, Morocco, spent a month at Tanas, and was one of the few who was not a member of a Zionist group. Food was short. Lice was plentiful. He boarded the _Yehuda Halevi _ship from the Algerian coast. A voyage which should have taken days lasted three weeks. The ship was surrounded by British destroyers. One holed the ship, and water poured in. The _Yehuda Halevi_ was diverted to Cyprus where Sibon spent nine months. The camp inmates greeted the passengers, asking, “Where are the Africans?” as they expected to see black Jews.

The famous _Exodus _had 50 North Africans on board – “Africa on the _Exodus” _– a tiny proportion of the 4,000 passengers. Shlomo Busqiuila was one. There was nothing to eat, he reported.  The best thing for him was that he met his wife on board: Hava, a Hungarian Holocaust survivor.

In Libya*,* the Jewish Brigade fighting alongside the British did much to inspire the local community to make _Aliyah _– and 90 percent did so. Until 1949, however,some 1,300 made it to Israel via Italian DP camps. They were survivors of horrific wartime labour camps such as Giado and the 1945 Tripoli pogrom in which 130 Jews had died. Many did not have citizenship. The International Refugee Organisation was unsympathetic and claimed they were not asylum seekers but economic migrants.


(full article online)











						How Did Jews Flee to Israel from the Arab World?
					

A look at some of the brave souls who risked their lives to reach Israel before and just after the state's founding...




					blog.nli.org.il


----------



## Sixties Fan

Hebron Massacre, August 1929Jeff Dunetz











(full article online)









						Hebron, August 23-24,1929: When Israel learned never to rely on anyone else for defense
					

On that Sabbath in 1929, the first piece of the Holy Land purchased by a Jew became occupied territory. The British stood by, 67died. Op-ed.




					www.israelnationalnews.com


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/a-zionist-success-125-years-later/


----------



## Sixties Fan

https://www.israelhayom.com/2022/08/29/where-it-all-started-the-gathering-that-sparked-zionism/


----------



## Sixties Fan

125 years on, this is my Zionism - opinion
					

Zionism and the state of Israel means a lot to the Jewish people, why?




					www.jpost.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Basel 125 years later: Our biggest challenge is anti-Zionism -opinion
					

We cannot guarantee a secure Jewish future without strong efforts to push back against the extreme anti-Zionism rampant in many countries and seeping into international forums.




					www.jpost.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

80 years ago, Nazis almost knocked Britain out of WWII to take the entire Mideast
					

In '1942: Britain at the Brink,' historian Taylor Downing looks at bitter defeats for the UK that nearly threatened the empire, including Jews who took haven in Mandatory Palestine




					www.timesofisrael.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Basel 125 years later: Our biggest challenge is anti-Zionism -opinion
> 
> 
> We cannot guarantee a secure Jewish future without strong efforts to push back against the extreme anti-Zionism rampant in many countries and seeping into international forums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jpost.com


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



By the average level of response,
this is the most you can play a violin.


----------



## rylah

Sixties Fan said:


> Basel 125 years later: Our biggest challenge is anti-Zionism -opinion
> 
> 
> We cannot guarantee a secure Jewish future without strong efforts to push back against the extreme anti-Zionism rampant in many countries and seeping into international forums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jpost.com


​A Zionist Success 125 Years Later​
On the occasion of the 125th anniversary of the First Zionist Congress, it is time to take stock of what has unfolded so far. The ongoing Zionist revolution is one of the few from that era that have actually succeeded in effecting change in a radical way all the while constantly evolving to the emerging challenges.

It transformed the Jewish people and saved it from gradual dissolution into a group of Orthodox zealots and a fringe of assimilating Jews. It brought the Jewish people back into history as a nation that could stand on its own two feet and shape its future.






The lay of the land at the outset had many obstacles that were seemingly insurmountable. After all, the vision included the establishment of national sovereignty for the Jews without meeting the pre-requisites: a functioning people, a national living language, and a concentration of Jews in the desired land. On top of that, there was active opposition to this effort by the locals.

A majority of the Jewish people were not an active part of this revolutionary vision. Only a small minority, including among its many supporters, were willing to step up to the plate and take action. The majority of rabbinical leaders opposed it and some of them even rejected the idea of returning to Zion, saying this was akin to blasphemy.

Most of the Jews who did gradually take up this cause were unwilling to have skin in the game. The Zionist accomplishment is unique not because it overcame external opposition from the Palestinians or the world, and not even because it managed to convince a small cadre of determined idealists. Its stellar success is rooted mainly in that it managed to convince Jews that had been attracted to it for non-Zionist reasons to convert their passions into real Zionist fervor that made pre-state Israel a reality that would eventually become a viable and strong national homeland.

An overwhelming majority of the Jews who live in Israel are those who arrived here because of necessity, not because of their Zionism. They could not stay in their home countries, and upon leaving, they could not reach the destinations they had sought. The ultimate test Israel faced ー its Zionist test ーwas to integrate them despite the many hardships they faced and to convince them and their descendants to stay here by choice and make it their home.

*The challenges that lie ahead*​By far, the most important accomplishment of the Zionist movement was its success in making Israel the home to the largest amount of Jews (close to a majority of Jews live in Israel) and making it ー almost from scratch ー the place where the continuation of Jewish peoplehood is guaranteed. Thanks to this enterprise, the Jews returned to their historical homeland as a functioning people, their national language was revived and their historic sovereignty was applied.

The bridgehead established by a minority with a radical vision in the Land of Israel became the vibrant center of Jewish life. What began two generations ago as a third-world, poor, and weak country that had only 6% of the Jews, transformed thanks to the dedication and talent of later generations into a regional democratic power with a thriving economy and top-notch accomplishments.

More important than the successes of the past are ensuring gains down the road. It is almost inevitable that Israel will continue to be the focus of Jewish life at the expense of the second most important Jewish concentration ー North America. The widespread assimilation in younger generations, coupled with declining birth rates, compared with almost zero mixed-marriages in Israel and a very high birth rate ensures that Israel will be the epicenter of Jewish life.






__





						A Zionist Success 125 Years Later
					

The Zionist movement's stellar success is rooted mainly in that it managed to convince the Jews that had been attracted to it for non-Zionist reasons to convert their passions into real fervor.




					www.jewishpress.com
				




(Comment)

Is it usually mentioned that Dr. Herzl also envisioned the Temple?









						Dr. Theodor Herzl & Building the 3rd Temple
					

From the blog of Joshua Gerstein at The Times of Israel




					blogs.timesofisrael.com


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> The problems hinge on Zionism.


Zionism = only country in the region where people are free, particularly Arabs and Muslims.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Later this month, Ken Burns is releasing a documentary, The US and the Holocaust, on how the United States did not help Jews escape their doom. 

Here is one example of how some Americans thought on the eve of the Holocaust.

William Bruckart was a moderately successful and influential columnist in the 1930s, who published a regular syndicated column called Washington Digest.

In December 1938, only ten months before World War II would break out and when there were no longer any illusions about Hitler's attacks on Jews, he wrote about how terrible Hitler was - but sympathy for German Jews was not enough reason for the US to allow Jews to immigrate.


> *Danger of 'Jewish Problem' for United States in German 'Purge' *
> 
> _Opening of Gates to Refugees Might Introduce Disturbing Influence. _
> By WILLIAM BRUCKART WNU Service, National Press Bldg., Washington, D. C.
> 
> WASHINGTON. — Press service wires and cables and radio from abroad have been clogged for several weeks with hundreds of thousands of words about the plight of the Jews in Germany; about the abuses visited upon the Jewish race by the European madman, Hitler, and his camp followers; about the humanitarian pleas of our own President, Mr. Roosevelt, for appeasement of the conditions. There has been what I believe to be one of the greatest waves of emotion, waves of resentful national sentiment, that this country ever has known. I recall none like it, none as overwhelming, none as deep-seated as that through which we have been passing, and in my opinion our nation should have resented such outrages.
> 
> While no one with a heart can fail to grieve to a greater or less extent about the indescribable harshness, the unforgivable meanness of Hitler, *it occurs to me that we should begin to temper these waves of emotion somewhat. *There are other factors to be considered, factors and consequences of the thing that is now called "the Jewish problem," that require calm reasoning. In other words, let us say that *America is and must remain for Americans*, and charity, while it is sweet, cannot be exploited, or carried to extremes simply because we feel a sadness for a group upon whom an injustice has been sent. Like millions of other Americans, I am hopeful that some way will be found to aid the Jews who are being driven out of Germany, but* I am unwilling that we, as a nation, shall create additional and unwarranted difficulties for ourselves by extending a helping hand*. Therefore, *the United States must not be the goat. *
> 
> It is one thing to render aid. It is quite another thing*to inject into our own bloodstream of national life additional elements without knowing what those elements are.* After all, the damage is something that we did not cause; the injured are a people who have no knowledge of our way of doing things and *may never cooperate with us*, and we must prevent being dragged into the other fellow's fist fight.
> 
> I suppose there are very few persons in the United States who do not believe that Hitler's "purge" of German Jews constitutes a blot upon modern civilization. I know that leading Germans in the United States wish there were ways and means to stop the action. There can be no defense of the outright seizure of $400,000,000 of money from the Jews of Germany under the guise of a "fine" although there is a lesson of warning in it. ...
> ....
> The unwanted race is simply the victim and a knowledge of* how its members have had the sufferings brought upon them* adds little or nothing to the search for a method to protect their lives. Where are they to go? That is the real question. Hitler doesn't care where they go or what happens to them. Some one else has to lead the way. Our nation has joined in that leadership, and rightly so. But *we have policies and principles and traditions which must be respected*. If, in our eagerness to help the German Jews, we should transgress those established principles, then we*, as well as the Jews,*will have to pay a penalty.....
> 
> We ought not kid ourselves. There are many persons swearing allegiance to the United States who do not like Jews. Those persons may be otherwise good citizens, but they distrust a Jew because he is a Jew, making no distinction between individuals. It is stating nothing new to say that there has been almost a steady undercurrent of criticism of Mr. Roosevelt from certain quarters because Jews have been given prominent places in the New Deal. I think it is not stretching the imagination at all, therefore, to point to the Jewish problem as one that may become involved in politics at some future time, although I hope it never does.
> 
> Mr. Roosevelt has proposed removal of some of the immigration restrictions as a means of bringing into this country more German Jews than our immigration laws now permit. In so doing, he verged on politics himself. Any one familiar with the debates on immigration policies in the early 1920s must recall the severity of that battle. The issue was whether we, as a nation, were going to be haven for all corners and* just hope that they would do things the American way*, or whether we should restrict the number coming here to live to a number which could be absorbed into our national life. Labor unions and most employers favored the restrictions, and when we think of the number of unemployed in the last five or six years—people fed and clothed by the federal government—it appears that we allowed too many to come in. It seems we could have excluded all of them to advantage.
> 
> Behind the scenes of the immigration restriction also was a determination on the part of Senator David A. Reed of Pennsylvania, then a senate power, to prevent introduction into the United States of all kinds of "isms." *The senator foresaw the spread of radicalism by means of entry of the European backwash and rubbish.* There was not much discussion of this phase because our government did not want to offend any foreign nation. It was a basic reason, however, and it is too bad that it was not given more public consideration.
> 
> Fortunately, there can be no change in the number of foreigners admitted from any nation without action by congress. The United States can take only so many—something like 30,000 a year—of those purged Jews, unless congress amends the law. And when I say it is fortunate that there must be action by congress before there can be a change in policy, I mean no inferences.
> 
> In consideration of whether we ought to let a deluge of refugees enter, I cannot help thinking of a possible spread of trouble. For example, if our definite national position of protest against Hitler's policies should bring retaliation, *every Jewish refugee allowed in this country would be clamoring for the United States to take revenge on Germany and Hitler.Their influence would be great because they could tell what happened to them and give an idea of what is happening. *
> 
> As far as relations between Germany and the United States are concerned at the moment, all that can be said is that the United States has let the world know of its disapproval. When Ambassador Wilson was recalled, it was just the same as saying to the world of nations that Uncle Sam hasn't any respect for Hitler.



Bruckart isn't an antisemite - no, he really cares about the Jews in Europe. He feels very bad about them. He hopes nothing bad will happen to them, even though it is already happening. 

But doing anything to save them? That's un-American.

His mention of Senator David Reed refers to one of the architects of the 1924 Immigration Act which was designed to limit immigration to the US, especially of Jews and Asians. There was an element of Nazi-style eugenics in that law: northern Europeans were considered more wanted and healthier than those from central and southern Europe, where most Jews were attempting to immigrate from. It reduced Jewish immigration by about 90%.

This article assumes that there were desirable immigrants and undesirable ones - and Jews were definitely on the undesirable side of the equation. Moreover, it implies that the many Jewish immigrants who had come to the US in the early part of the century were still not real Americans, and that they were radicals.

That next to last paragraph is something. Bruckart is saying that Jews who arrive in America would tell the truth about how the Nazis act, and it would be bad for "real" Americans to hear the truth because it might prompt them to do something to stop it. 

I was curious whether Bruckart would have continued his isolationist position after Pearl Harbor, but we'll never know - he died suddenly of a heart attack in 1940 at age 48.










						1938: Columnist is sympathetic towards Jews in Germany - but not THAT sympathetic
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The thrust of the Palestinian legal case today is that Palestine is a centuries-old geopolitical entity whose residents are entitled to statehood as a matter of international law. But that has not always been the Palestinians’ legal position.

Immediately following World War I and continuing through most of the British Mandate period (1922-1948), Palestinian lawyers and witnesses argued repeatedly before various tribunals that there was no such place as “Palestine.” Instead, they claimed the area known colloquially as “Palestine” was in fact part of Syria, or “southern Syria” to be precise. Following the Israeli War of Independence, the Palestinians changed course and pledged their loyalty to Jordan.

It seems unthinkable that any Palestinian lawyer or legal scholar would argue today that Palestine is part of Syria or Jordan, but those were the predominant Palestinian legal positions from the end of World War I until the Six Day War.

For example, in November 1918 a Palestinian Arab group filed a petition with the French Commissariat in Jerusalem “begging that Palestine might be formally included in Syria.”

In February 1919 the Arab Delegation from Palestine to the Versailles Peace Conference submitted a formal petition urging that rather than be recognized as an independent state, Palestine should be deemed part of and merged into Syria. The petition said, “We consider Palestine as part of Arabic Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economical and geographic bonds . . . In view of the above we desire that our distinct Southern Syria or Palestine should not be separated from the Independent Arabic Syrian Government.”

The Arab legal argument that there was no such political entity as “Palestine” continued after the League of Nations awarded the Palestine Mandate to Britain in 1922. For example, in 1925 Jamal Effendi-Husseini, a prominent Palestinian Arab, challenged a decision of British High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel allowing local postage stamps to bear an inscription in Hebrew identifying the country as “Palestine E.I.” (Palestine Eretz Israel).

Husseini’s lawyer, Auni Bey Abdul Hadi, argued to the court that “Palestine” was “not an Arab word.” Auni Bey insisted the correct name of the country was “Southern Syria.” “Palestine,” he argued, had no separate existence and was in fact part of Syria.

Following the Hebron Massacre in late August 1929, the British Government convened an inquiry commission under the leadership of Sir Walter Shaw. A witness for the Arab side, Saleem Farah, testified under oath on November 27, 1929 that prior to World War I, Palestine was never regarded as a separate political entity.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini, also testified before the Shaw Commission. The Mufti conceded in his testimony that the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine granted political rights in Palestine to the Jews, but not to the Arabs.

Many other prominent Arabs also argued Palestine should have been regarded as part of Syria. George Antonius, author of the acclaimed book “The Arab Awakening,” testified before the Palestine Royal Commission (the Peel Commission) on January 18, 1937 in Jerusalem. Antonius spent a considerable portion of his testimony arguing Palestine had always been part of Syria. He noted “Palestine has always been an integral part of Syria and that what was common to Syria was common to Palestine.”

Following the Israeli War of Independence, the Palestinians declared their allegiance to King Abdullah I of Jordan at the Jericho Conference in December 1950. Abdullah invoked the resolutions adopted at the conference as the legal basis for Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank.

Lack of transparency​Does any of this arcane history matter today? Yes, it does.

The early 20th ccentury Palestinian legal position negating the existence of “Palestine” in favor of Syria undermines the 21st century Palestinian claim to statehood.

Moreover, the Mufti’s 1929 concession that the Mandate granted no political rights to the Palestinian people contradicts the arguments of some modern Palestinian lawyers that the Mandate remains in effect today and grants sovereignty and statehood to the Palestinian Arabs.

And the Palestinian rejections of offers of statehood from Great Britain in May 1939 and from the United Nations in November 1947, their pledge of loyalty to King Abdullah in December 1950, and the language in Article 24 of their original May 1964 charter disclaiming sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza, all stand in discontinuity with their current legal position.

The Palestinians have every right to change their legal position. But when lawyers abandon old arguments and replace them with new ones, they need to be transparent with the courts. Some judges may view a major shift in position as a sign of weakness regarding either the prior or the new argument.

Unfortunately, Palestinian lawyers and their supporters have not been transparent with the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court about their prior inconsistent legal positions. The judges in those tribunals should require the Palestinian lawyers to justify how they can now assert sovereignty over territory they previously renounced in favor of Syria and later in favor of Jordan.









						Back when Palestinians insisted there’s no such place as Palestine
					

Early 20th century legal positions claiming the territory was part of Syria, and later Jordan, undermine the 21st century Palestinian claim to statehood




					blogs.timesofisrael.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Myth: Zionism is not colonialism, just Jewish self-determination | Decolonize Palestine
					

Unfortunately for Zionists, the biggest obstacle to rebranding Zionism from a colonial ideology into a movement for self-determination is that the writings of Zionist founders are easily accessible.




					decolonizepalestine.com
				



The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.


This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly _because_ they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.

When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new _homeland_ for themselves in the area.

The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Myth: Zionism is not colonialism, just Jewish self-determination | Decolonize Palestine
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Zionists, the biggest obstacle to rebranding Zionism from a colonial ideology into a movement for self-determination is that the writings of Zionist founders are easily accessible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> decolonizepalestine.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.
> 
> 
> This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly _because_ they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.
> 
> When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new _homeland_ for themselves in the area.
> 
> The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.



That long copy and paste is making a case for Arab colonization and squatters rights?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Myth: Zionism is not colonialism, just Jewish self-determination | Decolonize Palestine
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Zionists, the biggest obstacle to rebranding Zionism from a colonial ideology into a movement for self-determination is that the writings of Zionist founders are easily accessible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> decolonizepalestine.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.
> 
> 
> This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly _because_ they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.
> 
> When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new _homeland_ for themselves in the area.
> 
> The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.



Compared to the Arab squatters, even you're superior.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Myth: Zionism is not colonialism, just Jewish self-determination | Decolonize Palestine
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Zionists, the biggest obstacle to rebranding Zionism from a colonial ideology into a movement for self-determination is that the writings of Zionist founders are easily accessible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> decolonizepalestine.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.
> 
> 
> This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly _because_ they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.
> 
> When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new _homeland_ for themselves in the area.
> 
> The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.



Thaer Al Nashef: “When we (Arabs) look at Israel, an advanced country, we must ask ourselves, ‘How come the Jews have excelled?’ They proved to the world they are a people able to make miracles out of the impossible.”

Syrian Journalist Thaer Al-Nashef: Israel Does Not Groom Arab Dictators; Arab Societies Are Responsible for Their Own Fate


----------



## MartyNYC

MartyNYC said:


> Zionism = only country in the region where people are free, particularly Arabs and Muslims.





P F Tinmore said:


> Myth: Zionism is not colonialism, just Jewish self-determination | Decolonize Palestine
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Zionists, the biggest obstacle to rebranding Zionism from a colonial ideology into a movement for self-determination is that the writings of Zionist founders are easily accessible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> decolonizepalestine.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.
> 
> 
> This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly _because_ they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.
> 
> When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new _homeland_ for themselves in the area.
> 
> The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.


Arab commentator: Israel is the biggest success in over a century… 

Al Jazeera host calls Israel most successful project in 120 years; drama ensues


----------



## Sixties Fan

MartyNYC said:


> Arab commentator: Israel is the biggest success in over a century…
> 
> Al Jazeera host calls Israel most successful project in 120 years; drama ensues


This thread is about the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate till 1948.

Like Surada, Tinmore will repeat and repeat and repeat in all the threads.


----------



## Sixties Fan

P F Tinmore said:


> Myth: Zionism is not colonialism, just Jewish self-determination | Decolonize Palestine
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for Zionists, the biggest obstacle to rebranding Zionism from a colonial ideology into a movement for self-determination is that the writings of Zionist founders are easily accessible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> decolonizepalestine.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The recent rise to prominence of a distorted and shallow understanding of identity politics in the US has been a boon to this kind of argument. Suddenly we see Zionism being detached from its material history and presented as an integral part of an identity. This is especially popular in the West, where young Zionists who are raised on propaganda and myths of this “amazing” Zionist project come to treat it as inseparable from themselves. Here, we see the cynical twisting of social justice language to declare that only Zionists may define what Zionism is -As if it was a subjective phenomenon, with no material reality, founders, history or effects- and that it was an attack on the Jewish people to describe it as colonial.
> 
> 
> This is rather humorous because the original Zionists legitimized their claim to Palestine exactly _because_ they were colonists and superior to the natives. While I understand how it can be difficult to escape a worldview that was planted in you at a young age, there is a mountain of easily available resources and historic documents available to anyone who is even a little bit critical or intellectually curious.
> 
> When we speak of Israel as a settler colony, we refer to a very specific phenomenon. Settler colonialism differs from classic colonialism, in that settler colonialism only initially and temporarily relies on an empire for their existence. In many situations, the colonists aren’t even from the empire supporting them, and end up fighting the very sponsor that ensured their survival in the first place. Another difference is that settlers are not merely interested in the resources of these new lands, but also in the lands themselves, and to carve out a new _homeland_ for themselves in the area.
> 
> The obvious issue here is that these lands were already inhabited by other people before their arrival.


Tinmore found another piece of garbage written by anti Israel/Zionism nobody.

And NOBODY is the right word for who wrote it because there is no name attached to it.


A coward's way to not be caught, even when they are caught.  Lying about Jews and Israel.  As always.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Dear Palestine: A Social History of the 1948 War​


----------



## Hollie




----------



## MartyNYC

Abdullah al-Hadlaq, writer, Al-Watan, Kuwait: “When the state of Israel was established in 1948, there was no state of palestine. Where did we get that name? It didn’t exist!”

Kuwaiti Writer Abdullah Al-Hadlaq: Israel Is a Legitimate State, Not an Occupier; There Was No Palestine; I Support Israel-Gulf-U.S. Alliance to Annihilate Hizbullah


----------



## MartyNYC

Sixties Fan said:


> Tinmore found another piece of garbage written by anti Israel/Zionism nobody.
> 
> And NOBODY is the right word for who wrote it because there is no name attached to it.
> 
> 
> A coward's way to not be caught, even when they are caught.  Lying about Jews and Israel.  As always.





Sixties Fan said:


> Tinmore found another piece of garbage written by anti Israel/Zionism nobody.
> 
> And NOBODY is the right word for who wrote it because there is no name attached to it.
> 
> 
> A coward's way to not be caught, even when they are caught.  Lying about Jews and Israel.  As always.


Nearly 13 years posting about Israel. A wasted life.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Dear Palestine: A Social History of the 1948 War​


Renowned Arab scholar Fouad Ajami: “The UN vote in 1947 was Israel’s title to statehood. Palestinians and Arab powers chose the path of war. Their choice was calamitous. Palestine became a great Arab shame. Few Arabs were willing to tell the story truthfully, to face its harsh verdict”

The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State


----------



## P F Tinmore

MartyNYC said:


> Renowned Arab scholar Fouad Ajami: “The UN vote in 1947 was Israel’s title to statehood.


Resolution 181 didn't happen.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Resolution 181 didn't happen.


Another failure on the part of the pally retrogrades.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Resolution 181 didn't happen.


Fouad Ajami was a renowned scholar. You’re not.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MartyNYC said:


> Fouad Ajami was a renowned scholar. You’re not.


He was still wrong. Look it up.


----------



## P F Tinmore

P F Tinmore said:


> He was still wrong. Look it up.


U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely _recommended _that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. *Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not.* Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. *The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. *Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.



			https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> He was still wrong. Look it up.


He was still a renowned scholar. And you still are just an Israel-obsessed troll.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely _recommended _that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. *Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not.* Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. *The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. *Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/26/the-myth-of-the-u-n-creation-of-israel/


Bogus, anti-Israel “journal.“ Richard Falk's Publisher 'Foreign Policy Journal' is just a 1-man, Truther-run website - UN Watch


----------



## P F Tinmore

MartyNYC said:


> Bogus, anti-Israel “journal.“ Richard Falk's Publisher 'Foreign Policy Journal' is just a 1-man, Truther-run website - UN Watch


UN Watch     

One propaganda organization calling out another.

Resolution 181 was never implemented. It doesn't matter who says it.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> UN Watch
> 
> One propaganda organization calling out another.
> 
> Resolution 181 was never implemented. It doesn't matter who says it.


Curious you now admit ''Foreign Policy Journal'' is mere propaganda.


----------



## MartyNYC

Hollie said:


> Curious you now admit ''Foreign Policy Journal'' is mere propaganda.


He’s so dumb, it’s not even funny—Still, I laugh.


----------



## P F Tinmore

MartyNYC said:


> Bogus, anti-Israel “journal.“ Richard Falk's Publisher 'Foreign Policy Journal' is just a 1-man, Truther-run website - UN Watch


Same information at other places.

Therefore, although Resolution 181 was meant to create a modus operandi between the two parties, it utterly failed to do so, since the Arab party categorically rejected it. Its implementation could therefore not be accomplished.

Since the UN failed to implement its own resolution, Israel regarded the resolution as null and void.









						70 Years after UN Resolution 181: An Assessment
					

November 29, 1947, the penultimate step to Israel’s statehood - 70 Years after UN Resolution 181: An Assessment - Liora Chartouni




					jcpa.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> the Arab party categorically rejected it. Its implementation could therefore not be accomplished.



How's that working out for the Arab party?


----------



## alexa

Sixties Fan said:


> Jerusalem was a majority Jewish population.
> -----------
> ​


Regardless as I said West Jerusalem was majority Muslims and Christian.  Did you say East Jerusalem was where the Jewish quarters were.  East Jerusalem was primarily Jewish.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How's that working out for the Arab party?


It was never implemented. It doesn't mean anything to anybody.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> It was never implemented. It doesn't mean anything to anybody.



Right, the Arab party categorically rejected it. It was never implemented.

How's that working out for the Arab party?


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> Same information at other places.
> 
> Therefore, although Resolution 181 was meant to create a modus operandi between the two parties, it utterly failed to do so, since the Arab party categorically rejected it. Its implementation could therefore not be accomplished.
> 
> Since the UN failed to implement its own resolution, Israel regarded the resolution as null and void.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 70 Years after UN Resolution 181: An Assessment
> 
> 
> November 29, 1947, the penultimate step to Israel’s statehood - 70 Years after UN Resolution 181: An Assessment - Liora Chartouni
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcpa.org



Fouad Ajami: “Sadly, the Palestinian national movement has known a different kind of leadership, unique in its mix of maximalism and sense of entitlement, in its refusal to accept what can and can't be had in the world of nations. Leadership is often about luck, the kind of individuals a people's history brings forth. It was the distinct misfortune of the Palestinians that when it truly mattered, and for nearly four decades, they were led by a juggler, Yasser Arafat, a man fated to waste his people's chances.”

The U.N. Can't Deliver a Palestinian State


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> It was never implemented. It doesn't mean anything to anybody.



The Arab party have half the land yet? One quarter? 

1.3%?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> It was never implemented. It doesn't mean anything to anybody.


It means another pally failure.

Another in a long catalog of failures.


----------



## MartyNYC

P F Tinmore said:


> None of them are occupied.
> 
> I was in Vietnam when it was occupied. It was wall to wall poverty. Cooking rice over an open fire in three walls and a roof shacks.


Renowned Arab intellectual Fouad Ajami: “The Palestinian ruin was a long time in coming. No other movement has had the indulgence granted Palestinians over the last half-century, and the results can be seen in the bravado and senseless violence...”


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

Here is a Rosh Hashana greeting card asking that the New Year be a year of "liberation of holy places."

According toone page of the National Library of Israel website, this card was created in 1967.

Yet the Hebrew year on this card is 5700, which would make this card from 1939. That adds a real poignancy to this.

 Jews were always praying for the liberation of holy places in Jerusalem and elsewhere, but if Israel had existed in 1939, there would be millions more Jews alive today.









						Shana tova u'metuka 5783
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


>



Arabs sided with the British colonials,
expecting the entire region to be
ruled by a prince from Mecca...


----------



## Sixties Fan

· Giving 78% of the Jewish National Home to the Arabs in 1922
· Restricting Jewish immigration just before WW2, preventing the escape of millions of Jews from the Holocaust
· Imposing anti-Jewish “apartheid” laws restricting land purchase by Jews in most of Palestine
· Opposing the establishment of new Jewish settlements on Jewish-owned land.
· Britain backing the Arab Legion in 1948 leading to the illegal Jordanian occupation the Old City of Jerusalem and Judea & Samaria until 1967.
· Britain pushing other Arab states to invade Israel an attempt to annihilate her in 1948.
· British troops fighting against the Jews in the 1948 war.

These British policies and actions went against their commitment to the League of Nations and against the Mandate for Palestine, i.e. against international law.
The British have more reasons to apologize to the Jews than they do to the Arabs.

(full article online )









						Britain Needs To Apologize To The Jews for What They Did During The Mandate, More Than To The Arabs (Tomer Ilan)
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan

Zincwarrior said:


> Interesting question. Israel was lining up nicely with the Gulf States against the Iran Axis. With SA's fuck you to the US, how does that impact?


Being a Moderator, are you not off topic?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

rylah said:


> ​A Zionist Success 125 Years Later​
> On the occasion of the 125th anniversary of the First Zionist Congress, it is time to take stock of what has unfolded so far. The ongoing Zionist revolution is one of the few from that era that have actually succeeded in effecting change in a radical way all the while constantly evolving to the emerging challenges.
> 
> It transformed the Jewish people and saved it from gradual dissolution into a group of Orthodox zealots and a fringe of assimilating Jews. It brought the Jewish people back into history as a nation that could stand on its own two feet and shape its future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lay of the land at the outset had many obstacles that were seemingly insurmountable. After all, the vision included the establishment of national sovereignty for the Jews without meeting the pre-requisites: a functioning people, a national living language, and a concentration of Jews in the desired land. On top of that, there was active opposition to this effort by the locals.
> 
> A majority of the Jewish people were not an active part of this revolutionary vision. Only a small minority, including among its many supporters, were willing to step up to the plate and take action. The majority of rabbinical leaders opposed it and some of them even rejected the idea of returning to Zion, saying this was akin to blasphemy.
> 
> Most of the Jews who did gradually take up this cause were unwilling to have skin in the game. The Zionist accomplishment is unique not because it overcame external opposition from the Palestinians or the world, and not even because it managed to convince a small cadre of determined idealists. Its stellar success is rooted mainly in that it managed to convince Jews that had been attracted to it for non-Zionist reasons to convert their passions into real Zionist fervor that made pre-state Israel a reality that would eventually become a viable and strong national homeland.
> 
> An overwhelming majority of the Jews who live in Israel are those who arrived here because of necessity, not because of their Zionism. They could not stay in their home countries, and upon leaving, they could not reach the destinations they had sought. The ultimate test Israel faced ー its Zionist test ーwas to integrate them despite the many hardships they faced and to convince them and their descendants to stay here by choice and make it their home.
> 
> *The challenges that lie ahead*​By far, the most important accomplishment of the Zionist movement was its success in making Israel the home to the largest amount of Jews (close to a majority of Jews live in Israel) and making it ー almost from scratch ー the place where the continuation of Jewish peoplehood is guaranteed. Thanks to this enterprise, the Jews returned to their historical homeland as a functioning people, their national language was revived and their historic sovereignty was applied.
> 
> The bridgehead established by a minority with a radical vision in the Land of Israel became the vibrant center of Jewish life. What began two generations ago as a third-world, poor, and weak country that had only 6% of the Jews, transformed thanks to the dedication and talent of later generations into a regional democratic power with a thriving economy and top-notch accomplishments.
> 
> More important than the successes of the past are ensuring gains down the road. It is almost inevitable that Israel will continue to be the focus of Jewish life at the expense of the second most important Jewish concentration ー North America. The widespread assimilation in younger generations, coupled with declining birth rates, compared with almost zero mixed-marriages in Israel and a very high birth rate ensures that Israel will be the epicenter of Jewish life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Zionist Success 125 Years Later
> 
> 
> The Zionist movement's stellar success is rooted mainly in that it managed to convince the Jews that had been attracted to it for non-Zionist reasons to convert their passions into real fervor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jewishpress.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Comment)
> 
> Is it usually mentioned that Dr. Herzl also envisioned the Temple?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Theodor Herzl & Building the 3rd Temple
> 
> 
> From the blog of Joshua Gerstein at The Times of Israel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.timesofisrael.com


*There's Nothing Wrong With Turning Back the Clock If It's Connected to a Time Bomb*

That used to be the story of America, too.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Zincwarrior said:


> How on earth is that off topic? If SA goes cold war with US, there will be repercussions for Israel yes?


This thread is about the creation of Israel, until about 1948 and 1949.

You are talking about what is happening now, and there are other thread which deal with more modern times.  Thank you.


----------



## rylah

The Sage of Main Street said:


> *There's Nothing Wrong With Turning Back the Clock If It's Connected to a Time Bomb*
> 
> That used to be the story of America, too.



Ok, direct me where that thought leads.

I have some understanding of the Hebrew background
of the US story, especially the universities at their core founding.

But there''s difference, Capitol is not Jerusalem, and while the US
was looking at sort of nostalgia of the Hebrew past,
Israelis are all about the future of Hebrews.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Scratch Palestinian history, reveal antisemitism
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Balfour Declaration was the Nov. 2, 1917, statement of the British Government that it views “with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Lord Arthur Balfour, the author of those words, toured Palestine in 1925 at the invitation of Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann. He attended the ceremonial opening of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and was welcomed throughout his tour with great honour and ceremony by the Jewish population—including at Tel Aviv’s Gymnasium Hebrew school, which is depicted in this postcard. But the Arab population greeted Balfour with strikes and protests; after Palestine, he traveled to Damascus where he was greeted by a hostile crowd of 6,000. A riot ensued. Fearing for his safety, Balfour ended his trip to Syria early, and returned home. (Watch original footage of this visit on YouTube.) 










						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

Kaiser Wilhelm II, the German emperor, visited Jerusalem from Oct. 29 to Nov. 4, 1898, in what was the focal point of his tour of the Holyland. The arrangements for the visit were entrusted to the Thomas Cook travel agency, who set up a 230-tent camp for the Kaiser and his entourage. To ensure that Wilhelm II’s carriages could enter the Old City, a portion of the wall at the Jaffa Gate was removed—a gap that exists to this day. While in Jerusalem, he dedicated the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, donated funds for the purchase of the land on which the Bikur Holim Hospital was built, visited the German Colony (which is pictured in this postcard) and received a Zionist delegation led by Theodor Herzl. (_An exhibit of artifacts from David’s collection of Herzl memorabilia is now on at Beth Tzedec Congregation, 1700 Bathurst St., Toronto. Admission is free._)










						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

Joseph Trumpeldor (1880-1920) was a Zionist national hero who died with seven others defending the Tel Hai village in the Upper Galilee. The town of Kiryat Shmona (“City of Eight”) is named after these eight heroes. Born in Russia, he lost his left arm in the Russo-Japanese war. After later moving to Palestine, he served in the Zion Mule Corps, an all-Jewish unit in the British Army in the First World War. “It is good to die for our country,” Trumpeldor reportedly said after being fatally shot defending Tel Hai—a quote that appears on this medal minted in 1970 for the Medallic History of the Jewish People. Betar—the Revisionist Zionist youth movement—is an acronym for Brith Yoseph Trumpeldor (“The covenant of Joseph Trumpeldor”). Betar was also the last Jewish fort to fall in the Bar Kokhba revolt of 136 C.E. 











						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

The National Library of Israel was founded in 1892 in Jerusalem as the Midrash Abarbanel Library. It moved to the Mount Scopus campus of the just opened Hebrew University as the renamed “Jewish National and University Library” in 1925—the year the picture in this “magic lantern” slide was taken. When the campus was cut off from the rest of the city in 1948, the collection was smuggled into other areas of Jerusalem: 12 years later, it was reunited with the dedication of a new facility on the University’s Givat Ram campus. A new building near the Knesset will hold over 5 million books when it opens in 2023. The library will continue to fulfill its mission to collect and preserve the knowledge, heritage and culture of Israel and the Jewish people, and endow these treasures to this and future generations. 










						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

The First Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland, from Aug. 29-31, 1897, with 208 delegates from 17 countries and 26 members of the press in attendance. Adopted there was the Basel Prgram, which set the goal of the newly established Zionist movement to be “to secure for the Jewish people a publicly recognized, legally assured homeland in Palestine.” Theodor Herzl convened it as a parliament of a state in creation: “In Basel, I created the Jewish State,” he proudly declared—and insisted all delegates wear tuxedos for the occasion, as depicted in this postcard. There were 22 Zionist Congresses across Europe prior to Israel’s independence, but they’ve been exclusively in Jerusalem since 1951. _Find more from David Matlow at herzlcollection.com.










						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca
				



_


----------



## Sixties Fan

_New People on Ancient Soil _by author Felix Salten is based on his visit to Palestine and is a tribute to the dream of a Jewish state of his friend Theodor Herzl, who Salten credits with inspiring him to embrace his own Jewishness. He is better known for the 1923 book _Bambi: A Life in the Woods_, the inspiration for Disney’s fifth animated feature, which premiered 80 years ago this week. An outdoorsman and naturalist—and, ironically, also a hunter—Salten wrote _Bambi_ as a plea for greater care for and understanding of the world of nature, yet some commentators suggest it’s a parable about Jewish persecution. When the Nazis seized Austria he fled to Switzerland, where he died in 1945.










						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

Aryeh Shenkar (1877-1959) was one of the founders of the Hovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion) movement in Ukraine. He moved from Russia to Palestine in 1924 and bought the Lodzia textile factory—whose workers originated in the Polish town of Lodz. It became profitable while he promoted the local textile industry and other manufacturers. For 29 years, he served as the president of the Industrialists’ Union in the Land of Israel (later the Manufacturers Association of Israel), and Ramat Gan’s Shenkar College of Engineering, Design and Art was named after him. This is his 1938 share certificate for 90 common shares of The Lodzia Textile Co. Ltd. The Lodzia business was acquired by Israeli public company Delta Galil in 2014.











						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

July 24, 1922 is the date when the League of Nations—predecessor to the United Nations—resolved to establish the British Mandate, which gave recognition “to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” Great Britain became responsible for preparing conditions “as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home.” The resolution was unanimously approved by all 51 member nations (all League resolutions required unanimity). It implemented the agreement reached at the San Remo conference two years prior, commemorated on this 1920 Dutch-minted medal, which depicts a hammer-wielding modern pioneer meeting an ancestor from the time of the destruction of the Second Temple.











						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

“Land of Promise” was part of the Wild Man trading card series produced by the Bowman Gum Company in 1950. The set recorded the story of humanity from cavemen and Vikings to falconry and civil aviation. (One card and one piece of gum cost a penny.) A total of 72 cards were issued, including this one with this text on the back: “We live in an age of stirring events, one of which is the founding of the new nation of Israel. Thousands of Jewish people, many of whom suffered terrible persecution during World War II, are returning to Palestine, their ancestral home. By work of hands and brain, they are determined to build an Israel worthy of its glorious heritage.” Now this card is a keeper. 











						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Western Wall is seen on this stereoscopic card with a picture (actually two pictures—you’re not seeing double) capturing how “the outer wall of Solomon’s Temple” appeared in Jerusalem in 1896. Produced by Underwood & Underwood, the largest publisher of stereoviews in the world—with an office in Toronto—it was designed to be placed in a viewing device called a stereoscope and appear as a three-dimensional image. The card’s reverse quotes Psalm 79 in English, French, German, Spanish, Norwegian and Russian: “How Long, Lord? Wilt Thou Be Angry Forever?” There are several hundred of these cards of Palestine, which enabled people to see the Holy Land at a time when a trip to the region was costly and difficult. 











						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

_The Romance of a People_ historical pageant was performed before 125,000 people at Chicago’s Soldier Field on Jewish Day at the 1933 World’s Fair. With its depiction of 4,000 years of Jewish history from Abraham to the pioneers in Israel, the event was a fundraiser to resettle German Jews in Palestine. To ensure a large audience, organizer Meyer Weisgal included schools and youth groups among the 6,000 performers—rightly concluding that parents and grandparents would attend. The show helped raise the profile of Zionism in Chicago and unified its Jewish community. After a four-day run at New York’s Polo Grounds was rained out, it ran for 20 performances at an indoor location instead and raised an additional $100,000 for German Jewry. (The equivalent of $2.1 million today.)











						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

Keren Hayesod (Palestine Foundation Fund) was established in 1920 in London, England, to finance the Zionist movement’s work to bring about the return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. Leading figures from Chaim Weizmann to Ze’ev Jabotinsky were involved in its fundraising efforts. Keren Hayesod helped raise the seed money to establish the Hebrew University and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra. It also helped develop the Haifa Bay suburbs to settle German Jewish refugees in the 1930s, and established dozens of communities to house the waves of immigrants after Israel’s creation. It continues to serve as a link between the people of Israel and Jewish communities around the world. This plaque recognizes a contribution made 100 years ago.












						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

Ein Harod is a kibbutz (communal farm) founded in 1921 by Russian pioneers in northern Israel. Four years later, it was the centre of the kibbutz movement. Its members continue to live the kibbutz way of life, sharing the burden of working in its fields, industry, dairy barn and stables. This “magic lantern” slide is one of a 1920s Palestine series made by Toronto’s Charles Potter company, which also sold optical equipment and mathematical instruments. It depicts the bringing of the first fruits (_bikkurim_), part of the celebration of the holiday of Shavuot, which in the days of the ancient Temple—and in this picture—consisted of the land’s seven species: wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives and dates.









						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (a.k.a. “The Joint”) was founded in 1914, initially to save the Jews of Palestine from starvation. Since then, it’s been involved in rescue, relief and renewal of Jews around the world. The Joint assisted 190,000 Jews to leave Germany in the 1930s, helped care for 420,000 Holocaust survivors after the war, and assisted 167,000 Jews reach Israel from Muslim countries. Having operated in 85 countries—including Russia, Ethiopia and the former Yugoslavia—its non-sectarian work provides a unified Jewish response to global disasters. The Joint remains active wherever Jews are in distress: currently, it’s providing critical help in Ukraine, both to those inside the country and new refugees. This label publicized a food drive for Holocaust survivors.











						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Partition Resolution passed by the United Nations on Nov. 29, 1947, called for the creation of a Jewish State and the end of the British Mandate. The British then started to wind down their administrative duties including ending postal services in April 1948. But, to ensure the public would still be able to send and receive mail, the provisional Jewish government in Palestine improvised and authorized the use of pre-existing Jewish National Fund stamps (overprinted with the word “_Doar_” or post) as valid postage stamps. These are two JNF stamps—one depicting the partition map of the independent Jewish state and the other the Negev water pipeline—which were used to send mail and postmarked by _Minhelet Ha’am _(People’s Administration). Israel issued its own stamps right after independence.










						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan

The city of Eilat was nothing but a police station in a place called Um Rash-Rash when it was captured by the Israeli army in the last operation of the War of Independence on March 10, 1949. This important victory without a battle extended Israel to the Gulf of Aqaba and gave it a shipping route through the Red Sea. A makeshift flag—made out of a bedsheet with two stripes made of ink and a Star of David from a first-aid kit—was hoisted to signify the victory. This postcard shows Eilat shortly after its lagoon opened in 1967. Anyone who’s visited the luxury hotels and tourist attractions in the past half-century knows how much the city has changed. 











						Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
					

The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.




					thecjn.ca


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> The Balfour Declaration was the Nov. 2, 1917, statement of the British Government that it views “with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Lord Arthur Balfour, the author of those words, toured Palestine in 1925 at the invitation of Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann. He attended the ceremonial opening of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and was welcomed throughout his tour with great honour and ceremony by the Jewish population—including at Tel Aviv’s Gymnasium Hebrew school, which is depicted in this postcard. But the Arab population greeted Balfour with strikes and protests; after Palestine, he traveled to Damascus where he was greeted by a hostile crowd of 6,000. A riot ensued. Fearing for his safety, Balfour ended his trip to Syria early, and returned home. (Watch original footage of this visit on YouTube.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
> 
> 
> The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thecjn.ca


Britain had no sovereignty in Palestine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Britain had no sovereignty in Palestine.



Neither did the Arabs.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


>


Decisions of international and national tribunals​
The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne  provided for the application of the principles of *state succession to the "A" Mandates. *The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as* independent nations.* It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to* recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.* The Treaty of Lausanne required the *newly created states *that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. *A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. *In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that *Palestine was responsible as the successor state *for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been* ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.*[25]









						State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Are you going to believe actual documents or Israeli bullshit?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Neither did the Arabs.


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Keren Hayesod (Palestine Foundation Fund) was established in 1920 in London, England, to finance the Zionist movement’s work to bring about the return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. Leading figures from Chaim Weizmann to Ze’ev Jabotinsky were involved in its fundraising efforts. Keren Hayesod helped raise the seed money to establish the Hebrew University and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra. It also helped develop the Haifa Bay suburbs to settle German Jewish refugees in the 1930s, and established dozens of communities to house the waves of immigrants after Israel’s creation. It continues to serve as a link between the people of Israel and Jewish communities around the world. This plaque recognizes a contribution made 100 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
> 
> 
> The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thecjn.ca





Sixties Fan said:


> return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.


"Return" to a place where they have no ancestors.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (a.k.a. “The Joint”) was founded in 1914, initially to save the Jews of Palestine from starvation. Since then, it’s been involved in rescue, relief and renewal of Jews around the world. The Joint assisted 190,000 Jews to leave Germany in the 1930s, helped care for 420,000 Holocaust survivors after the war, and assisted 167,000 Jews reach Israel from Muslim countries. Having operated in 85 countries—including Russia, Ethiopia and the former Yugoslavia—its non-sectarian work provides a unified Jewish response to global disasters. The Joint remains active wherever Jews are in distress: currently, it’s providing critical help in Ukraine, both to those inside the country and new refugees. This label publicized a food drive for Holocaust survivors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treasure Trove: A weekly piece of our history from the collection of David Matlow
> 
> 
> The latest items via @TheCJN on Instagram.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thecjn.ca


Israel always has its hand out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Link?



I agree. You have no link to Arab sovereignty in Palestine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Decisions of international and national tribunals​
> The U.S. State Department _Digest of International Law_ says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne  provided for the application of the principles of *state succession to the "A" Mandates. *The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as* independent nations.* It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to* recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.* The Treaty of Lausanne required the *newly created states *that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. *A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. *In its _Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions_, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that *Palestine was responsible as the successor state *for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been* ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.*[25]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to believe actual documents or Israeli bullshit?



_provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as* independent nations.* _

I believe Israel is an independent nation.

*Palestine was responsible as the successor state*

Yes. But now the name is Israel.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel always has its hand out.



And its foot......in Arab ass.


----------



## Sixties Fan

In the eyes of the Palestinian Authority, one historical act is attributed with all future Palestinian suffering. That act is the Balfour Declaration, issued today, Nov. 2, in 1917. The declaration was the first contemporary, internationally recognized expression of the right of the Jewish people to establish a national homeland in the geographical area known as “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 endeavors 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.” [emphasis added]


As exposed by Palestinian Media Watch, the PA Ministry of Information called the Balfour declaration: “The greatest crime in the history of mankind,” and the official PA daily called it “The crime of the century.” 

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations, Mahmoud Al-Habbash, who also serves as the PA’s Supreme Shari’ah Judge  recently claimed that the Balfour declaration violated international law:  

















> “Israel’s very existence contradicts international law. On what right do you bring people who have no connection to this land and plant them here and tell them: This is your national home?  Who gave Britain a right to give a national home? Was Palestine the land of [former British Foreign Secretary Arthur] Balfour’s father?”
> [Facebook page of the Fatah Commission of Information and Culture, Oct. 10, 2022]


So how then, can one answer the PA’s claim? 

While the Balfour Declaration was an important statement of policy on the part of the UK government, it certainly did not have the ability to bring about the creation of the Jewish state without wide international consensus. 

Historically, the declaration was issued as part of a new regional order that was born out of World War I and the demise of the Ottoman Empire, which, inter alia, had controlled most of the Middle East for centuries. As part of the new order, new borders were drawn and countries were, for the first time, carved out.  






In the Ottoman Empire, “Palestine” as the separate national country and identity, as the PA claims, never existed. Rather, the region was merely just another region of the empire with no specific definition. 

The British agreement to reorganize the Middle East, did not occur within the vacuum but rather as part of international, and even Arab, consensus.  

The Arab consensus was expressed in the 1919 between the Hashemite Faisal I bin Al-Hussein, on behalf of the Arabs and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, commonly referred to as the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement. 

The Arab agreement then laid the foundations for both the Paris Peace Conference and the conference held in in San Remo, Italy, in April 1920. At the San Remo Conference, the international community then adopted the Balfour Declaration and made the preliminary designation that Britain, as a holder of the “Mandate” would implement the decision to create a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine: 



> “The Mandatory will be responsible for *putting into effect the declaration originally made on the [2nd] November, 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*”.


The decisions taken in San Remo were then galvanized into international law on July 24, 1922, when the League of Nations – the UN predecessor – adopted the “Mandate for Palestine”. 

The preamble to the Mandate reaffirmed the Balfour Declaration and once again confirmed the historical connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel by stating: 



> *"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*, a*nd 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;
> *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."*


It is fundamental to understand, the when the Balfour Declaration was issued, there was no Arab “Palestinian” identity. As historian Abd Al-Ghani Salameh explained:  

















> "*Before the Balfour Promise* (i.e., Declaration) when the Ottoman rule ended (1517 - 1917), *Palestine's political borders as we know them today did not exist*, and *there was nothing called a Palestinian people* with a political identity as we know today, since Palestine's lines of administrative division stretched from east to west and included Jordan and southern Lebanon, and like all peoples of the region were liberated from the Turkish rule and immediately moved to colonial rule, without forming a Palestinian people's political identity."
> [Official Palestinian Authority TV, Nov 1, 2017]


In other words, in making its claim, the PA focuses on just one event, taken out of the wider context, and which presents a reality that lacks a factual basis. 

Israel’s legitimacy in international law, questioned by the PA and Al-Habbash, does not stem from the Balfour Declaration. Rather it is based on decisions made by the international community during and in the aftermath of WWI. The decisions taken at that time by the international community, are the basis for the existence of all the different countries in the Middle East.  

Unfortunately, the PA does not allow real historical facts to cloud its judgment. Indeed, the PA attacks on and obsession with the Balfour Declaration, as exposed here, here, here, here, and here, among others, by PMW, is probably the closest thing the PA has to a “national sport”.   











						The Balfour bogeyman | PMW Analysis
					

The PA's monster under the bed: Taking historical events out of context and believing its own lies




					palwatch.org


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> In the eyes of the Palestinian Authority, one historical act is attributed with all future Palestinian suffering. That act is the Balfour Declaration, issued today, Nov. 2, in 1917. The declaration was the first contemporary, internationally recognized expression of the right of the Jewish people to establish a national homeland in the geographical area known as “Palestine”.
> 
> 
> As exposed by Palestinian Media Watch, the PA Ministry of Information called the Balfour declaration: “The greatest crime in the history of mankind,” and the official PA daily called it “The crime of the century.”
> 
> PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations, Mahmoud Al-Habbash, who also serves as the PA’s Supreme Shari’ah Judge  recently claimed that the Balfour declaration violated international law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how then, can one answer the PA’s claim?
> 
> While the Balfour Declaration was an important statement of policy on the part of the UK government, it certainly did not have the ability to bring about the creation of the Jewish state without wide international consensus.
> 
> Historically, the declaration was issued as part of a new regional order that was born out of World War I and the demise of the Ottoman Empire, which, inter alia, had controlled most of the Middle East for centuries. As part of the new order, new borders were drawn and countries were, for the first time, carved out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Ottoman Empire, “Palestine” as the separate national country and identity, as the PA claims, never existed. Rather, the region was merely just another region of the empire with no specific definition.
> 
> The British agreement to reorganize the Middle East, did not occur within the vacuum but rather as part of international, and even Arab, consensus.
> 
> The Arab consensus was expressed in the 1919 between the Hashemite Faisal I bin Al-Hussein, on behalf of the Arabs and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, commonly referred to as the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement.
> 
> The Arab agreement then laid the foundations for both the Paris Peace Conference and the conference held in in San Remo, Italy, in April 1920. At the San Remo Conference, the international community then adopted the Balfour Declaration and made the preliminary designation that Britain, as a holder of the “Mandate” would implement the decision to create a national homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine:
> 
> 
> The decisions taken in San Remo were then galvanized into international law on July 24, 1922, when the League of Nations – the UN predecessor – adopted the “Mandate for Palestine”.
> 
> The preamble to the Mandate reaffirmed the Balfour Declaration and once again confirmed the historical connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel by stating:
> 
> 
> It is fundamental to understand, the when the Balfour Declaration was issued, there was no Arab “Palestinian” identity. As historian Abd Al-Ghani Salameh explained:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, in making its claim, the PA focuses on just one event, taken out of the wider context, and which presents a reality that lacks a factual basis.
> 
> Israel’s legitimacy in international law, questioned by the PA and Al-Habbash, does not stem from the Balfour Declaration. Rather it is based on decisions made by the international community during and in the aftermath of WWI. The decisions taken at that time by the international community, are the basis for the existence of all the different countries in the Middle East.
> 
> Unfortunately, the PA does not allow real historical facts to cloud its judgment. Indeed, the PA attacks on and obsession with the Balfour Declaration, as exposed here, here, here, here, and here, among others, by PMW, is probably the closest thing the PA has to a “national sport”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Balfour bogeyman | PMW Analysis
> 
> 
> The PA's monster under the bed: Taking historical events out of context and believing its own lies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> palwatch.org


Neither Balfour, San Remo, the Mandate, nor Resolution 181 had anything to do with the creation of Israel.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Neither Balfour, San Remo, the Mandate, nor Resolution 181 had anything to do with the creation of Israel.



I think it was the Jewish people putting their boots in Arab ass that created Isreal.


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Balfour Declaration and the Reaction of Rav Kook
					

Rav Kook offered recognition to the British but not words of thanks. If the British offered the pledge, then it fulfilled a role for which it was destined.




					www.israelunwired.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

I came across this snippet in an article in the Palestine Post, May 20, 1947:








> "Was it advisable to say in front of an international body that *we hate the Jews because they are Jews*?" asked thc Jaffa daily Ash-Shaab yesterday in its leading article.
> 
> It is no secret that the Arabs were completely unprepared in their evidence before various inquiry Commissions , and also before the UN meeting, the paper stated. "We must select very carefully the people who are to defend us."



In short, Arab antisemitism was a given - the article admits that Arabs hate Jews because they are Jews - but allowing that hate to be shown in front of international bodies is not smart, because the other dhimmis aren't as tolerant of antisemitism as the Arabs are. 

So the emphasis must be on how Arabs are welcoming to Jews and treat them well, and it is only Zionism that they have a problem with.

Indeed, two months later the Arab delegates to the UNSCOP meeting insisted that there was no discrimination against Jews in Arab countries, and even that the Mufti of Jerusalem was not a Nazi supporter.










						1947 Jaffa newspaper: "Arabs must stop being publicly antisemitic in front of the world"
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Palestinian objection to the 1917 Balfour Declaration is one of the most explicit expressions of the Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist. This year, as in previous years, the Palestinian Authority and its leaders marked the historical event with a barrage of statements condemning the declaration, that ranged from outright rejection to elaborate conspiracy theories.  

The common theme of all the statements, as Palestinian Media Watch has conclusively demonstrated, is the denial of the internationally and historically recognized connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and the rejection of the legitimacy of the State of Israel, in any borders.  

Leading the barrage was the PA Ministry of Information which claimed that the declaration was “the crime of the era” which “exceeded the crimes of colonialism”, and called on the Britain to “be ashamed of their sin”.



> “The [PA] Ministry of Information said that *the black Balfour Promise in its 105th year is the crime of the era*, ... this *unjust promise is a dangerous precedent in the history of international relations...* that ... *exceeded the crimes of colonialism... *
> The Ministry of Information reemphasized that *Britain and all its diplomats should be ashamed of their sin*, their historical injustice, and their denial of all the laws and conventions...” – which obligates them to recognize the State of Palestine and stop blindly siding with injustice, occupation, and colonialism.”
> [Official PA daily _Al-Hayat Al-Jadida_, Nov. 2, 2022]


PA Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh also condemned the declaration, claiming that “Britain gave that which it did not have ownership over to one who has no right”. Shtayyeh added his demand that Britain correct its historical mistake by recognizing the “State of Palestine: 



> “[At the weekly PA governmental meeting, PA] Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh said... that* the anniversary of the ominous Balfour Declaration*  will take place in two days, Wednesday [Nov. 2, 2022], ‘*and through it Britain gave that which it did not have ownership over to one who has no right*. We are still paying the price of this ominous declaration’s consequences in political, material, humanitarian, geographical, and other terms, and Britain must correct its historical mistake and recognize the sovereign and contiguous State of Palestine whose capital is Jerusalem, and the [Palestinian] refugees’ right of return.’”
> [Official PA daily _Al-Hayat Al-Jadida_, Nov. 1, 2022]


The PA Presidential Guard posted a similar message on its Facebook page: 








> *Posted text: *“The 105th anniversary of the ominous Balfour Promise (i.e., Declaration)
> On Nov. 2, 1917, the ominous Balfour Promise was issued, by virtue of which Britain gave the Jews the right to establish a national home in Palestine, based on the false statement ‘A land without a people for a people without a land.’ ...
> *This is a black day in the history of the Palestinian people and even in the history of all humanity, and a blow to justice and the international institutions.” *
> _The image shows Arab refugees at the top and bottom, and on the left is a picture of former British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour next to the Balfour Declaration, with a large red “X” crossing them both out. _
> *Text on image:* “The Balfour Promise
> We will not forget the ominous promise
> The 105th anniversary of the ominous Balfour Promise
> The day of the Palestinians emigrating from their cities and villages”
> [PA Presidential Guard, Facebook page, Nov. 2, 2022]


Fatah, the movement headed by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, also made the same claims:  








> *Posted text:* “105 years since *the ominous Balfour Promise* (i.e., Declaration)
> A promise of one who has no ownership to one who has no right
> Today, Wednesday, Nov. 2, [2022,] is the 105th anniversary of the issuing of the ominous Balfour Promise, by virtue of which Britain gave the Jews the right to establish a national home in Palestine.
> Our elderly are dying, and our young people will not forget.
> #Balfour_105”
> _The image shows former British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour on the right, and on the left is the logo of Fatah-run Awdah TV. _
> *Text on image: *“Lest we forget our Palestine
> British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour
> The Balfour Promise –
> A promise of one who has no ownership to one who has no right
> The Balfour Promise is the common nickname for a letter that Arthur James Balfour sent on Nov. 2, 1917, to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, in which he noted the British government’s support for establishing a national home for the Jews in our Palestine.”
> [Fatah Commission of Information and Culture, Facebook page, Nov. 2, 2022]




(full article online)










						The Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist | PMW Analysis
					

Israel has the right to exist




					palwatch.org


----------



## Sixties Fan

A Lost Novel Describes Arriving at the “Palestinian Ellis Island” in Pre-State Israel​

Before setting off from New York City to the Land of Israel in 1926, the Yiddish novelist and essayist *Miriam Karpilove* dashed off a letter to the secretary of the I.L. Peretz Writers’ Union. Therein, she complained of the many things she had to do in preparation for leaving _golus_ [diasporic exile], adding “I am my own   [lady messiah] and, as you know, I have no white horse and, as you also know, the subway is on strike to boot.” Her visit to Mandate Palestine would last for two years, and form the basis of an unfinished novel, parts of which will soon be published. *Jessica Kirzane* excerpts her translation of the opening chapter, which depicts the characters’ arrival at the “Palestinian Ellis Island.”


> We had to show a group of British government officers all of our documents so they could see that our coming here to Eretz Yisrael was kosher and we’d followed all the legal requirements they set out for us. These government officials sat at a long table in the middle of a large room. We had to stand. Stand and wait in line until someone looked over our papers and gave them to another official, who gave them to a third official, and so forth.
> More than anything, they noticed the stamp on our papers with the word “settler.” They were surprised that American citizens with money had come to settle in Palestine: is it so bad in America, or so good in Eretz Yisrael, that the Jews would want to settle here? Especially during the present crisis? One of the officials asked my brother why he wanted to settle in Palestine, isn’t it good to be an American citizen?
> “Oh, very good!” Jacob said. “But I think Palestine has more for us.”
> “Remarkable, . . . ” he shrugged his shoulders and asked me what compelled me to settle in Palestine. I looked him straight in his squinty eyes and replied, “historical connections, you know . . .”.



Read more at _Jewish Review of Books_











						A Lost Novel Describes Arriving at the “Palestinian Ellis Island” in Pre-State Israel » Mosaic
					

“I am on my own lady messiah.”




					mosaicmagazine.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle reported on December 12, 1947:





The original JTA story was dated December 9.

The UN Palestine Commission was created as a result of the Partition resolution of November 30, so the policy of "no Jews, no Arabs, no Britons" must have only existed for a week or so. 

Even so, this is remarkable. The UN at the time met in Lake Success, in Long Island, NY, and there would have been very few Arabs or Britons available for the commission; the only practical effect of this rule would be to ban Jews. 

Meaning that, for a short time, the UN banned American Jews from membership of a high profile commission, because they were Jews. 











						When the UN banned Jews from the Partition Commission
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

I decided to do a quick search of headlines said that Arabs threatened Jews.

April 17, 1920: Arabs threaten to massacre all Jews of Palestine (which included many non-Zionists at the time.)






March 14, 1925: Arabs threaten to attack Jews if they honor Balfour when he visits.







August 11, 1925: Arabs threaten to massacre all Jews in Palestine again (even though the headline says "of Zion movement."





November 23, 1929: Arabs threaten force if Jews continue to worship at the Western Wall.







May 13, 1936: Arabs threaten Jews in Arab countries if they don't get their demands met in Palestine.






June 26, 1936: Bedouin in Transjordan threaten to march across the river to aid their brethren in the "great Arab revolt."




June 30, 1936: Algerian Arabs threaten Algerian Jews.






October 10, 1938: Arab leaders send a telegram to Chaim Weizmann threatening the lives of all Jews in the "East" if Zionists don't accede to their demands, saying it would be the worst calamity in Jewish history.










May 30, 1946: Rulers of Arab states warn Palestinian Jews of plans to have Jews immigrate from DP camps to Palestine. One leader says that if 100,000 Jews enter Palestine after almost being slaughtered in Europe, then the Arabs would slaughter all 100,000 of them.
















						A short history of "Arabs Threaten Jews" (not "Zionists")
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

_Guest post from Paul M._




*


John and Leila*


The most effective army Israel faced in its 1948 war of independence was the Arab Legion of Transjordan. There’s a reason for that: It was not just armed and trained by Britain, it was led by British officers as well, commanded by Lt. General Sir John Bagot Glubb, affectionately known by the Ottoman honorific Glubb _Pasha_.

Glubb was a career soldier, a much-decorated British officer from 1915 until 1956, through two world wars and the assault on the new Jewish state. He was much-honored too, with an alphabet behind his name: KCB, CMG, DSO, OBE, MC, KStJ & KPM.

If, in the fighting world, you wanted to find Lt. General Sir John Bagot Glubb’s diametric opposite, you might be tempted to choose Leila Khaled, member of the Marxist-Leninist PFLP, serial airplane hijacker, pin-up for terrorism groupies everywhere.

And, surprisingly, you might be wrong. They’re less different than you would imagine.

In 1973 Leila Khaled wrote her autobiography, called “My People Shall Live.” (I expect there will be a second volume someday, “Your People Should Die,” but I digress.) Who supplied the foreword? John Bagot Glubb. I had always assumed Lt. General Glubb was simply a good soldier, following orders to serve his country by serving his country’s client, but it seems it was more personal than that.

The first thing to strike you about Glubb’s foreword is how naive it is. He simply takes her words at face value. Everything else written on Palestine is “prejudiced, if not pure propaganda,” full of “half-truths,” “distortions” and “intentional deception.” Khaled, by contrast, is “refreshing” because her position is so clear. The things she has to say are “simple facts.” Perhaps we should give him credit for at least acknowledging that she’s not impartial but there’s almost nothing to show that he has any opinion of his own on the morality of her refreshingly clear position or its consequences.

He does, though, eventually find a flaw. Her politics are “oversimplified” to the point of paranoia and her rejection of anyone who doesn’t embrace violence makes it hard for her sympathizers to help her. As you read this, you can’t help but feel his personal sense of unfair treatment. Perhaps it pulled at the quarter-century-old scar of his dismissal by King Abdullah.

What begins by seeming like amorality, a disinterest in Khaled’s choices, veers into something else soon enough. Before the end of the first page Glubb presents the conclusion of his moral thinking. Violence begets violence, but Palestinian violence is their _“only means of recovering their country and their freedom.” _Wait, wasn’t that what the Jews were doing?. He quotes Khaled,_”As a Palestinian, I had to believe in the gun as an embodiment of my humanity,”_without comment except to note that she’s a bit down on anyone who thinks otherwise. Even so, he wants us to know that she cried when John Kennedy was shot. When he turns to the Jews, it’s different: Jewish violence is inherited from the Nazis. 

Now we know where to place him. We’ve heard that one before.

Her contempt for non-violence and political difference notwithstanding, Glubb simply takes Khaled at her word when she says Jews and Arabs will be equals in the democratic Palestinian state she and her friends are going to create. The real problem is the Jews won’t allow it. They _“desire to have an all-Jewish state.” _Like the one we see today, presumably.

Glubb ends by solemnly informing us that _“It is easy for us, who have never been the victims of foreign conquest ... to denounce with vehemence the crimes of the evicted Palestinians.”_ That’s some chutzpah from a son and servant of the empire on which the sun never set. It’s world-class chutzpah when we remember that Transjordan’s purpose in invading on May 15th 1948 was not to free the Palestinian Arabs—who could have had their freedom for the asking but chose war instead—but to annex the land to itself. Abdullah had said as much to Jews and Arabs alike(1).

In his own memoirs, Glubb wrote that he came to love the Arabs(2). That must have been British understatement, because what shines through this foreword is not just love but infatuation. This is the Glubb Pasha who led his army into the Old City of Jerusalem and who had ultimate responsibility for the emptying, looting & burning of the Jewish Quarter. Some people (not me, obviously) can say much in a few words. Glubb was accidentally one of those. It’s hard not to wonder how many others among the British military and functionaries, in Mandatory Palestine and back in London, felt the way he did.

1) Howard Sachar, “A History of Israel” 2007, p.321–322

2) John Bagot Glubb, “A Soldier with the Arabs” 1957, p.5











						John Glubb and Leila Khaled (guest post)
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> you might be tempted to choose Leila Khaled, member of the Marxist-Leninist PFLP, serial airplane hijacker, pin-up for terrorism groupies everywhere.


It was her policy to not kill anyone and she never did.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> It was her policy to not kill anyone and she never did.


Just another Islamic terrorist.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Just another Islamic terrorist.


Ghassan Kanafani, Leila Khaled, Khalida Jarrar, Khaled Barakat, all part of Israel's terrorist smear campaign.

Just more of Israel's bullshit.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Ghassan Kanafani, Leila Khaled, Khalida Jarrar, Khaled Barakat, all part of Israel's terrorist smear campaign.
> 
> Just more of Israel's bullshit.


Flailing your Pom Poms for islamic terrorists.

Typical.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> Flailing your Pom Poms for islamic terrorists.
> 
> Typical.


Ghassan Kanafani and the era of revolutionary Palestinian media | The Listening Post (Feature)​


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Ghassan Kanafani and the era of revolutionary Palestinian media | The Listening Post (Feature)​



You fancy yourself as a basement version of a gee-had wannabe, right?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> You fancy yourself as a basement version of a gee-had wannabe, right?


Never killed anyone.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Never killed anyone.



Failed gee-had wannabe.


----------



## Mac-7

Coyote said:


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


Are you “fer” or “agin” the creation of Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Failed gee-had wannabe.


The plan was to not kill anyone. When the planes landed, they let everyone go.

Unlike those trigger happy Israelis.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The plan was to not kill anyone. When the planes landed, they let everyone go.
> 
> Unlike those trigger happy Israelis.



You're the failed gee-had wannabe.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> The plan was to not kill anyone. When the planes landed, they let everyone go.
> 
> Unlike those trigger happy Israelis.


What airlines were highjacked by the Israelis?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Hollie said:


> What airlines were highjacked by the Israelis?


Who is occupying Israel?


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> Who is occupying Israel?


I anticipated your usual skedaddle.


----------



## Sixties Fan

Today, Nov. 29, 2022, is the 75th anniversary of the 1947 UN Partition Plan – UN General Assembly resolution 181 - which divided the geographical area to the west of the Jordan River, into two states: A Jewish state and an Arab state. In its essence, the Partition Plan was a fundamental breach of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which placed that entire area under the governance of Great Britain, for the *sole purpose of creating a Jewish state on all of the land*.

The 1922 Mandate for Palestine had already taken the entire geographical area then referred to as “Palestine” and divided it in two: The eastern part of Palestine - the Arab country - was placed under the rule of the Hashemite family and changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The western part of Palestine was to become the Jewish state.   

Despite the breach of the Mandate, the Jewish leadership of the day – represented by David Ben Gurion - accepted the plan. The Arab leadership and countries, on the other hand, rejected the plan and immediately started planning how to eradicate the Jewish state before it even came into existence. 

75 years later, speaking at the UN, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has now decided to accept the plan and even demand its implementation: 



> “Therefore, I present today to this UN organization, the title of international legitimacy in this world, with a formal request to implement General Assembly resolution 181, which formed the basis for the two-state solution in 1947…”
> [WAFA, English edition, Official PA news agency, Sept. 23, 2022]​


In making this demand, Abbas ignores a number of fundamental realities. 

First, Abbas is demanding the implementation of a plan that has been defunct for 75 years. Living up to their promises, even before the British Mandate came to an end on May 14, 1948, the Arab countries attacked the nascent Jewish state.






[_Boston Evening Globe_, May 1, 1948]​
While Israel managed to survive and expand in a war in which 6.000 Israeli men, women, and children were killed, a full 1% of the population most of the areas allocated for the Arab state - Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip - were occupied by Jordan (which was not yet recognized by the UN as a state) and Egypt, respectively.

In its original charter from 1965, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is now headed by Abbas, disavowed its connection to the areas provisionally allocated for the Arab state openly declaring: 



> “This Organization [The PLO] does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area”.


Indeed, while Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria (which it renamed “The West Bank”), from 1948 to 1967, they and the other Arab countries refrained from creating what could have been the “Palestinian” Arab state. 

Israel’s War of Independence formally ended with the signature of a series of Armistice Agreements (from Nov. 1948 through April 1949) with the Arab countries. In parallel, the UN established the Conciliation Commission for Palestine.

In the discussions of the Conciliation Commission, the Arab countries demanded that Israel commit national demographic suicide and agree to flood itself with hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees, before they would express any willingness to accept Israel’s very existence. 

Israel on the other hand, demanded that the Arab countries first accept Israel’s existence and right to exist. Interestingly, according to the Oct. 23, 1950, report of the Commission, during the talks Israel offered to turn the Armistice lines with Jordan, Lebanon and Syria into borders. Israel also offered to turn the Armistice line with Egypt into a border, with the exception of the Gaza Strip, which it offered to incorporate into Israel and give all the Arabs living there Israeli citizenship:



> “The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, the Government of Israel would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees…”
> [General progress report and supplementary report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, Oct. 23, 1950]​


Steadfast in their refusal to accept Israel’s existence and right to exist as a national homeland for the Jewish people, the Arab countries rejected Israel’s offers. 

The second reality Abbas ignores is that he is claiming the implementation of the Partition Plan for the creation of the Palestinian state. While Abbas and many Palestinian supporters refer to Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip as “occupied Palestinian territories,” neither the UN Partition Plan nor UN Security Council Resolution 242 from 1967 refer to the areas allocated for the Arab state as “Palestinian territories.” The term “occupied Palestinian territories” was certainly not used from 1948 – 1967 and its first reference in UN documents appeared in the late 1990’s. 

The third reality Abbas ignores, is that resolutions of the UN General Assembly - such as the Partition Plan - are not legally binding and do not have the force to recognize a new state. As Palestinian Media Watch noted before Abbas made his demand to implement the Partition Plan, such a move would contravene international law and would necessitate a positive recommendation of all 5 of the permanent members of the UN Security Council that would be followed by the approval of two-thirds of the UNGA.

In the 1922 Mandate for Palestine, the League of Nations formally recognized, in the name of the entire international community, “*the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.*" [emphasis added] 

While the 1947 UN Partition Plan breached the legally binding Mandate, in its time, it had the potential to initiate a process that would have divided the area west of the Jordan River into two states. That option was eternally lost when it was wholly rejected by the Arab states and the Arab leadership. Abbas vainly clinging to the Partition Plan is equivalent to a passenger who bought a ticket on the Titanic, and is now demanding that the Titanic take him across the Atlantic Ocean.    












						What happened to the 1947 UN Partition Plan? | PMW Analysis
					

How the Palestinians rejected sovereignty, part 2: The UN partition plan




					palwatch.org


----------



## Sixties Fan

When the warrior poet Avraham “Yair” Stern founder and leader of Lohamei Herut Israel (Lehi, “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”) who believed that the British had to be forced out with assassinations and bombs and would never leave voluntarily, was killed after being captured and handcuffed by British detectives on Feb. 12, 1942, no Jew could celebrate his death.
But the leaders of the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine, already then led by David Ben-Gurion, viewed Stern’s death as a gain for the national cause rather than a loss—and not only because the poet and his followers were reckless political dilettantes: Some fantasized alliances with Mussolini, even the Nazis, as well as Arab nationalists in a common anti-British cause.
At a time of maximum danger—Rommel seemed to be on the verge of conquering Egypt, with Palestine next—Ben-Gurion and his allies doggedly pursued cooperation with the British in spite of bitter disappointments. Perhaps the worst of these was the May 1939 White Paper which limited the immigration of Jews to 75,000 over five years, sentencing countless European Jews to death at the hands of the Nazis. Yet Ben-Gurion believed, and rightly so, that the British were the least-bad allies the Jews could have.
Nor did Ben-Gurion have much choice. The Americans had refused to enter the war even after the Germans had conquered most of Europe. They still refused to act when the Germans seemed on the verge of defeating Russia, which would soon mean Britain’s defeat, too. On Dec. 2, 1941, German tanks were 14.7 miles from Moscow’s Red Square. America was only at war when Stern died in 1942 because the Japanese had attacked them.
It was unimaginable that the Americans would intervene on behalf of the Jews in the distant Middle East—indeed the U.S. only lifted its total weapons embargo on Israel in August 1962!—to allow the sale of defensive antiaircraft missiles, seven years after the Soviets had agreed to deliver bombers to Nasser’s Egypt (part of a huge Soviet weapons gift package misrepresented as “Czech” at the insistence of the CIA to avert hostility from their own man Nasser: That always-wrong agency was betting on Nasser’s mighty Arab nationalism rather than on seemingly puny Israel).
When Avraham Stern was killed, the communists still gave all their loyalty to Stalin. According to Ben-Gurion and the majority of Jewish leaders in Palestine, Churchill was still the best bet the Jews could have, even after the exposure of his crass duplicity toward the Yishuv. Having vehemently condemned the May 1939 White Paper to please his Jewish benefactors while out of office and short of ready cash, Churchill refused to change the policy once he became prime minister—thus denying escape from death to millions, and incidentally preventing my father, mother, two brothers, and myself from leaving Arad, Romania, to reach safety by a comfortable Orient Express ride to Istanbul and thence Haifa. A 5-inch-by-2-inch Palestine entry slip was enough to obtain Bulgarian and Turkish transit visas, but the British refused to issue them, even in 1944—by which point detailed eyewitness accounts and impeccable documentation of the operation of every part of the Nazi killing machine had reached London and Washington.
In spite of all that, on the evidence available at the time, Ben-Gurion was still mostly right and Avraham Stern was still mostly wrong. The British did eventually, and very reluctantly, agree to the U.N.’s termination of their mandatory rule on May 15, 1948, thus allowing the Jews to fight for their state. The qualifier is necessary because a factor in the British decision was the terrorist attacks inspired by Stern, including the July 22, 1946, bombing of the British headquarters in the King David Hotel whose 91 killed set a deadliest-attack record that lasted for decades.

It is only in more recent years that documents have emerged which prove that the British—meaning the then immensely authoritative Imperial General Staff whose eminence increased even more once Churchill was voted out of office on July 5, 1945—were determined to remain in Palestine, contrary to their representations to the Jewish leaders and the U.N. In fact, they had worked out an operational plan to do exactly that: They would equip the Egyptian army of their obedient liege King Farouk, and the Iraqi army of their obedient liege King Faisal II with field artillery, tanks, and combat aircraft, and they would send armored cars, field artillery, and excellent British officers to command the Arab Legion of their liege King Abdullah of Jordan. The Jews would be allowed no weapons at all—not even revolvers. Faced with the irresistible advance of the Arab armies, they themselves would plead for British protection, thereby ensuring the prolongation of British rule.
The General Staff documents reveal systematic strategic logic at work with no trace of antisemitism. British staff planners accepted that India, Burma, and Ceylon would soon be lost, but asserted that the Persian Gulf had to be kept because its oil revenues were essential to fund Britain’s reconstruction (aside from much housing stock lost to Nazi bombers, the machinery in British factories was worn out by wartime production).
Britain’s postwar recovery, the General Staff planners believed, would require continued control of a chain of air bases from Cyprus and the British-controlled Canal Zone to Iraq and Bahrain via the Negev, the southern desert that constituted the largest part of the U.N.-drawn map of the future Israel. The Jewish state therefore could not be allowed to become independent on May 15, 1948, except for a narrow coastal strip above the Negev, where a few hundred thousand Jews might live under British protection.
The Labour government that followed Churchill’s wartime coalition was fully engaged in building a land fit for heroes and had no time or inclination to interfere with the Imperial General Staff plan—and if they had intervened it would scarcely have changed anything. Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee (Churchill’s “modest man with a lot to be modest about”), happened to be a very quiet but coldly determined and absolute antisemite as well as an anti-Zionist. This fact was little known at the time partly because of all the attention focused on the Foreign Office, which was led by the ex-trade-unionist Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, who was not a serious antisemite at all but only a loudmouth.
Bevin provided cover for both Attlee and the Imperial General Staff planners with his antisemitic outbursts. But the outburst most often cited against Bevin, of June 12, 1946—“There has been agitation in the United States … for 100,000 Jews to be put in Palestine [for] the purest of motives. They did not want too many Jews in New York”—actually originated wih James F. Byrnes, the U.S. secretary of state. Byrnes’ own policy—ferociously and very effectively enforced—was likewise to deny any weapons at all to the Jews, thereby furthering British plans.
Byrnes’ policy persisted unchanged under his certifiably nonantisemitic successor George Marshall (who had pressed for opening the gates to Jewish migrants into the U.S.) even after Israel’s independence on May 15, 1948, regardless of the inherent right of any sovereign state to defend itself. Had weapons not arrived by precarious DC-3 flights from the Czech Republic via Yugoslavia with the consent of Josef Stalin, who was out to embarrass the British Empire, the Jewish state would have been defeated, with the survivors rescued only if British rule persisted.
As it happened, the Jews turned out to be much better fighters than anyone had anticipated, but their 1949 victory on all fronts was only a setback for the Imperial General Staff, whose unquestioned authority did not wane until the 1956 Suez debacle.

Two bundles of heretofore overlooked documents prove that Avraham Stern was right in not trusting British declarations that they would end the Mandate and allow the Jews to establish a state, even within the shrunken borders envisioned by the U.N.
First, there are the “Operation Cordage” documents, which envisaged a terrorist attack on Israel that would provoke Israeli retaliation against the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Israeli response would allow Britain to activate its commitment to defend the Hashemite Kingdom under the 1946 Treaty of London. This would provide the excuse for the British to launch all-out air attacks by the Royal Air Force from its Cyprus base and by the Fleet Air Arm from carriers, in order to destroy all Israeli air force and army bases, headquarters, and depots. (At the time, the British Air Force could do that and more.) As soon as Cordage was executed, the disarmed Israelis would be forced to beg for British protection, because they would be so weak that even the small Lebanese army could invade, along with the much stronger Syrians, Iraqis, and still then British-officered Jordanians.
















The other set of documents describes the U.S.-U.K. Plan Alpha worked out in 1955 by Francis Russell of the U.S. State Department and the leading Arabist of the British Foreign Office, Evelyn Shuckburgh (who would suffer acute stomach pains whenever forced to concede a very rare audience to Israel’s ambassador). Presented by Prime Minister Anthony Eden in his November 1955 Guildhall speech, Alpha would detach the Negev—yes always the Negev—from Israel to give it to Egypt—which was still then, if not for long, “British Egypt,” complete with army and air force Canal-side bases, garrisoned by 70,000 British troops.





It was only Nasser’s betrayal of his CIA would-be handlers to seize control of the Suez Canal, and the subsequent 1956 Suez War—Israel’s Sinai campaign—that turned the tables. The British attacked Egypt instead, resulting in Eden’s resignation, lifelong sorrow for Shuckburgh, and the start of the wars that would lead to the Egypt-Israel peace treaty and present cooperation, thereby realizing Stern’s hope that Arab and Jewish nationalists could be allies.
So who was right?



The Cordage documents attached were provided by the historian and preeminent broadcaster Dr. Isaac Noy, z.l., May 2022. Anat Stern corrected errors in an earlier draft.











						The Failed British Double-Cross of Israel
					

Heretofore overlooked British General Staff documents demonstrate that the oft-marginalized Lehi leader Avraham ‘Yair’ Stern’s assessment of British intentions toward Mandate Palestine was correct




					www.tabletmag.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Map: The division of the Mandate for Palestine

*Editor’s Note: *_Today is November 29, the 75th anniversary of the 1947 United Nations vote approving the Partition Plan for Palestine. JewishPress.com has published many articles about that sea-change event, but the one that stands out as the most relevant from today’s perspective was authored by Ari Fuld HY”D, detailing some of the key shortcomings of this resolution, the price of which he paid and we continue to endure. We present it again below._

This is the kind of information that most people simply don’t know and those that do, are too dishonest to discuss it. It is important for you to read and then share it out. It’s time to reclaim the narrative for the sake of truth!


Jordan is a State that was created in 1946 (two years before Israel). The area was known as Trans-Jordan (the other side of the Jordan River) and was 70%+ of what was British Mandated Palestine.

The Hashemite clan came in from Mecca and occupied the area of Trans-Jordan. Although the area of Trans-Jordan was already promised to the Jews by Sir Balfour as part of the Jewish homeland, no one said a word about the illegal occupation by the Hashemite clan. 

The Hashemites have no historical, national or religious ties to the land they are currently occupying. In 1946 the League of Nations accepted the illegal occupation by the Hashemites and recognized a new State called Jordan which was declared on 70% of what was British Mandated Palestine. 

Israel became a member of the UN in May 1949 while Jordan was only recognized in the UN on December 14, 1955! 

In November 1947 the UN passed resolution 181, which is also known as the partition plan. One Jewish country and one Arab country on what was at the time the British Mandate of Palestine.

As a Jew who was already robbed of 70% of the Land of Israel, I find the name partition offensive. My indigenous land was already partitioned and there already was an Arab country on 77% of what was British Palestine. 

So the UN passed a resolution that the remaining 30% of land that was not robbed from the Jewish people be split up again and offered to the Arab League. There was no excuse for the UN to make such a resolution and yet the Jews at the time accepted the resolution as we are hungry for life.

The Arabs refused the partition plan as they would not accept any Jewish presence or ruling in the Land of Israel. In response to the partition plan, they attacked the young Jewish country with the goal of destroying it and pushing the Jews into the sea. With God’s help and many very brave Jewish soldiers, Israel won the war. 

The map after 1948 was a mess for the Jewish people. Jordan occupied Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria and kept Jews out of all the areas. They built a wall in Jerusalem and any Jew who attempted to reach the Old City would have been shot dead. Countless synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians and Jewish cemeteries were desecrated on Mount of Olives.

The infamous “green line” is not from 1967! It is the armistice line from 1948. When the Arabs realized they failed at their attempt to destroy the Jewish people they stopped fighting. The color of the marker that filled in the line where the Arabs stopped their attempt to destroy us was…GREEN!

Jordan ruled over Judea and Samaria, Egypt ruled over Gaza and Syria ruled over the Golan Heights. For those that do not understand the importance of the sentence above, it means that all the lands that the Arabs call “occupied” were under Arab control between 1948-1967! Was there peace?

It was Jordan, Egypt, and Syria that built the refugee camps and stuck their own Arab brothers and sisters in them to create a refugee problem in order to bash Israel. If creating a new State called Palestine was the goal and all the Arab countries are in favor of such a State, why didn’t Jordan Egypt and Syria help the “Palestinian” Arabs start a State during those 19 years (1948-1967).

Israel liberated Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza and the Golan from Arab States occupation and it has nothing to do with an Arab people who call themselves (since 1964) Palestinians. We never occupied an Arab place called Palestine and there never was an Arab place called Palestine before Israel that could have been occupied.

You are probably saying this is enough to completely destroy the anti-Israel propaganda, but it gets much better (or worse).
Today, Jordan is ruled by a king. 

Over 75% of Jordan’s population are Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians”! So why hasn’t the majority of “Palestinians” taken over?
Because Jordan does not give them full rights!

In fact, Jordan has the largest “Palestinian” refugee camps! 

Where is the UN? Where is UNWRA? Where are the SJWs? Where are all the Leftists who care about Human Rights? 

Just to sum up, Jordan sits on 77% of British Palestine and has a majority of over 75% of Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians”. Why aren’t the Arabs, who so want to create a Palestinian State, not fighting over 77% of the Land where they are a 75% majority? Why are they fighting over a small sliver of 23% where they are the minority? The answer is simple.

This has never been a struggle to build a new state called Palestine, it’s a struggle to destroy the one called ISRAEL. 

Now, can we start fighting for truth and stop giving into false diplomacy that is based on lies?











						I Was Robbed of 70% of the Land of Israel
					

This is the kind of information that most people simply don't know and those that do, are too dishonest to discuss it. It is important for you to read and then share it out. It's time to reclaim the n




					www.jewishpress.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


> Today, Nov. 29, 2022, is the 75th anniversary of the 1947 UN Partition Plan – UN General Assembly resolution 181 - which divided the geographical area to the west of the Jordan River, into two states: A Jewish state and an Arab state. In its essence, the Partition Plan was a fundamental breach of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which placed that entire area under the governance of Great Britain, for the *sole purpose of creating a Jewish state on all of the land*.
> 
> The 1922 Mandate for Palestine had already taken the entire geographical area then referred to as “Palestine” and divided it in two: The eastern part of Palestine - the Arab country - was placed under the rule of the Hashemite family and changed its name to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The western part of Palestine was to become the Jewish state.
> 
> Despite the breach of the Mandate, the Jewish leadership of the day – represented by David Ben Gurion - accepted the plan. The Arab leadership and countries, on the other hand, rejected the plan and immediately started planning how to eradicate the Jewish state before it even came into existence.
> 
> 75 years later, speaking at the UN, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has now decided to accept the plan and even demand its implementation:
> 
> 
> In making this demand, Abbas ignores a number of fundamental realities.
> 
> First, Abbas is demanding the implementation of a plan that has been defunct for 75 years. Living up to their promises, even before the British Mandate came to an end on May 14, 1948, the Arab countries attacked the nascent Jewish state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [_Boston Evening Globe_, May 1, 1948]​
> While Israel managed to survive and expand in a war in which 6.000 Israeli men, women, and children were killed, a full 1% of the population most of the areas allocated for the Arab state - Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip - were occupied by Jordan (which was not yet recognized by the UN as a state) and Egypt, respectively.
> 
> In its original charter from 1965, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is now headed by Abbas, disavowed its connection to the areas provisionally allocated for the Arab state openly declaring:
> 
> 
> Indeed, while Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria (which it renamed “The West Bank”), from 1948 to 1967, they and the other Arab countries refrained from creating what could have been the “Palestinian” Arab state.
> 
> Israel’s War of Independence formally ended with the signature of a series of Armistice Agreements (from Nov. 1948 through April 1949) with the Arab countries. In parallel, the UN established the Conciliation Commission for Palestine.
> 
> In the discussions of the Conciliation Commission, the Arab countries demanded that Israel commit national demographic suicide and agree to flood itself with hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees, before they would express any willingness to accept Israel’s very existence.
> 
> Israel on the other hand, demanded that the Arab countries first accept Israel’s existence and right to exist. Interestingly, according to the Oct. 23, 1950, report of the Commission, during the talks Israel offered to turn the Armistice lines with Jordan, Lebanon and Syria into borders. Israel also offered to turn the Armistice line with Egypt into a border, with the exception of the Gaza Strip, which it offered to incorporate into Israel and give all the Arabs living there Israeli citizenship:
> 
> 
> Steadfast in their refusal to accept Israel’s existence and right to exist as a national homeland for the Jewish people, the Arab countries rejected Israel’s offers.
> 
> The second reality Abbas ignores is that he is claiming the implementation of the Partition Plan for the creation of the Palestinian state. While Abbas and many Palestinian supporters refer to Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip as “occupied Palestinian territories,” neither the UN Partition Plan nor UN Security Council Resolution 242 from 1967 refer to the areas allocated for the Arab state as “Palestinian territories.” The term “occupied Palestinian territories” was certainly not used from 1948 – 1967 and its first reference in UN documents appeared in the late 1990’s.
> 
> The third reality Abbas ignores, is that resolutions of the UN General Assembly - such as the Partition Plan - are not legally binding and do not have the force to recognize a new state. As Palestinian Media Watch noted before Abbas made his demand to implement the Partition Plan, such a move would contravene international law and would necessitate a positive recommendation of all 5 of the permanent members of the UN Security Council that would be followed by the approval of two-thirds of the UNGA.
> 
> In the 1922 Mandate for Palestine, the League of Nations formally recognized, in the name of the entire international community, “*the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.*" [emphasis added]
> 
> While the 1947 UN Partition Plan breached the legally binding Mandate, in its time, it had the potential to initiate a process that would have divided the area west of the Jordan River into two states. That option was eternally lost when it was wholly rejected by the Arab states and the Arab leadership. Abbas vainly clinging to the Partition Plan is equivalent to a passenger who bought a ticket on the Titanic, and is now demanding that the Titanic take him across the Atlantic Ocean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happened to the 1947 UN Partition Plan? | PMW Analysis
> 
> 
> How the Palestinians rejected sovereignty, part 2: The UN partition plan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> palwatch.org


*Arabs invade PALESTINE.

Indeed*.

Resolution 181 was DOA. It did not create any states.


Sixties Fan said:


> We never occupied an Arab place called Palestine and there never was an Arab place called Palestine before Israel that could have been occupied.


You need to read the armistice agreements.


----------



## Hollie

P F Tinmore said:


> *Arabs invade PALESTINE.
> 
> Indeed*.
> 
> Resolution 181 was DOA. It did not create any states.
> 
> You need to read the armistice agreements.



Indeed. 181 was another pally fail in a never ending parade of pally fails.


----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## Sixties Fan




----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


>


Resolution 181 had nothing to do with Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Sixties Fan said:


>


Resolution 181 was abandoned by the UN when the Security Council failed to implement it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Resolution 181 was abandoned by the UN when the Security Council failed to implement it.



Yeah, the Arabs fucked up their chances.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, the Arabs fucked up their chances.


The Palestinians fucked up their chance to give half of their country to colonial settlers?

WOW!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians fucked up their chance to give half of their country to colonial settlers?
> 
> WOW!



The Palestinians, who didn't own shit, gave up their chance to have their own country.

And they've continued fucking up, over and over and over and over ever since.

WOW!


----------



## P F Tinmore




----------



## P F Tinmore

The Arab and Jewish Questions: Geographies of Engagement in Palestine and Beyond​


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 1 

During the UN debates before partiotion in November 1947, st the very same time that Arab leaders were at the UN insisting that they wanted an independent Palestinian Arab state, they were already planning on dividing the area up between themselves.

This article in the Palestine Post is from November 27, 1947:



















						Arab pretense of wanting a Palestinian Arab state evaporated immediately after the UN partition vote 75 years ago
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 2

There was a similar article in the Palestine Post on November 30, 1947, the day of the partition, from a completely different source.









> ARAB STATES PREPARE TO FIGHT ABDULLAH





> By JON KIMCHE, Special to The Palestine Post
> 
> LONDON , Saturday  —Representatives of the Arab States here express serious disquiet following reports that King Abdullah's Arab Legion will occupy the Arab State sector of Palestine when the British withdraw. One British source normally very close to these representatives has stated , however, that what will happen, according to his information, is rather different .
> 
> The Arab Legion , together with a token force from Iraq, will occupy, he said, the central sector of the Palestine Arab State. Syria and the Lebanon will occupy the coastal stretch of the Arab State north of Acre, and Egypt, with a token Saudi Arabian force, will occupy parts of the Negev and the desert frontier area. What will _happen after such a "partition of partitioned Palestine", he added, is anybody's guess, but one thing is certain : that the Arab States will not accept Trans-Jordan taking over by itself, and that TransJordan will oppose Syrian and Lebanese inroads.



Literally hours earlier the Arab leaders were posturing in the UN about how dedicated they were to a Palestinian Arab state.

I once created this map of what "Palestine" would look like today if Israel lost in 1948. It was a guess, but it is in line with this article.

















						Arab pretense of wanting a Palestinian Arab state evaporated immediately after the UN partition vote 75 years ago
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

All from newspapers published on December 2, 1947. 




























General overviews of the conflict often skip over the period from the Partition resolution to May 14, 1948, when Arab armies officially attacked. The threats and attacks on Jews in Palestine and throughout the Arab world are downplayed. But the media at the time documented it.











						Headlines from 75 years ago
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

During the summer of 1936, a couple of months into the Arab revolt, the Jaffa-based Falastin newspaper started publishing on its front cover editorial cartoons that were shown in English as well as Arabic.

Some were blatantly antisemitic.

Here are a few:






The Zionist crocodile to Palestine Arabs: "Don't be afraid!! I vill swallow you peacefully..."
Note the accented "vill."




Years before "Maus," this cartoon showed Jews as mice and Arabs as cats, with the text, "Cats & Mice, living in peace and harmony...did you ever see such a thing in your life???"









"Jewish money speaks"




"Jewish immigration, protected by British bayonets"





"Danse Macabre - Weizmann & Jabotinsky dancing over skulls to establish Jewish National Home in Palestine"











						Antisemitic cartoons in Falastin newspaper (Jaffa), Summer 1936
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## rylah




----------



## rylah




----------



## P F Tinmore

Transnational Palestine Migration and the Right of Return before 1948​


----------



## Sixties Fan

Al Jazeera writes about a project funded by the British Library and the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library to restore a volume of fatwas by Sheikh Othman al-Tabbaa, of Gaza, written in 1904.

The article features this fatwa  by the sheikh not to sell land to Jews:



> About 118 years ago, Sheikh Othman al-Tabbaa, one of the notables of the city of Gaza, issued a fatwa *prohibiting “selling lands to Jews directly or through traitorous brokers,* because it weakens the physical and moral strength of Muslims and strengthens the enemies of the nation and the homeland, (especially) when it appears that their intention is to exterminate patriots as a whole, and to take over their countries and homelands by various means, just as it is not permissible to support or support them.”
> 
> And the Jews referred to, according to the fatwa of Sheikh al-Tabbaa, “were not people of dhimma, security, and they had no covenant from the caliph of the Muslims, but rather* they were deviants and vagabonds from the horizons*, so it is not permissible to empower them from the homes of Muslims and sell them lands *whose price was the blood of the mujahideen heroes,* as well as the prohibition of brokering and mediating in selling to them, Rather, it appeared that the harm of the brokers is more severe than the harm of the Jews themselves, because they guide them to every path that will help them reach their goals and facilitate obstacles for them.
> 
> Al-Tabbaa supported his fatwa with what was established in the books of the four schools of thought that “it is forbidden to sell to the people of war and sedition that which strengthens them in war, such as weapons and horses, and it is not carried to them even after reconciliation, and selling land and mediating in it to them is more severe and harmful than selling weapons and horses, and whoever does not adhere to his religion and act according to his orders. He avoids his prohibitions and pretends to commit what is prohibited by Sharia, so *he is an avowed immoral person who must be insulted and boycotted*.”



Al Jazeera is positioning this sheikh as a hero, who saw the danger of the Jews early and sounded the alarm not to sell land to the "deviants and vagabonds" who were Jews.

The manuscript should be preserved, because it is a very nice example of Muslim Jew-hatred from the early 20th century.  I'm not so certain that this is what the British Library and HMMI have in mind, though, when they spend money to preserve it. I think they just think that this was an important scholar whose words should continue to be studied.











						British Library and Hill Museum restoring writings of early 20th century Gaza antisemitic cleric
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Continuing looking at the newspapers from 75 years ago in the wake of the UN Partition vote.

From the Manchester Guardian, December 10, 1947:

Commentary magazine summarized the pogrom in Aden a few months later:




> In the riots that broke out suddenly last December 2 after the decision of the United Nations in favor of partition in Palestine, and following an appeal of the Arab League for a three-day strike of protest in all Arab countries, over eighty Jews were killed and as many seriously wounded. Fourteen Jewish houses were burnt to the ground, and many more were looted. Of one hundred and seventy Jewish shops and stores, over a hundred were burnt or looted and the two Jewish schools were burnt out.
> 
> It is alleged that the greatest part of the casualties was caused by the military force, the Aden Protectorate Levies, which were called in by the civil authority when the police were unable to deal with the mob. The Aden Levies are composed of Arab tribesmen with British and Arab officers. It was apparently asking too much for them to take firm action against Arab looters attacking Jewish houses and shops. They soon turned to take an active part themselves in the looting and shooting of Jews.



(full article online)









						75 years ago: Jews in Arab countries in grave danger
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 1

Continuing my look at the news from 75 years ago for Jews in the Middle East, from the Palestine Post from December 14-18, 1947.

Here's a story from December 14 that was not at all unusual, of Jewish civilians being targeted and killed by Arabs.






Here is a massacre of Jews who were bringing food to a Jewish children's village from the December 15 edition. This slaughter is barely mentioned nowadays. 




A follow-up story notes that five of the dead were under 18 years old.
















						Middle East Jews in December 1947 in danger from Palestinian Arabs, Syrians, Egyptians - and British soldiers
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 2

On December 16, we see that Arabs were happily embracing the "spirit of Hitler" in their genocidal aims:




Jews didn't only have to be concerned about attacks by Arabs. Here is a horrific story of a Jewish girl raped by British soldiers.




The only way to demand justice from a rape by British soldiers was to go to...British police.

Later in the month, an attempt to hear the case was stymied when the male witness could not be found. That is the last I could see about this story.

Meanwhile, on December 17, we see how Jews in Arab countries continued to be threatened and harassed:






There were daily stories of Jewish civilians being shot individually, so many that the stories about them were short and often lumped together (12/18):















						Middle East Jews in December 1947 in danger from Palestinian Arabs, Syrians, Egyptians - and British soldiers
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

From the 1902 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica:








Less than a decade after the term was coined, the writer - Lucien Wolf - recognized clearly that modern Zionism was a direct "lineal heir" to the longtime Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel since the Jewish nation's first exile.

Today's scholars find such an idea anathema, because it would mean that the Jews have a historic tie to the land, and too many modern academics want to separate Zionism from Judaism. But at the time, it was obvious to all, Jew and non-Jew. 

Wolf was an anti-Zionist himself. He lobbied against the Balfour Declaration and co-founded the anti-Zionist League of British Jews.  His political opinion caused his blind spot, both in this article and his article on antisemitism in the encyclopedia, where he fervently believed that Jew-hatred was a thing of the past and the world was more enlightened - dooming Zionism to failure.





His predictions were fatally wrong. 

Yet even as the antisemitism that he confidently believed had been receding was proven to be not only resilient but far deadlier than anyone could imagine, he didn't have the honesty to admit his mistakes. 

If there were fewer Jewish anti-Zionists in England in the 1920s and 1930s, it is possible that many more Jews could have been saved from the gas chambers. 











						Encyclopedia Britannica, 1902, recognized that Zionism was a historic part of Judaism
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

1917 Jerusalem Chanukah Military Celebration
					

As the world was engulfed in brutal armed conflict of unprecedented scope, fighting raged in the Holy land between Allied troops and the Ottoman-Turks (allied with the Central Powers) who had ruled the land for most of the past 400 years.




					www.israelunwired.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

From the December 21, 1947 Palestine Post, a report that the Arab League decided to forcibly conscript Jews or consider them the enemy.






And at the same time, more threats against the Jews of Aden (Yemen) materialized:





"Anti-zionism" or classic antisemitism?










						December 21, 1947: Jews in Arab countries threatened again
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine Archive - Palestine A Four Thousand Year History​


----------



## P F Tinmore

Who were the Canaanites? (The Land of Canaan, Geography, People and History)​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Who were the Canaanites? (The Land of Canaan, Geography, People and History)​



Who were the Canaanites?​
And how many of them were Muslim?


----------



## P F Tinmore

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who were the Canaanites?​
> And how many of them were Muslim?


Irrelevant.


----------



## P F Tinmore

Palestine by Nur Masalha Book Summary - Review (AudioBook)​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

P F Tinmore said:


> Irrelevant.



Was it zero?


----------



## Sixties Fan

In the Palestine Post of December 26 and 27, 1947, Arab terror attacks on Jews were as bad as they were during the second intifada. 

No one talks about that today.

It is worthwhile to study them. The Palestinian mentality and antisemitism, their making no distinction between Jewish civilians and armed forces, remains exactly the same today. 

The December 26 edition mentions the murder of a Jewish Olympic athlete, Elias "Elo" Katz, who had won the silver and gold medals in the Paris Games in 1924 (the article is mistaken.)




While any Palestinian terrorists who ever kicked a ball are trumpeted to the world as if Israel targets athletes (this article today from the official Palestinian news agency claims Israel has targeted and killed over 700 Palestinian athletes!), here was a real Olympics gold medalist who was murdered by Palestinians.

The December 27 Palestine Post reports on two more convoys - meant to bring food and supplies to isolated Jews - ambushed and seven Jews murdered:





The Arab Legion of Transjordan at the time partnered with the British to help keep things calm - but instead, this professional army shot at two civilian buses near Haifa, killing one Jew and wounding others, originally claiming that the Jews attacked first but it was found to be a lie. 




An absolutely heartbreaking story of a little girl in bed killed by Arab gunfire. 




Violence was so prevalent that here we see four separate incidents - including an attack on a Jewish children's home, a Jew killed - are thrown together on a single Page 3 story (the newspaper was only four pages long.)




Palestinian Arabs openly threatened Jews - from London.





Egypt decided that since it was impossible to ensure that they were only boycotting Jews in Palestine, they should boycott *everyone *in Palestine.




 Like today's BDSers, the point isn't to help Palestinian Arabs but to try to hurt the Jews. Like today's BDSers, they would swear that they are doing this to help the Palestinian Arabs. Like today's BDSers, they never actually asked the affected Arabs if they want to be collateral damage.

Other news from that paper are also echoes of today: a huge blizzard in the US that kills many people, and a fatal cholera outbreak in Syria that people are desperate to contain.










						75 years ago: Arab terrorist attacks on Jews intensify, and an early "BDS" from Egypt
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## P F Tinmore

"Roots of the Nakba: Zionist Settler Colonialism" (2020) by Sumaya Awad & Annie Levin. Audiobook.​


----------



## rylah

P F Tinmore said:


> "Roots of the Nakba: Zionist Settler Colonialism" (2020) by Sumaya Awad & Annie Levin. Audiobook.​



Socialist Zionists defeated British and Arab imperialists.

Arab imperialists taking pride in socialism,
is what you call slow learners.


----------



## rylah

Unarmed civilians they say...


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part  1

Continuing my review of the Palestine Post articles from 75 years ago, we see this interesting piece from January 2, 1948:





It turns out this was far from the only reporting in 1948 of close cooperation between Arabs who wanted to murder the Jews and the Nazis who were experts on the topic.

January 9:















						If anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism, why did Arabs recruit Nazis in 1948?
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 2

February 22 (JTA):




> Arab agents are today recruiting mercenaries to fight against the Jews in Palestine from among the Yugoslav Ustashi and Chetniks and the Ukrainians, Albanians, Circassians (former inhabitants of the northwestern area of the Caucasus) and other groups here who were on Hitler’s side during the war, and are now under the care of the International Refugee Organization.
> 
> Able-bodied men, both inside and outside the I.R.O. camps, who are between 22 and 32 years of age, and who accept the Arab terms of payment–their fares to the middle East and maintenance of their families in exchange for their pledge to serve in the Arab forces for at least one year–are being given visas by the governments of Egypt, Syria and Transjordan. Where the mercenaries are of Moslem origin they are being officially resettled” by formal negotiations between the governments concerned and the I.R.0. which, however, disclaims any knowledge of what use the individuals are put to on arriving in the Middle East.



April 1:







April 9:




July 28 (JTA):




> Several hundred former members of the Nazi Prinz Even, Division, recruited by Egyptian authorities in Austria as farm workers, immediately upon their arrival in Egypt joined the Arab Legion of Transjordan and departed for the Palestine front to fight against the Jews, the Socialist newspaper Well Am Abend reported today.
> 
> The newspaper charged that Dr. Ismail Hassan, Egyptian representative in Austria, toured the U.S. zone several weeks ago and succeeded in obtaining exit visas for the several hundred, most of whom were Bosnian Moslems and held the rank of major to the Prinz Eugen Division. The disclosure of the identity of the men followed the capture of several of them by the Israeli forces, Welt Am Abend stated.














						If anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism, why did Arabs recruit Nazis in 1948?
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

Part 3

September 5:






There is surprisingly very little literature about the Nazi contribution to the 1948 war.. There are lots of books about Arabs collaborating with Nazis during World War II,, and more with the false accusations of Zionists collaborating with Nazis, but I cannot find any on Nazis collaborating with Arabs after the war.

The most comprehensive account I could find was a contemporaneous article by International News Service correspondent Kenneth Dixon written on February 22, 1948, where he viewed the evidence of the Palmach from papers on captured Nazis as well as German-style fighting techniques from Arab soldiers.







Barry Rubin and Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, in their 2014 book "Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East," have one chapter on "The Arab States' Useful Nazis." It does not talk about the Nazi role in the 1948 war, but they note that the number of Nazi officials that escaped to Arab countries dwarfed the number that fled to South America - over 4,000 Nazis officials in Arab countries (some estimate over 6,000)  compared to less than a thousand in Latin America. (And many of those who fled to South America later relocated to the Middle East.)

The authors say  (p. 216)  that a few years after World War II, the Allies were unenthusiastic about seeking out Nazi war criminals for punishment. They then acidly note that "the only ones who seemed to be avidly seeking to find Nazi war criminals were *Arab governments who wanted to offer them jobs*."

This is all after the Nuremberg Trials when Nazi crimes were well known. The Arab leadership at the time were attracted, not repulsed, by the details of the Holocaust. 

If Arabs were not antisemitic, then why did they so enthusiastically recruit known Nazi war criminals for their war against Israel?

And if leftist "anti-Zionists" today abhor antisemitism, why have they remained so silent when confronted with countless stories that prove Arabs have been enthusiastic antisemites? Why can one not find virtually any condemnation of Arab antisemitism from these social justice warriors?

Because they share the same mindset as the Arabs who recruited Nazis in the 1940s.











						If anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism, why did Arabs recruit Nazis in 1948?
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

The terror attacks against Jews in the months after the partition were so frequent that even the most hideous attacks were buried on page 3 (out of four) of the Palestine Post.

Here we learn about Raya Sitek, a 45 year old woman who was stabbed multiple times to death in Jaffa over the weekend of January 2, 1948.

Her Arab attackers weren't satisfied with simply killing her. They kept stabbing this middle aged woman - repeatedly - after she had already died.






This has nothing to do with "opposition to Zionism." This is bloodlust to not only kill Jews, but to mutilate them afterwards. 

I believe that this is the street where Raya Sitek was murdered, close to the Clock Tower square.















						75 years ago: Arabs stab Jewish woman, and keep stabbing after she's dead
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan

From The Palestine Post, January 11, 1948, referring to events from the previous Friday, January 9:



> Eleven Jews were killed in a planned massacre when Arabs attacked a party of 23 unarmed agricultural workers on Friday morning as they went to work in Jewish orange groves near Sukreir village .
> 
> After killing the Jews, the Arabs stripped them of their clothing and decapitated one of the bodies.
> 
> The dead so far identified are all of Rishon Le Zion ; Zvi Hayn, 33; Yechiel Danziger, 23; Yoel Weisseltier , 22 ; Michael Abrahamov, 18; Josef Okashi, 18;  Pinhas Kaufman, 22 ; Zeharia Tabib, 18 ; and Avraham Feldklein, 18 . The bodies of the other three men are still missing.
> 
> During Friday night, well motors in four Jewish orange groves near Sukreir were  blown up .


It looks like the dead were not orange grove workers but a Haganah patrol. There is a garden in Rishon LeTzion in their memory (sign above.)

In Benny Morris' Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, he reports that the Haganah leveled the village of Sukreir (Suqrir) on January 11 in retaliation after the entire village evacuated. 















						75 years ago: Another forgotten massacre of Jews
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------

