# The Balfour Declaration



## Shusha (Oct 18, 2017)

Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.  

The relevant text, for reference:

*"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."*
*
*
I'm going to contrast that declaration with Article 2 of the UNGA 1514 of 14 December 1960

_2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development._


----------



## fanger (Oct 18, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.
> 
> The relevant text, for reference:
> 
> ...


Unless they happen to live in Gaza, where israel enforces a blockade


----------



## abi (Oct 18, 2017)

What part of *"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" *is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?


----------



## fanger (Oct 18, 2017)

abi said:


> What part of *"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" *is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?


Well, when the zionist plan is fulfilled there will be  no "_*non-Jewish communities" existing*_


----------



## BlackFlag (Oct 18, 2017)

The people with the bigger army and better weapons are the ones who get to say their God mandated them that land, as has always been the case over there.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 18, 2017)

abi said:


> What part of *"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" *is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?



For clarification, then, you support the concepts articulated in the Balfour Declaration, you just don't think it was implemented correctly.


----------



## abi (Oct 18, 2017)

Shusha said:


> For clarification, then, you support the concepts articulated in the Balfour Declaration, you just don't think it was implemented correctly.


Answer my questions first as this is your thread. What part of the direct quote is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?


----------



## fanger (Oct 18, 2017)

And to this end Declares that:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 18, 2017)

Rather than see the Balfour Declaration as a commitment to Jewish self-determination, Black frames it as the origin of a conflict and the end of Palestinian aspirations.

In reality, it was not the Balfour Declaration that brought about the situation of today’s Palestinians or even those from 1948. Palestinian and Arab rejectionism has thwarted all attempts over the years to reach an amicable arrangement that could have seen a Palestinian state co-existing side by side with a Jewish one.

(full article online)

Balfour Declaration: Haters Declare War | HonestReporting


----------



## Boston1 (Oct 18, 2017)

So where's the contrast, and um, you do realize a condition of war still exists between Israel and much of the Arab population both inside and surrounding Isreal ? 

Thats why the Geneva Conventions apply and why there is still martial law in certain areas of Israel. 

Since its the 100th anniversary; why don't we ask a few relevant questions. Like, why hasn't the UN segregated combatants and the descendants of combatants as well as those who assist combatants from the legitimate refugee population ???? 

Now there's a good place to begin the end of this mess


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 19, 2017)

Balfour explicitly said that a Jewish national home should not be used as an excuse for other states to revoke the rights of Jews in their countries. Yet that is exactly what happened in very single Arab nation. Could that be the other half that the diplomats are referring to?

The tweet cannot possibly be referring to the establishment of another Arab state, since Balfour says nothing about an "Arab homeland in Palestine." And at the time it was written, Palestine included Transjordan, and the initial partition of Palestine into two parts would have taken care of that even if Balfour declared another Arab state.

So what can this tweet possibly be referring to?

(full article online)

UK, in bizarre tweet, says there's another "half" to Balfour. Huh? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## fanger (Oct 19, 2017)

Which States or countries were under Balfour's control at the time?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 19, 2017)

fanger said:


> Which States or countries were under Balfour's control at the time?


Which countries or states were under the Ottoman Empire during its 500 year conquest of the area until 1917?
Were any of them countries? Any States?

Name them.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 19, 2017)

A s Jews in England and around the world prepare to mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, let us pause to ponder the respective legacies of Edwin Montagu and Lewis Dembitz. The names of these two Jews are largely unknown today, but they were, each in his own way, central players in the saga of the declaration, and therefore in one of the seminal moments in Jewish history. The former, a dedicated anti-Zionist, did everything he could to prevent this moment from occurring; the latter made his home thousands of miles from Britain and went to his grave surely unaware that the honorable way he lived his life, every day, would one day help bring the Balfour Declaration, and thereby the Jewish State, into existence.

Edwin Montagu was born into the one of the wealthiest Jewish families in England. He was the son of Samuel Montagu, who had been raised to British peerage but was known first and foremost for his zealous observance of Jewish law and for his sympathies to Zionism. Edwin’s life was lived in rebellion against his patrimony; like many members of the Jewish aristocracy known as “The Cousinhood,” he hated Zionism and its notion that Jews all around the world were one people and bound to one another. This, he believed, was not only false, but also raised the specter of dual loyalty for Jews seeking assimilation and aristocratic elevation in Britain. To Britain’s prime minister, David Lloyd George, Montagu complained, “All my life I have been trying to get out of the ghetto; you want to force me back there.”

In 1917, Montagu received the India portfolio in George’s cabinet; he was known for his sympathy for the nationalist aspirations of the Indians but not for those of other Jews. As the only Jewish member of George’s cabinet, Montagu participated in a public anti-Zionist statement asserting that Zionism “regards all the Jewish communities of the world as constituting one homeless nationality,” a notion that the statement “strongly and energetically protests.” Zionism, argued the statement, “must have the effect of stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands.”

There were prominent British Jews favorable to the Zionist project, including Montagu’s cousin Herbert Samuel. Yet as the British writer Chaim Bermant notes, Montagu was a “particularly formidable opponent, arguing both from the standpoint of the assimilated Jew and as Secretary of State for India.” If the efforts of Montagu were ultimately in vain, it was because the most politically powerful Jew in England was foiled by the most politically powerful Jew in America: Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

Brandeis had been raised with no Judaism at all and for much of his life approached Zionism in the same manner as Montagu. In 1905, he informed a Jewish audience that there was no place in the United States for “hyphenated Americans,” adding as late as 1910 that “habits of living or of thought which tend to keep alive differences of origin or classify men according to the religious beliefs are inconsistent with the American ideal of brotherhood, and are disloyal.” Yet he did know of one Jew who clearly saw no contradiction between public Jewishness and patriotic Americanism. That was his mother’s brother, a lawyer by the name of Lewis Dembitz.

The Zionist Uncle Who Changed the World - Commentary Magazine


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 19, 2017)

A Muslim friend recently asked, "How can we discuss Zionism away from Judaism?" I offered to meet with her and explain it.

The offer has not thus far been taken up, and so I've decided to put my response to the question in writing.

There is a great deal of innocent misunderstanding about what Judaism and Zionism are, and the connection between them. There is also much deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation in the service of a range of political agendas.

The standard mantra of anti-Israel activists is that Judaism and Zionism are entirely separate from one another. This is a convenient, but entirely false and artificial, rhetorical device for overcoming the widespread perception that many anti-Zionists are antisemites in disguise.

(full article online)

Zionism, Explained to a Muslim Friend – 	 	 	Opinion – 	 	 	ABC Religion & Ethics 	 	(Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


----------



## fanger (Oct 20, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Which States or countries were under Balfour's control at the time?
> ...


Not israel,


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 20, 2017)

fanger said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...


Name one Nation built by the Muslims or Christians on the Land of Israel.

And YES, there was that little kingdom/Nation which existed since 3000 years ago, and what was left of it after the Assyrian invasion called Judea.

So, again, YES  - even if there was not a sovereign Israel or Judea during the Ottoman Empire invasion and conquest, it is the ONLY Nation one can name, which ever existed in the past 3000 years.

And, the only people who were actually indigenous to the area of the Land of Israel.  The Jewish People/Nation.

And that is who the Balfour Declaration granted the right to rebuild their sovereignty over their own ancient homeland.

No one else's ancient homeland, as the Muslims wanted to do post WWI.  As they continued to do over all of North Africa, and all other areas outside their own Arabian Peninsula, as in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. No sovereignty for the Kurds, Yazidis, Assyrians or any other indigenous people of all of those areas.
They must remain under Islamic rule.

Muslims will fight each other for territorial sovereignty, but will try to destroy the Jews for getting any sovereignty over their own ancient homeland. Because their mastery over the Jews must continue beyond the 1300 years when they treated the Jews as they wished and NOT in a honorable way.

It is well documented.

Hurray for Balfour, and all others who know how to respect the Jewish people as human beings, and not people who should suffer whatever their conquerors decide what want to do with them, and always in a bad way.


----------



## fanger (Oct 20, 2017)

Balfour and Britain  wanted to stop yet more East European Jewish refugee's from entering the UK


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 20, 2017)

fanger said:


> Balfour and Britain  wanted to stop yet more East European Jewish refugee's from entering the UK


You don't say !!!!!


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 20, 2017)

RE:  Balfour Declaration (*LINK*)
※→  Boston1, _et al,_

There are a couple of points for which I need clarification _(school me if you will please)_.



Boston1 said:


> So where's the contrast, and um, you do realize a condition of war still exists between Israel and much of the Arab population both inside and surrounding Isreal ?
> 
> Thats why the Geneva Conventions apply and why there is still martial law in certain areas of Israel.
> 
> ...


*(QUESTIONS)*

I was under the impression _(probably wrong)_ that martial law was completely lifted in Israel sometime in 1966 when the Military Administration was lifted.  That was a trigger marker in the tactical strategy for the planned Arab League assault in 1967.

The application of the Fourth Geneva Convention was imposed on the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem; see S/RES/466.

The UN cannot impose the application of any international law (criminal or humanitarian) on any domestic matter.

Article 2(7) UN Charter:
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.​
AM I WRONG?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 22, 2017)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Balfour Declaration (*LINK*)
> ※→  Boston1, _et al,_
> 
> There are a couple of points for which I need clarification _(school me if you will please)_.
> ...


Yes.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 23, 2017)

Daphne Anson: David Singer: Balfour Declaration Centenary Shames Arab and UN Deniers


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 23, 2017)

Netanyahu to go to London next week for Balfour Declaration centennial


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 23, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Netanyahu to go to London next week for Balfour Declaration centennial


Nutandyahoo is asking for reruns.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2017)

Yeah, those Arab-Moslems and their colonial settler project are an obstacle to peace. 

Palestinians Are Building Illegal Settlements to Extend Their Claims to Jerusalem


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 23, 2017)




----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 24, 2017)

My Right Word: BICOM Redefines the Balfour Declaration


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 24, 2017)

Brits still two-faced over Balfour | MelaniePhillips.com


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 24, 2017)

abi said:


> What part of *"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" *is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?



Well this is like China and Hong Kong. There was an agreement, but once the agreement has taken place then the British were out of there and no longer had any power to enforce the agreement.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 24, 2017)

Jeremy Corbyn’s *refusal* to attend next month’s dinner in London to celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration confirms what many have long suspected.

His antipathy to Israel goes way beyond hostility to Israeli “settlements” or any romantic attachment to the Palestinian cause. He does not support the existence of Israel _at all_. 

How else to explain his refusal to attend a dinner to celebrate the event which kick-started the (agonising) process that eventually resulted in the establishment of the State of Israel?

And if he thus opposes the self-determination of the Jewish people in their own ancestral homeland, how can he be anything other than hostile to Judaism itself?

(full article online)

The drumbeat of alarm grows louder for British Jews | MelaniePhillips.com


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 24, 2017)

abi said:


> What part of *"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" *is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?


*Forfeiture*

Massacring Jewish settlers may be a religious right, but it is not a civil right. The Israelis were just like the American pioneers, a despised people trying to build something and being interfered with by unevolved and unproductive Stone Age savages.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 24, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Brits still two-faced over Balfour | MelaniePhillips.com


*Perfidious Albion*

After World War II, the Ewe Qae appeasement generation came back into power.  The Nazislami-loving Brit twits were the only obstacle preventing Israel from winning in 1948 what it finally won in 1967.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 24, 2017)




----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 24, 2017)

Balfour Declaration?

Isn't that where Briton promised to give away something that was not theirs?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 24, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Balfour Declaration?
> 
> Isn't that where Briton promised to give away something that was not theirs?


Didn't the Ottomans hold on to lands which were not theirs for 500 years?

Haven't  the Arabs held on to lands which have not been theirs for the past 1400 years?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 24, 2017)

Best part @ 4:45


----------



## Shusha (Oct 25, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Balfour Declaration?
> 
> Isn't that where Briton promised to give away something that was not theirs?



No. Actually, it was where the Allied Powers and the international community decided to uphold the rights of the Jewish people based on their historical connection to their homeland. 

Did you want the international community to STOP upholding the rights of people?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 25, 2017)

According to a ministry statement, these messages will be written in different languages, and a number of them will be published in the media.

In addition, a moment of silence will be observed in all Palestinian schools in commemoration of the letter.

The ministry instructed school districts to organize events on November 1 in every schoolyard, and to invite the media and Palestinian leaders to participate.

Every student is supposed to hold a sign in Arabic or English denouncing the Declaration and insisting on an apology from Great Britain.

The Palestinian Authority eagerly and cynically uses children in an effort to get news coverage of its political goal to destroy Israel. And the wire services that will show pictures of these children holding signs will not mention that the PA forced them to do it, and make it appear like a grassroots movement of angry youths.

Children are being weaponized. And the money behind this campaign comes from* your* tax dollars.

(full article online)

Palestinian Authority tells its HS students to write 100,000 anti-Balfour letters to Theresa May ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 25, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Balfour Declaration?
> ...


Nice deflection.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 25, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Have you answered this?

Did the land belong to the Turks?

Did the land belong to the Arabs?

And I am talking only of the Land of Israel, never mind Mesopotamia, North Africa, Syria, what became Lebanon.

Did any of those lands belong to the Turks, the Arabs or the Iranians?


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 25, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.
> 
> The relevant text, for reference:
> 
> ...


Is the problem, not of a lack of Statehood, for less fortunate Persons?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 25, 2017)

RE: Balfour Declaration (*LINK*)
※→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

It is pretty safe for a mediocre 21st Century Politician in the UK → who is pandering under the effects from coercion of terrorist, as he said "five shocking examples," and to talk about "Oppression of the Palestinian People" in the wake of actions specifically designed to carried out violent actions --- the aim of which were to seriously intimidate the UK general Population, and with the intention to compel the people, the leaders, and Government to an act that would NOT normally even be considered without the threat of violence.  _(BTW:  It was that cause and those Palestinian people that inspired and incited the violence of which he speaks.)_

I had to chuckle when I read the theme on the platform podium:  "FOR THE MANY --- NOT THE FEW."  At first blush, that mantra sounds correct and dovetails into the theory of "majority rules."  But in fact, the educated would say that Majority Rule _[the Arab League (population 300 Million - 13Million in in the territories) dominating the Middle East]_ with Respect for Minority Rights_ [the Jewish People (8Million) in the Middle East]_.   

*Secretary-General's remarks at Conference on "Fighting Terrorism for Humanity: A Conference on the Roots of Evil"*

Terrorism is a global threat, and it can never be justified. No end can give anyone the right to kill innocent civilians. On the contrary, *the use of terrorism to pursue any cause – even a worthy one – can only defile that cause, and thereby damage it.*

While terrorism is an evil with which there can be no compromise, we must use our heads, not our hearts, in deciding our response. The rage we feel at terrorist attacks must not remove our ability to reason. If we are to defeat terrorism, it is our duty, and indeed our interest, to try to understand this deadly phenomenon, and carefully to examine what works, and what does not, in fighting it.​
It should be noted for those that wish for the UK to issue an apology today, that while both the Superpowers (US and USSR) voted  for the 1948 Partition Plan, the UK abstained from the vote _(political divisiveness)_.



P F Tinmore said:


> Best part @ 4:45





P F Tinmore said:


> Balfour Declaration?  Isn't that where Briton promised to give away something that was not theirs?


*(COMMENT)*

The "Balfour Declaration" was, in the history of post-War reparations - restitution and solutions, one of the most politically courageous actions taken since the "Age of Revolutions" (c. 1800).  And while it may have started with the Balfour Declaration, it would not have been made a reality had it not been for the support of the other principle Allied Powers at the post-War San Remo Convention; administering the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries that were fixed by the Allied Powers.

A century ago, the seeds of a Jewish National Home were planted with the Allied Powers in a formal way.  Even at that time (1917), the Jewish People were known to have been the victims through centuries of dispersion.  The poor implementation of the Administration and the lack of decisiveness in regards to the apparent irreconcilable differences, was a major contributing factor in the Was of Independence.  BUT, with Israeli contemporary attention turning its focused on increased Islamic violence in Western Europe.  It is no small concern that the use of asymmetric approaches by antisemitic forces in the Arab League have become increasing more effective in rallying anti-Israel/Jewish sentiment.  The coercion emanating from the Jihadism, Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence is being slowly redirected towards focused  developing growth a new cycle of antisemitic _(pressure from Majority and to the Minority)_.   The people of the UK and continental Europeans are becoming more and more fearful the violence originating from Arab League and Middle Eastern sources --- then they are worried about the Rights of the Minority and the protection of the Jewish Culture under threat at the far end of the Mediterranean. 

I could write a book on the political pressures of a UK politician making such remarks; condemning Israel _(which has contributed more to the development of humanity since 1948)_ than the combined contributions of the 22 Members Arab League in the same period.

The Arab Palestinians understand that "coercion works."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 25, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.
> ...


Explain what you mean


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 25, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The original plan called for two States, not just one.  

The State of Israel should have a valuable trading partner on their border.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 25, 2017)

I believe Religion cannot be, "on the table"; until all parties can be moral to their own God.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 25, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Balfour Declaration?
> ...


*Global Glob of Muslime*

If the global "community" includes Moslems, It is of no interest to Americans what it upholds.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 25, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


*Dominion*

Nature is not a real-estate agent, nor does it recognize seniority rights.  The land belongs to whoever can produce the most out of its raw material.  That does not include freeloaders off Western advancement, such as the OPECkers.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 25, 2017)

RoccoR said:


> A century ago, the seeds of a Jewish National Home were planted with the Allied Powers in a formal way.


And those dumbfucks started a hundred year (and counting) war.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 25, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > A century ago, the seeds of a Jewish National Home were planted with the Allied Powers in a formal way.
> ...



If you had taken the time to understand history, you would come to realize that wars over the last 100 years aimed at Israel were the result of Arab-Moslem aggression in furtherance of islamic politico-religious ideology. 

Cutting and pasting canned YouTube videos is not really an effective way for you to understand history.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 25, 2017)

RE: Balfour Declaration (*LINK*)
※→ abi, _et al,_

I think were are trying to apply today's laws with what were laws in the early 20th century...



abi said:


> What part of *"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" *is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?


*(QUESTIONS)*

In 1917 and again in 1920:  While the term "Religious Rights" might have been understood, you will notice the the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem _(Amin al-Husseini)(a former Commissioned Officer in the Ottoman Army)_ was already involved in the eforts to facilitate the Arab-Jewish Riot during the Nabi Musa activities.  Al-Husseini, like many of his class and period, then turned from Damascus-oriented Pan-Arabism to *a specifically Palestinian ideology*, centered on Jerusalem, which sought to block Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine.

•  In that time period, what did "Religious Rights" actually means?
•  Did the Grand Mufti use his political status to further is own political agenda and that of his family?​
In 1917 and again in 1920:  While the term "Civil Rights" might have had a completely different meaning; especially in the Arab World.  Remember, the British _(Unionist, Protestant)_ *majority* and the Irish _(Nationalist, Catholic)_ *minority* following the Partition of Ireland in 1920.  Partition was not a subject equated to civil rights, is was a solution.

•  What do you understand "civil rights" to mean in the post-War period of WWI?
•  Was Partitioning considered an appropriate form as a political solution?​
*(COMMENT)*

It is foolish to think you can apply 21st Century understanding of Religious and Civil Right to the actions taken nearly a century ago.

A far as the Allied Powers were concern, they decided what is appropriate and what is not.  Similarly, in 1948, such rights were interpreted differently --- depending on our venue.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, although passed --- it is not legally binding and never made it into law.   During World War II, the Allied Powers adopted the Four Freedoms — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want — as their basic war aims.

In say that, we have gone much further than the Four Freedom of the Greatest Generation.  But in the first and second generations of the 20th Century --- what were rights and what was law were very different from today.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Oct 25, 2017)

abi said:


> Is the problem, not of a lack of Statehood, for less fortunate Persons?



Well, I am not entirely certain what you mean by this, but -- yes.  The problem was, and remains, Statehood for the Jewish people.  As soon as everyone in the international community acknowledges and recognizes that Israel has fully every right to exist as a State for the Jewish people then the conflict will be easily resolved.  Until that happens, the Jewish people are forced to defend themselves.  

What is troubling now is the increased unrest (and by "unrest" I mean Arab incitement and terrorism) within the Green Line by Arab Israeli citizens.  You think the conflict is bad now?  Wait until THAT gains some momentum.  There are no good options to respond to that sort of thing.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 25, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



The international community does include Muslims.  They have done a TERRIBLE job, on a national and international scale, of upholding the rights of people.  Their governments need to step up and start upholding the rights of women, children, immigrants, those of other ethnicities and religious faiths, LGBTQ, and others.  

It is the Muslim parts of the international community who reject the rights of the Jewish people and the conflict won't be solved until that changes.  Fortunately, it IS changing.  Slowly.  And with significant violence and loss of life to Muslim people globally.  And that is going to get worse before it gets better.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 25, 2017)

The legacy of the declaration is one that BBC reporter Jane Corbin has watched unfold over the last 30 years – charting the conflict on both sides. But it’s also a story that Jane has a personal connection to. One of her own ancestors, Leo Amery, a British politician and Cabinet Minister, played a key part in drafting the original declaration and then oversaw Britain’s governance of Palestine in the 1920s.

Now, on a journey starting in her home village, Jane explores what Leo did and whether the aspirations of The Balfour Declaration – for both sides to live peacefully and prosper together – were doomed to inevitable failure. Or is there still hope of a peaceful solution in the Holy Land?”

(full article online)

One to watch out for on BBC Two


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 26, 2017)

RoccoR said:


> RE: Balfour Declaration (*LINK*)
> ※→ abi, _et al,_
> 
> I think were are trying to apply today's laws with what were laws in the early 20th century...
> ...


*BIG BROTHERHOOD IS WATCHING YOU*

There should be no civil rights for the uncivilized.  That includes our own feral minorities.  The Liberals' appeasement of Nazislamis is an extension of what they do at home.


----------



## fanger (Oct 26, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE: Balfour Declaration (*LINK*)
> ...


" There should be no civil rights for the uncivilized." the word you were looking for is  Untermensch - Wikipedia


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 26, 2017)

Shusha said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


*New Age Sewage*

Your formless glob of Globalism might get bought by a museum of Postmodern "art."  But you do have the worthless but prominent opinionators behind you.  Both the degenerate Left and the brain-dead Right yap on and on about the lack of civil liberties in the Moslem countries.  But that is irrelevant and gets us into conflicts for the wrong reason.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 26, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> The legacy of the declaration is one that BBC reporter Jane Corbin has watched unfold over the last 30 years – charting the conflict on both sides. But it’s also a story that Jane has a personal connection to. One of her own ancestors, Leo Amery, a British politician and Cabinet Minister, played a key part in drafting the original declaration and then oversaw Britain’s governance of Palestine in the 1920s.
> 
> Now, on a journey starting in her home village, Jane explores what Leo did and whether the aspirations of The Balfour Declaration – for both sides to live peacefully and prosper together – were doomed to inevitable failure. Or is there still hope of a peaceful solution in the Holy Land?”
> 
> ...


First, BBC Watch is an Israeli propaganda organization.

That said:

The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was to facilitate Palestinian citizenship for the Jews and help create an independent Palestinian state. Britain failed to do that and passed Palestine off to the UNSCOP.

Ignoring that, the Zionists unilaterally took over most of Palestine by illegal military conquest.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 26, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > The legacy of the declaration is one that BBC reporter Jane Corbin has watched unfold over the last 30 years – charting the conflict on both sides. But it’s also a story that Jane has a personal connection to. One of her own ancestors, Leo Amery, a British politician and Cabinet Minister, played a key part in drafting the original declaration and then oversaw Britain’s governance of Palestine in the 1920s.
> ...



Are you suggesting _The Zionist Entity_™ did what the Turks and 
_The Islamist Entity_™ did?


----------



## Shusha (Oct 26, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was to facilitate Palestinian citizenship for the Jews and help create an independent Palestinian state. Britain failed to do that and passed Palestine off to the UNSCOP.
> 
> Ignoring that, the Zionists unilaterally took over most of Palestine by illegal military conquest.



Well, you might be able to argue that Britain failed to accomplish the creation of an independent Palestinian state, but an independent Palestinian state was certainly created (Israel).  As you stated, the intent was for the Jewish people (all of them)  to have citizenship, which they did and do.  As do the Arab people.  

There was no military conquest.  We know this because (as you stated above) the Jewish citizens had every right to be citizens.  They weren't conquering anything, they were participating within the legal framework of the time.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 26, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was to facilitate Palestinian citizenship for the Jews and help create an independent Palestinian state. Britain failed to do that and passed Palestine off to the UNSCOP.
> ...


The Zionist's colonial project was not part of Palestine. It was a separate entity.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 26, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Zionist's colonial project was not part of Palestine. It was a separate entity.



Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.  You keep trying to make this artificial distinction between the Jewish people and Zionists.


----------



## rylah (Oct 26, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Zionism came as an answer to the discrimination and pogroms against Jews in Europe, Asia and Arab pogroms in Syria-Palestine. The dire situation of the Jewish community was a continuous condition of Palestine.

Zionist activity was supported and coordinated by Palestinian Jews. The tools they used were a culmination of an age-old administrative system that served to help Palestinian Jews and elsewhere to survive. The same mechanism of financial aid and communication were transferred into an organized political party, that could efficiently represent that effort on the international arena.

Political (not spiritual) Zionism had many flaws, but it was in no way foreign to Jews in Palestine.
BTW The grand-grand grandfather of Israeli's current president was a Palestinian Jew who built new neighborhoods in Jerusalem to solve the problem poverty and density . These people were an integral part of the Jewish community in Palestine.

Arabs on the other hand proclaimed a Sheik from Mecca to be their King...but You of course don't see it as a separate foreign entity because he was Arab.


----------



## fanger (Oct 27, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Zionist's colonial project was not part of Palestine. It was a separate entity.
> ...


Palestine wasn’t in the first place the British Government’s to offer or give. 

In 1917, when the British Government – by almost all accounts an occupying force in Palestine – issued this promise, they did so as an empire giddy on power. The promise by a coloniser to create an ethnically controlled state on the land of those it oppresses isn’t something to be celebrated today.
the Jewish community is not one cohesive body, its ideologies and outlooks not all common or shared. More than two-thirds of British Jews report to have a “sense of despair” every time an expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is approved. 

I could tell you that to be critical of the Israeli government is not antisemitic, and neither is the belief that the Israeli state is an illegitimate force in its current form. I could tell you that yelling antisemitism when it isn’t there weakens and undermines its all too real consequences.
It's not 'antisemitic' for Jeremy Corbyn not to celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration – it's sensible


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 27, 2017)

The ironic thing is that the British government has been downplaying the Balfour centenary, with only a single low-key official event  that no one of note attendedon Wednesday night. The major effort to mark the occasion is a private dinner that Netanyahu and May will attend next week hosted by the current Lords Balfour and Rothschild.

(full article online)

Palestinian government: "Balfour Declaration the biggest political crime in history"  ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 27, 2017)

fanger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Neither were Lebanon, Iraq, or Syria, but that is what happens when an Empire loses a war.  Germany lost land as well, possibly after both WW.

Cry a river, cry an ocean, those who lose lose, and that is it.
The Arabs lost all wars against Israel.
That's it.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 27, 2017)

Should we ask any "astrologers", as to why the "stars were not in better alignment", in creating a State of Judea, for Jews?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 27, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Should we ask any "astrologers", as to why the "stars were not in better alignment", in creating a State of Judea, for Jews?


That has nothing to do with the Balfour Declaration. 
It was going to happen at one point or another, with Balfour or not as the Jews had no other choice considering how anti Jewish feelings kept causing endless pogroms.
The Jews needed their own sovereign country, on their own homeland.

Why do you call it State of Judea?


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 27, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Should we ask any "astrologers", as to why the "stars were not in better alignment", in creating a State of Judea, for Jews?
> ...


Don't Jews come from Judea?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 27, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


What war did the Palestinians lose against Israel?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...





P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...



There have only been little dalliances where the IDF has delivered islamic terrorist beatdowns to the various islamic terrorist franchises operating out of the islamic terrorist enclaves.

What a shame that the two, competing islamic terrorist franchises in gaza and the West bank have an interest in maintaining their status as welfare fraud recipients. Any establishment of an Islamic terrorist "state" would mean that the first islamic terrorist attack aimed at Israel from that "state" would be an act of war. There would be little cause for Israel to respond to such an act of war with the limited beatdowns they have delivered to date.

Your impotent gee-had of none is a hoot.


----------



## fanger (Oct 27, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Should we ask any "astrologers", as to why the "stars were not in better alignment", in creating a State of Judea, for Jews?
> ...


 "anti Jewish feelings kept causing endless pogroms." and no jew ever ask's what is it that we do to cause this?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 27, 2017)

fanger said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The CRIME Jews have committed is not having converted to either Christianity or Islam.

That is the most heinous crime any Jew can ever commit.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 27, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Zionist's colonial project was not part of Palestine. It was a separate entity.
> ...


What about all the self-hating sissy Jews who think Zionists are Trumpian deplorables?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 27, 2017)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


*Offering the West a Decoy to the Jihad*

Jews had suffered persecution for almost 2,000 years before Zionism.  So. as usual when you listen to our billboard-information regime, there had to be more to it than what we're told to believe.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Oct 27, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



Hitler didn't even care if the Jews converted or not; he wanted all Jews dead, period.  So another dreadful crime of the Jews was just being alive!


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 27, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


*Polemophobia (Not Recognized by Shriveled Shrinks)*

Look what happened when gutless and unpatriotic pacifism infected the world in between the World Wars.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 27, 2017)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...




According to some (Tinmore) the crime of the Jews is to be in a place. No Jews at the lunch counter or the front of the bus.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 27, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Yes, there is.

It is called the creation of Christianity and Islam and their murderous ideologies against Jews.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 27, 2017)

Indeed, nothing at all has changed with the Palestinians. They have not moved an inch in a hundred years. PLO chief and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas now demands that Britain officially renounce the Balfour Declaration and apologize for having issued it as if Lord Balfour was still foreign secretary and David Lloyd George was still prime minster.

And their growing chorus of supporters at the UN, throughout the Islamic world, and in Europe is similarly stuck in 1917.

(full article online)

COLUMN ONE: Balfour’s greatest of gifts


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 27, 2017)

http://www.israelhayom.com/2017/10/27/the-ideal-that-moves-me/


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 27, 2017)

My Right Word: Apartheid in Palestine


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 27, 2017)

Hebrew; doesn't matter if you subscribe to the philosophy of the former Kingdom of Judea, or Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 27, 2017)

Shusha said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Oh jeese.


----------



## fanger (Oct 28, 2017)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...




The war by the international Jewish leadership on Germany not only sparked definite reprisals by the German government but also set the stage for a little-known economic and political alliance between the Hitler government and the leaders of the Zionist movement who hoped that the tension between the Germans and the Jews would lead to massive emigration to Palestine. In short, the result was a tactical alliance between the Nazis and the founders of the modern-day state of Israel - a fact that many today would prefer be forgotten.
The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany: The Economic Boycott of 1933. M. Raphael Johnson, Ph.D.


----------



## fanger (Oct 28, 2017)

Shusha said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


See what I mean,? The fault is always with someone else


----------



## fanger (Oct 28, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Indeed, nothing at all has changed with the Palestinians. They have not moved an inch in a hundred years. PLO chief and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas now demands that Britain officially renounce the Balfour Declaration and apologize for having issued it as if Lord Balfour was still foreign secretary and David Lloyd George was still prime minster.
> 
> And their growing chorus of supporters at the UN, throughout the Islamic world, and in Europe is similarly stuck in 1917.
> 
> ...


I got a far as CAROLINE B. GLICK, and barfed a little


----------



## fanger (Oct 28, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> My Right Word: Apartheid in Palestine


Oh, a link to a right-wing zionist blog, I wonder what his opinion will be?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 28, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


*Zionism Is a Long-Delayed Awakening*

But there are always internal conflicts the Jews could have exploited.  As early as the 11th Century, they could have asked for their homeland back, appealing to the Turks to become a decoy and a defense against the Arabs.  It would be interesting for me, and apparently me alone, to know what kind of psychological process changed the Jews after all those centuries of cowardly submission and escapism.  But Netwits are satisfied with what they're told by the self-appointed intellectual authorities, so the truth can't happen here.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 28, 2017)

I make a motion to "redesignate Jews to Hebrews", until they agree to a State of Judea.


----------



## rylah (Oct 28, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> I make a motion to "redesignate Jews to Hebrews", until they agree to a State of Judea.



State of Judea was one of the names considered for the state. Israel is more accommodating to a larger number of people, and looks into future, rather than mere past.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 28, 2017)

In his speech, Khalidi argued that the Balfour Declaration “amounted to a declaration of war by the British Empire on the indigenous population of the land it was promising to the Jewish people as a national homeland.” Balfour, he said, “launched a century-long assault on the Palestinians aimed at implanting and fostering this national homeland, later the state of Israel, at their expense.”

Predictably, Khalidi limited the “indigenous population” he spoke about to Arabs — and ignored the Jewish people’s historical claim to the land of Israel as recognized in the Balfour Declaration. Instead, Khalidi maintained that “the Zionist movement was a colonialist enterprise in search of a metropolitan sponsor,” which was “implanting” and “fostering” the Jewish people “at the expense of the Palestinians.”

Khalidi’s terminology reflected his past as a PLO propagandist.

His use and definition of the term “indigenous,” for example, echoed the fabricated claims of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas that the Palestinians are descended from the Canaanites, who predated the ancient Hebrews.

Similarly, Khalidi’s term “implanting” mirrored PA political commentator Fathi Buzia’s allegation that Britain “creat[ed] and implant[ed] a fabricated, thieving entity upon the Palestinian land.” PA school textbooks similarly refer to Israel “as an imperial colonial implant.”

(full article online)

Columbia Professor Rashid Khalidi’s Cynical Use of Antisemitism


----------



## thetor (Oct 29, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.
> 
> The relevant text, for reference:
> 
> ...


Balfour was a Zionist Jew.....The British Chief Administrator for Palestine 1936-1948 Was a Zionist Jew...I need SAY NO MORE


----------



## thetor (Oct 29, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Rather than see the Balfour Declaration as a commitment to Jewish self-determination, Black frames it as the origin of a conflict and the end of Palestinian aspirations.
> 
> In reality, it was not the Balfour Declaration that brought about the situation of today’s Palestinians or even those from 1948. Palestinian and Arab rejectionism has thwarted all attempts over the years to reach an amicable arrangement that could have seen a Palestinian state co-existing side by side with a Jewish one.
> 
> ...


This is NONSENCE WHY?...because The Palestinians felt that Why Should they give any Territory to a Load of Illegal Zionist Migrants...The Jews in there position would never have allowed Palestinians any Land..........How can you REJECT SOMETHING YOU NEVER AGREED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE???

Sorry Sixties you are on the wrong track,incidentally what Land have Israel stolen since 1948...Plenty are they returning it to the Palestinians,FCUK ARE THEY

You are blaming THE disposessed,and it's sickening and SHAMEFUL


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 29, 2017)

thetor said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.
> ...


Hurray for Lord Balfour, and all other Zionists, Christians, Muslims, Arabs, etc.

Thank you for doing the right thing by the Jewish People and working to protect them and not annihilate them.



Except Thor, Lord Balfour was a Zionist Christian, not a Jew.

Based on that level of misinformation, what else should anyone trust about anything else you write to delegitimize the rights of Jews to be sovereign over any part of their ancient homeland and the legal way they went about it?


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 29, 2017)

rylah said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > I make a motion to "redesignate Jews to Hebrews", until they agree to a State of Judea.
> ...


I would agree with you, if there had not been a historic State of Judea and a historic State of Israel.

Should we take moden, Jewdeans, seriously withoug a modern State of Jewdea.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 29, 2017)

The right wing only has a problem with, Jewdeans, not Hebrews.


----------



## rylah (Oct 29, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I don't see any real problem. 
Jews are the 4 remaining tribes of the Israelites - Judah, Benjamin, Levi and part of Asher.

By calling the state Israel, they proclaimed their hope for a full recovery...not just the 4 tribes, but all 12.


----------



## rylah (Oct 29, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> The right wing only has a problem with, Jewdeans, not Hebrews.



What you call 'right wing' is a term of the French Revolution, and a changing fashion.
Today it seems that the Left has more problems with Jews. It doesn't matter how You translate it into contemporary political terms.
And it doesn't matter how You translate Israel or the Jewish nation into foreign languages. Jews were called Hebrews in many of the countries they fled. They also fled countries where they were called Judeans, and where they were given emancipation. Wasn't the issue.

And translation wouldn't change the issue of Arab pogroms in Palestine.
Eventually Balfour helped solve many of the problems that Jews had in Palestine as in Europe.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 29, 2017)

The "stars would have been in better alignment for true  Judeans, if a State of Judah had been created instead of a State of Israel.  And, the Kingdom of Judah, was just one tribe, as is claimed by some; why would eleven other tribes want to claim to be subscribers to the philosophy of some Other tribe, and not their own?




> The *Kingdom of Judah* (Hebrew: מַמְלֶכֶת יְהוּדָה‎, _Mamlekhet Yehudāh_) was an Iron Age kingdom of the Southern Levant. The Hebrew Bible depicts it as the successor to a United Monarchy, but historians are divided about the veracity of this account. In the 10th and early 9th centuries BCE the territory of Judah appears to have been sparsely populated, limited to small rural settlements, most of them unfortified.[9] Jerusalem, the kingdom's capital, likely did not emerge as a significant administrative centre until the end of the 8th century; prior to this archaeological evidence suggests its population was too small to sustain a viable kingdom.[10] In the 7th century its population increased greatly, prospering under Assyrian vassalage (despite Hezekiah's revolt against the Assyrian king Sennacherib[11]), but in 605 the Assyrian Empire was defeated, and the ensuing competition between the Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt and the Neo-Babylonian Empire for control of the Eastern Mediterranean led to the destruction of the kingdom in a series of campaigns between 597 and 582, the deportation of the elite of the community, and the incorporation of Judah into a province of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 29, 2017)

rylah said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The right wing only has a problem with, Jewdeans, not Hebrews.
> ...


nope; the right wing is too clueless and Causeless to understand the difference.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 29, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> In his speech, Khalidi argued that the Balfour Declaration “amounted to a declaration of war by the British Empire on the indigenous population of the land it was promising to the Jewish people as a national homeland.”


Palestine was never British territory. They had no right to say anything about it.


----------



## rylah (Oct 29, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> The "stars would have been in better alignment for true  Judeans, if a State of Judah had been created instead of a State of Israel.  And, the Kingdom of Judah, was just one tribe, as is claimed by some; why would eleven other tribes want to claim to be subscribers to the philosophy of some Other tribe, and not their own?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again why didn't the Jews separate into the 4 tribes during the 2000 years is a whole other subject.
Why the Levites still call themselves Jews... because it all revolves around the Davidic line and Zion, and because whenever Jews lived, other people always reminded them of their foreignness. 

Don't look into the Balfour Declaration through the eyes of modern politics, learn a little history of what happened prior to it, in Europe, North Africa and Palestine


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 29, 2017)

Ok; how about, Israelis, and the Israelites?


----------



## rylah (Oct 29, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Right wing, Left, Arabs, Europe, Africa, Palestine -during the pogroms it didn't matter.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 29, 2017)

The Nazis has a problem with, Judeans, not Israelites.


----------



## rylah (Oct 29, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Ok; how about, Israelis, and the Israelites?



 Balfour Declaration anything?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 29, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > In his speech, Khalidi argued that the Balfour Declaration “amounted to a declaration of war by the British Empire on the indigenous population of the land it was promising to the Jewish people as a national homeland.”
> ...


They conquered in a war just as the Turkish Ottomans did.

End of story.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 29, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > In his speech, Khalidi argued that the Balfour Declaration “amounted to a declaration of war by the British Empire on the indigenous population of the land it was promising to the Jewish people as a national homeland.”
> ...



Actually, they did.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 29, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was never British territory. They had no right to say anything about it.



The international community has the right to support or not support independence movements by various peoples.  (For example, recognizing Palestine as a State.) 

That's all the Balfour Declaration is.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 29, 2017)

The White Paper also stated, explicitly, that Jews cannot purchase land in much of Palestine from Arabs. making antisemitism official British government policy.

The authors of the paper knew very well every Jew they barred from immigrating to Palestine was likely to be murdered. Liberal MP James Rothschild stated during the parliamentary debate that "for the majority of the Jews who go to Palestine it is a question of migration or of physical extinction".

Even the "League of Nations commission held that the White Paper was in conflict with the terms of the Mandate."

In the end, the British didn't even admit the full 75,000 Jews that the White Paper allowed.

Six million were murdered. Tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, would have been saved if it wasn't for the British White Paper. The disgusting policy of appeasement of what the White Paper literally called "Arab terrorists" -  led to the deaths of  untold numbers of Jews.

Balfour (and San Remo) should have saved much of European Jewry. The White Paper abrogated Balfour, and violated basic human rights, to kow-tow to the threat of Arab terrorism.

If anyone is going to ask for apologies from the British, it should be the Jewish people for the immoral policy that sentenced hundreds of thousands of our relatives to death.

(full article online)

The 1939 White Paper, not Balfour Declaration, is the document that the British really DO need to apologize for ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 29, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


And then the territory was ceded to Palestine. Britain was not the recipient.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 29, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Palestine was never British territory. They had no right to say anything about it.
> ...


Nobody has the right to grab territory that belongs to someone else.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 29, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


.... unless the grabbing is done in furtherance of the Islamist colonial project.


----------



## abi (Oct 29, 2017)

Shusha said:


> The international community has the right to support or not support independence movements by various peoples. (For example, recognizing Palestine as a State.)
> 
> That's all the Balfour Declaration is.


Oy vey iz mir, learn history before attempting to discuss it. Your above statement is ludicrous. This had nothing to do with the international community. England, basically deeded Palestine to a people primarily from Europe. It was written to "Lord" Rothschild and was pushed upon the British government through his agent, Chaim Weizmann.



Hollie said:


> .... unless the grabbing is done in furtherance of the Islamist colonial project.


If you acknowledge it is not right to grab land in furtherance of a colonial project, then why does it matter who the perpetrators are? Is it fair to say that this is wrong whether done by Muslims, Christians, Jews or any group for that matter?


----------



## thetor (Oct 29, 2017)

rylah said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The right wing only has a problem with, Jewdeans, not Hebrews.
> ...


Balfour was an Asshole Zionist Stooge,as you well know,his declaration was NONE BINDING get your facts right


----------



## thetor (Oct 29, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Palestine was never British territory. They had no right to say anything about it.
> ...


Completely WRONG


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 30, 2017)

thetor said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Rather than see the Balfour Declaration as a commitment to Jewish self-determination, Black frames it as the origin of a conflict and the end of Palestinian aspirations.
> ...


*Swishy Swastickers*

Hitler lost; get over it.  Defending the rabid Arab rabble is typical of the way Judeophobes pollute civilization.  You never stand up to the clear and present bosses, so you're nothing but cowards who have to cover up your gutlessness by convincing yourselves that a secret group is  controlling everybody behind the scenes.  Man up and take the upper class down.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 30, 2017)

abi said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > The international community has the right to support or not support independence movements by various peoples. (For example, recognizing Palestine as a State.)
> ...


*BIG BROTHERHOOD IS WATCHING YOU*

No, it is not wrong; unless you believe all White people should leave the United States.  The laws of evolution are inviolable.

  Spoiled degenerates with strange sympathies have too much influence on contemporary thought.  If you take the con out of it, it will only be temporary.  The future will laugh at our silly sense of social justice, preached to us by know-it-all nobodies and high-and-mighty lowlife.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 30, 2017)

The right wing doesn't have a problem with Israelites.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 30, 2017)

Her support for the existence of Israel is, by her own lights, conditional on the existence of a state of Palestine. She thus displays her profound ignorance of Jewish, Arab and Middle Eastern history by assuming that people called the Palestinians were entitled to the same promise of a national homeland. 

There was never, of course, any “Palestinian” people.The reason the Balfour Declaration promised the former land of Israel to the Jews was that they are the _only_people for whom that land was ever their national kingdom, the _only _extant indigenous people of that land and who were merely to be _restored_ to their own homeland from which they had been exiled by succeeding waves of occupiers.

By wrapping herself in the Palestinian cause, Thornberry is associating her party once again with an agenda of colonialist aggression (the Palestinians remain committed to the destruction of Israel), racist ethnic cleansing (the Palestinians repeatedly declare that no Jews would be allowed to live in a state of Palestine) and antisemitism (the Palestinians attempt ceaselessly to write the Jews out of their own history and religion and use Nazi-style imagery and blood libels to incite their children to anti-Jewish hatred).

And of course, a Palestine state alongside Israel has been on offer repeatedly since 1936 – yet it has been the Arabs and “Palestinians” who have refused it while the Jews have always accepted it. There could be a state of Palestine tomorrow if the Palestinians would accept Israel’s right to exist alongside it. Instead, they want such a state solely in order to destroy Israel altogether.

(full article online)

The malevolent guest at London's Balfour dinner | MelaniePhillips.com


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 30, 2017)

On November 2, 1917, my predecessor Lord Balfour sat in the Foreign Secretary's office and composed a letter that laid the foundations of the State of Israel.

On the Centenary, I will say what I believe: the Balfour Declaration was indispensable to the creation of a great nation. In the seven decades since its birth, Israel has prevailed over what has sometimes been the bitter hostility of neighbors to become a liberal democracy and a dynamic hi-tech economy.

In a region where many have endured authoritarianism and misrule, Israel has always stood out as a free society. Like every country, Israel has faults and failings. But it strives to live by the values in which I believe.

I served a stint at a kibbutz in my youth, and I saw enough to understand the miracle of Israel: the bonds of hard work, self-reliance, and an audacious and relentless energy that hold together a remarkable country.

Most of all, there is the incontestable moral goal: to provide a persecuted people with a safe and secure homeland. So I am proud of Britain's part in creating Israel and Her Majesty's Government will mark the Centenary of the Balfour Declaration on Thursday in that spirit.

I am also heartened that the new generation of Arab leaders does not see Israel in the same light as their predecessors. I trust that more will be done against the twin scourges of terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement.

In the final analysis, it is Israelis and Palestinians who must negotiate the details and write their own chapter in history. A century on, Britain will give whatever support we can in order to close the ring and complete the unfinished business of the Balfour Declaration.

My vision for Middle East peace between Israel and a new Palestinian state


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 30, 2017)

Peace processors used to believe that Israeli-Palestinian peace was a 1967 issue, negotiating suitable borders; or perhaps a 1948 issue, dealing with the refugees from the Arab war against Israel. It is now clear that it is a 1917 issue – the rejection by the Palestinian Arabs of any Jewish sovereignty anywhere in the ancestral homeland of the Jews. It is, in the words of Ron Dermer, currently Israel’s ambassador to America, the “core issue”: the Palestinians will not even agree that the goal of the “peace process” is “two states for two peoples.”

Instead of referring to “two states for two peoples,” the Palestinians always frame the goal of the process as ending “the occupation that began in 1967.” The reason they invariably add the last four words to that formulation is that they believe there is also another occupation that they want eventually to end as well: “the occupation that began in 1948.” That is the reason they say they can “never” give up an asserted “right of return.” To do so would be to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

(full article online)

How the Balfour Declaration Has Emerged at the Crux Of the War Against Israel - The New York Sun


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 30, 2017)

Balfour, the Palestinians — and No Peace


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 30, 2017)

My Right Word: That Labour Party's Unofficial Balfour Declaration


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 30, 2017)

Daphne Anson: David Singer:  Balfour Declaration Falsehoods Fuel Jew-Hatred and Israel-Bashing


----------



## fanger (Oct 30, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Her support for the existence of Israel is, by her own lights, conditional on the existence of a state of Palestine. She thus displays her profound ignorance of Jewish, Arab and Middle Eastern history by assuming that people called the Palestinians were entitled to the same promise of a national homeland.
> 
> There was never, of course, any “Palestinian” people.The reason the Balfour Declaration promised the former land of Israel to the Jews was that they are the _only_people for whom that land was ever their national kingdom, the _only _extant indigenous people of that land and who were merely to be _restored_ to their own homeland from which they had been exiled by succeeding waves of occupiers.
> 
> ...


*Israel MK: Palestinians’ ‘liability’ is that ‘they weren’t born Jews’*
*“When we say to the Palestinians, ‘We are giving you a state, let’s make peace’ – it’s deceiving them,” Zohar told the paper.*

*“No one is going to give them a state, not the left either. I am saying: Let’s cut this problem off before it begins and stop with the lies. We’ll tell them: ‘Guys, no state, live here with us, prosper, earn a living, educate your children’.”*

*Asked whether he meant that Palestinians in an annexed West Bank would not vote in the Knesset elections, Zohar replied in the affirmative.*

*“We must always maintain control over the mechanisms of the state, as the Jewish people that received this country by right and not by an act of charity.”*
*Israel MK: Palestinians’ ‘liability’ is that ‘they weren’t born Jews’*
*The lawmaker who thinks Israel is deceiving the Palestinians: 'No one is going to give them a state'*


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 30, 2017)

Only Judeans who have no State of Judea, have a problem, not Israelis or Israelites.

Reminds me of the "Palestinians".


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 31, 2017)

The Balfour Declaration was not addressed to a foreign group, giving them permission to enter the land. On the contrary, it was recognition of what Jews -- who have an indigenous connection to the land  -- had _already_ accomplished and would _continue_ to develop.
--------

The 1925 Larousse French dictionary had an entry for "Palestine":
This translates as:
 PALESTINE, the land of Syria, between Phenicia in the North, the Dead Sea in the South, the Mediterranean in the West, and the Syrian Desert in the East, watered by the Jordan. It is a narrow strip of land, narrowed between the sea, Lebanon, and traversed by the Jordan, which throws itself into the Dead Sea. It is also called, in Scripture, Land of Chanaan, Promised Land and Judea . It is today [in 1925] a Jewish state under the mandate of England; 770,000 inhabitants. Jerusalem capital.Already in 1925, before WWII and before the Israeli War of Independence, there was a recognition of a Jewish state called Palestine, a state of 770,000 inhabitants that included both Jews and Muslims. It's capital was Jerusalem, which did not have that designation under Ottoman rule.
-------
The culmination of that self-determination -- with a state for the Arabs -- was prevented by war and a refusal to accept even the presence of Jews on the land.

So, what were the Jews doing in Palestine before the Lord Balfour came out with his famous declaration? They were not waiting around to enter as invited guests. Instead, they worked on a land to which they have a 3,000 year history. Jews with indigenous roots to the land worked to re-establish it as a sovereign state, something it had never been since the time of the Romans.

Jews made a choice.
The Arabs made their own choice too.

(full article online)

Balfour didn't create the Jewish national home - it was already there and everyone knew it (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Oct 31, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Her support for the existence of Israel is, by her own lights, conditional on the existence of a state of Palestine. She thus displays her profound ignorance of Jewish, Arab and Middle Eastern history by assuming that people called the Palestinians were entitled to the same promise of a national homeland.
> 
> There was never, of course, any “Palestinian” people.The reason the Balfour Declaration promised the former land of Israel to the Jews was that they are the _only_people for whom that land was ever their national kingdom, the _only _extant indigenous people of that land and who were merely to be _restored_ to their own homeland from which they had been exiled by succeeding waves of occupiers.
> 
> ...


*Flush the Royal*

There already is, and always has been, a state for the Paleonasties:  Jordan.  If the King there doesn't like it, how is it his country anyway?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 31, 2017)

Year Zero: The Palestinians and the Balfour Declaration


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 31, 2017)

http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/the-criminal-balfour-declaration/


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 31, 2017)

Why they protest Balfour


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 31, 2017)

Boris has misread the Balfour Declaration


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> The Balfour Declaration was not addressed to a foreign group, giving them permission to enter the land. On the contrary, it was recognition of what Jews -- who have an indigenous connection to the land  -- had _already_ accomplished and would _continue_ to develop.
> --------
> 
> The 1925 Larousse French dictionary had an entry for "Palestine":
> ...


Of course not; it created an Israeli national home.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 31, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Of course not; it created an Israeli national home.



It *reconstituted* the Jewish national home.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Of course not; it created an Israeli national home.
> ...


That's funny, for the hundreds of years that the territory was ruled by the Ottoman Empire I don't recall even one time that a Jew knocked on anyone's door with deed in hand claiming that land.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Interestingly, neither do I recall the Arab "Palestinians" insisting upon national sovereignty from the Ottomans.


----------



## abi (Oct 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Interestingly, neither do I recall the Arab "Palestinians" insisting upon national sovereignty from the Ottomans.


But, what of what PFT just pointed out? It seems like you are deflecting.



Shusha said:


> It *reconstituted* the Jewish national home.


It has been clearly shown for you that the zionist regime cannot rightfully speak for the Jewish people. If you could drop this line, you would be much closer to understanding a solution that you keep speaking of.

And are you aware that the Balfour document is not a legal one?


----------



## Shusha (Oct 31, 2017)

abi said:


> And are you aware that the Balfour document is not a legal one?



Oh, this aught to be good.  Do tell.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 31, 2017)

abi said:


> It has been clearly shown for you that the zionist regime cannot rightfully speak for the Jewish people. If you could drop this line, you would be much closer to understanding a solution that you keep speaking of.



Again, you claim that the Jewish people can not rightfully speak for the Jewish people.  That is just silliness. 

A solution can not be found in changing the thinking of the Jewish people.  The Jewish people have accepted and offered solutions time and time and time again.  The source of the conflict is the Arab insistence that no Jewish state exist.  The conflict will continue until that ideology changes.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



For hundreds of years under rule by the Ottoman invaders, dhimmis had few rights or the means to exercise even limited rights. 

I'm afraid you will have to come to terms with the modern age. Your hoped for implementation of fascist islamic ideology will be met with determined resistance and the occasional beat-down when needed.


----------



## abi (Oct 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Again, you claim that the Jewish people can not rightfully speak for the Jewish people. That is just silliness.


No, you again claimed I said something that I did not. My point is far more obvious. The zionists (and Israel's leaders, and you) can not rightfully speak for the Jewish people. But, you know that and wish to keep derailing threads by having me repeat this, or is it to waste my time?



Shusha said:


> A solution can not be found in changing the way the thinking of the Jewish people. The Jewish people have accepted and offered solutions time and time and time again. The source of the conflict is the Arab insistence that no Jewish state exist. The conflict will continue until that ideology changes.


You did it again, twice, lol. Try switching "Jewish" to "zionist" when you post. Read it back to yourself for clarity. Hit enter.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 31, 2017)

Look, abi, sweetie, I know this is going to come as quite a shock to you.  You may want to sit down.  Ready?  Okay...here we go....

"Zionists" are Jewish people.  (At least the Jewish ones are).  Therefore, "Zionists" = Jewish people.  The Jewish people have every right to speak for the Jewish people.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 31, 2017)

"Zionist" is a dirty word intentionally used to create a false distinction between real (TM) Jews and synthetic Jews in an effort to remove rights from the vast majority of the Jewish people.


----------



## abi (Oct 31, 2017)

Oy


Shusha said:


> Look, abi, sweetie, I know this is going to come as quite a shock to you.  You may want to sit down.  Ready?  Okay...here we go....
> 
> "Zionists" are Jewish people.  (At least the Jewish ones are).  Therefore, "Zionists" = Jewish people.  The Jewish people have every right to speak for the Jewish people.


Some zionists are Jewish, some are Christian, some are even Muslim and many are Atheists. Clear? Agreed?



Shusha said:


> "Zionist" is a dirty word intentionally used to create a false distinction between real (TM) Jews and synthetic Jews in an effort to remove rights from the vast majority of the Jewish people.


I disagree as the zionists call themselves zionists and always have.

*Theodor Herzl | Austrian Zionist leader | Britannica.com*

That is quite an odd point to even try to make.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> "Zionist" is a dirty word intentionally used to create a false distinction between real (TM) Jews and synthetic Jews in an effort to remove rights from the vast majority of the Jewish people.


  Zionist is Not a dirty word.

Jew haters have tried to turn it into a dirty word and equate it to Nazism and other worthless ism.

This one is a worthwhile ism.
It defines the goal of the Jewish People, indigenous of the Land of Israel, to become, as they have, sovereign over their ancient homeland.

The Arabs and the British stole 80% of that land by 1948.

The Indigenous people of the ancient Jewish Homeland, known as ancient Israel or Modern Israel are keeping the 20% that is left and will do anything to protect and defend the land the the people living in it.  All of them. (And those intent in killing Jews inside Israel, will be put in prison, or whatever else becomes them, as would be case in any other sovereign country in the world )


----------



## abi (Oct 31, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Zionist is Not a dirty word.


Thank-you.



Sixties Fan said:


> Jew haters have tried to turn it into a dirty word and equate it to Nazism and other worthless ism.


Whoa, many Jews, both politically and religious have compared Zionism to Nazism.



Sixties Fan said:


> This one is a worthwhile ism.
> It defines the goal of the Jewish People, indigenous of the Land of Israel, to become, as they have, sovereign over their ancient homeland.


No, it has been shown (in countless ways) that zionists do not rightfully speak for the Jewish people. This is the first thing the zionists need to accept, imo.



Sixties Fan said:


> The Arabs and the British stole 80% of that land by 1948.


False and crazy to even claim in an academic discussion anywhere on earth, but the internet.

I have seen your threads and the stuff you post. You actually believe your own propaganda and it's sad. Vet your sources. Start again and see if it is even possible for you to look at these issues academically, unbiased.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 31, 2017)

abi said:


> Oy
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> ...


You are here to waste our time again, Louie?
When are you going to use your favorite pen name for yourself?
Or is this the 50th one you have used on these threads?

Zionism refers to Zion, the land of the Jews.

I do not care if Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc are Zionists, meaning that they are FOR a sovereign country for the Jewish People.

Sing Kareokee, do the hula, or stand on your hand, Jews fought to be sovereign over their own ancestral homeland, because they were forced to do it by the Husseini clan (non indigenous people to the land and all the other Muslim Arab clans who have been taught to hate and kill Jews on sight)

The Land belongs to the Jewish people and it is not thieves like you who are going to succeed in taking it away ever again.

The Dhimmi Jews are gone, for good.  The Arab "countries" made sure of it.

Now deal with the fact that some Europeans did the right thing by the Jewish People, just as some Arabs also tried to do.
It took several wars against the Jews, and the Jews won and survived, and will continue to survive ON THEIR ancient homeland.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 31, 2017)

abi said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Zionist is Not a dirty word.
> ...


Blah, blah, blah....


----------



## Shusha (Oct 31, 2017)

Abi, don't forget to show me how the Balfour Declaration is illegal.


----------



## abi (Oct 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> Abi, don't forget to show me how the Balfour Declaration is illegal.


I believe I said that it was not a legal document and you are putting words in my mouth again.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 31, 2017)

abi said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Abi, don't forget to show me how the Balfour Declaration is illegal.
> ...


Where is the evidence that it is not a legal document?
Or a document which was made legal at the San Remo Accords.
Or at any other time.

Some Muslims and other Jew haters thinking or wanting it to not be legal, does not make it illegal.

Show the evidence that it did not lead to legalizing via the Mandate for Palestine to the recreation of  a Jewish homeland,  ON ancient Jewish Homeland by the Allies who won WWI.


----------



## Shusha (Oct 31, 2017)

abi said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Abi, don't forget to show me how the Balfour Declaration is illegal.
> ...



Exactly.  It is not a legal document.  It did nothing.  It created nothing.  It was nothing more than a letter of support for the rights of the Jewish people to reconstitute their national home.  So what is all the big fuss about?  If it meant nothing, why are people complaining so hard?

Perhaps because it became part of a legal document.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2017)

Shusha said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Of course not; it created an Israeli national home.
> ...


Nope; it was the Israeli and Israelite national home.

Judea would have needed to be established for a Judean, national home.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 31, 2017)

The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 31, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration


There is no Judean influence, only Israeli and Israelite influence.

The right wing doesn't really have a problem with that.


----------



## montelatici (Oct 31, 2017)

It was simply a letter by a colonial power that wanted to establish a European colony in Ottoman territory.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2017)

montelatici said:


> It was simply a letter by a colonial power that wanted to establish a European colony in Ottoman territory.


At the time of Balfour Declaration, it was _formerly_ Ottoman territory.


----------



## thetor (Oct 31, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Firstly your exposea is riddled with inaccuracy,lies and ignorance,I had a little smile at the term Hitler,considering the Zionist Jews(you know the non-semitic Jews who are merely converts to Judaism(SYNTHETIC JEWS) who spent most of WW2,collaborating with the Nazis and helped the Nazis by sending 100.000's of innocent Jews to the Gas Chambers,to advance their the Zionist cause

Israel was conceived by DECEPTION and TERRORISM by Illegal Zionists,the Land was INVADED and the Palestinians Murdered,Raped,Slaughtered,Towns and Villages RAZED by the Zionist Rabble,.....most Palestinians were forcibly EXILED into Refugee Camps.

Only The Palestinians and Shepardic Jews are Semitic Peoples you ignorant Imbecile...most Jews in Israel today are not Semitic...Full Stop.

I am far from gutless,you need a smack across your arrogant mouth talking such Inane(yeah go look the word up you BOZO) and Ignorant crap.

As for the Palestinians,they of all people in the world lived in harmony with REAL JEWS until they realized the real intentions by stealth of the Zionist Murderers

I never hear Rubbish like you criticizing and condoning the Christians,Russians,Germans,Spanish etc.,who tried to eliminate the Jews,Why I wonder...yet when all is said the Zionists acted against the Palestinians in the same way as those that tried to eliminate the Jewish people,world wide.That IS the IRONY

We need not to cover anything up,it is as it is,plain enough to see....whereas the Zionists always try to change their Bastard History to appear cleanskins,THEY FAIL OF COURSE,because truth always prevails,even though CURRS like you talk such SHIT,defending them by attacking the VICTIMS yet allow the PERPERTRATORS free reign

You really are a despicable,raving LOONY


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 31, 2017)

thetor said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...


Let me guess.....uhm.....

Nazi upbringing.....No?
Communist upbringing?  No?
Jihadist upbringing?  No?
Christian Catholic upbringing?  No?

Uhm....

One thing you are correct about.

THE THUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS, as it is now, and always will.

I only hope you have enough valium to deal with it. 

Or maybe not


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 1, 2017)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > It was simply a letter by a colonial power that wanted to establish a European colony in Ottoman territory.
> ...


It *was *Ottoman territory. Then it was *ceded to Palestine.*


----------



## thetor (Nov 1, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > The Sage of Main Street said:
> ...


NONE OF THE ABOVE(but who cares what anyone's beliefs are),Just a Good Man who knows the Truth,and DESPISES LIARS .....and to correct your Shamelessness....The word written correctly IS THE "TRUTH" not thuth!!!!! you wrote,you see Sixties ...All Gods Are On My Side.....You,I don't think are  a Stupid person,you just speak like ONE and as I said  "The TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS"

You Pharisee,You'll never conquer me...Though the road maybe rocky,
                                                                 And the Zionists deceit,
                                                                 You Boasting Pharisee,
                                                                 You'll Never Conquer Me


----------



## thetor (Nov 1, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


ps P.F.Tinmore,she hollie that is .....IS as thick as two planks,she does no research or due dilligence on anything,just Myopically carry the Murderous Zionists Banner into the Pit of Oblivion


----------



## Hollie (Nov 1, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



As I noted, and as you still don’t understand, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, it was _formerly_ Ottoman territory.

Nice deflection but you’re not allowed re-write history in favor of your Islamist perspective.


----------



## gtopa1 (Nov 1, 2017)

Hollie said:


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




How long had it been "formerly?" And was it not then a British protectorate type of thing; whatever the legalese word for that is as they were the "Occupying" Power.

Greg


----------



## Hollie (Nov 1, 2017)

gtopa1 said:


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



1923.

Scroll down to Article 16

Treaty of Lausanne - World War I Document Archive


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 1, 2017)

Obviously, Macintyre thinks that Mahmoud is speaking some deep truth here.

But guess what? The Palestinians could have had a state in 1937. And 1947. And 2000. And 2001. And 2008. And even under the Netanyahu government in 2014!

They have rejected every single peace plan. But hateful pseudo-experts like Macintyre know that the Palestinians are without any blame. Let's blame Great Britain for their plight. (News flash, Donald: If there was no Balfour Declaration and the Zionists weren't successful, there would still not be a "Palestinian state." It would have been gobbled up by Jordan, Egypt and Syria. You know this is true because in 1917 there were essentially no such thing as Palestinian nationalism.)

(full article online)

Independent's Donald Macintyre writes the dumbest Balfour article yet - for Haaretz ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2017)

Why would Palestinians not want their own State?


----------



## teddyearp (Nov 1, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Mandate was to facilitate Palestinian citizenship for the Jews and help create an independent Palestinian state.



They did create an independent Palestinian state.  It's called Jordan.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 1, 2017)

A new permanent exhibition highlights the British PM's unflinching support for the Jewish state -- even under heavy pressure from his government

(full article online)

Ahead of Balfour 100, UK enshrines Churchill’s headstrong case for Israel


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2017)

teddyearp said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Mandate was to facilitate Palestinian citizenship for the Jews and help create an independent Palestinian state.
> ...


Why is there a problem in that region?  Jordan could be a mutually beneficial trading partner, bordering the State of Israel.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> A new permanent exhibition highlights the British PM's unflinching support for the Jewish state -- even under heavy pressure from his government
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Ahead of Balfour 100, UK enshrines Churchill’s headstrong case for Israel


I make a motion to consult astrologers as to why the "stars were not in better alignment for a State of Judea".


----------



## Hollie (Nov 1, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Why would Palestinians not want their own State?



Western nations which maintain the UNRWA welfare fraud would be reluctant to keep that fraud funded with their kuffar dollars. As it is currently, that welfare fraud is seen as an endowment by generations of islamic terrorists to assemble incredible wealth for those who control the money spigot.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 1, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Year Zero: The Palestinians and the Balfour Declaration


*Nomad, No Mind*

In 1948, the Paleonasties ran away from a fight, expecting the other Arabs to take their place in driving out the Jews   Such cowardice means forfeiture of any claims they may have ever had to the land.  Besides, it had always been only a pit stop for marauding Arab gangs.  Their desertion proved that.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 1, 2017)

abi said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, neither do I recall the Arab "Palestinians" insisting upon national sovereignty from the Ottomans.
> ...


*The Religion of Cain
*
Neither is the Koran.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2017)

Hollie said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Why would Palestinians not want their own State?
> ...


You make it seem like the right wing is not very serious about our alleged wars, by continually asking for lowering taxes.

The Nazis were more serious about their wars:  


> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 1, 2017)

Hollie said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Why would Palestinians not want their own State?
> ...


*Allah Is All About Oil*

Through bribes and other controls over our governments, Western oil companies are protecting OPEC, which funds all terrorism.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 1, 2017)

abi said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Again, you claim that the Jewish people can not rightfully speak for the Jewish people. That is just silliness.
> ...


*Pathetic Buttboys for the Big Boys*

By your direct orders expecting passive obedience, you prove how bossy Neo-Nazis are.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


We have a Commerce Clause not Any form of general warfare clause.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 1, 2017)

thetor said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...


*The Death Rattle of Necro-Nazis*

De Nial is de river you and your Moslem Brotherhood boyfriends should have your stinking anal-receptive carcasses dumped in.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 1, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> A new permanent exhibition highlights the British PM's unflinching support for the Jewish state -- even under heavy pressure from his government
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Ahead of Balfour 100, UK enshrines Churchill’s headstrong case for Israel


*Sense Against Simian*

Some of us think Churchill was a great man and will be convinced by his support of them that the Israelis must be right.  Other posters think Osama bin Laden was a great man.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 1, 2017)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > A new permanent exhibition highlights the British PM's unflinching support for the Jewish state -- even under heavy pressure from his government
> ...


When one needs to compare the head of a democratic nation with a terrorist of no Nation except the Islamic nation........and head of nothing but murderers, or thousands of civilian lives.......

Enough said....


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 1, 2017)

Balfour Declaration: 'State' or 'Homeland'? | HonestReporting


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 1, 2017)

Harry's Place » An open letter to support the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 1, 2017)

That, of course, is an inaccurate representation of events. The document published on November 2nd 1917 was in fact the end product of several months of drafts, revisions and consultations, as the Balfour 100 website explains:

“Balfour’s November 1917 typewritten letter to Rothschild was ‎drafted after a great deal of back-and-forth within Lloyd George’s government and considerable input by Zionist leaders led by Nahum Sokolow (1859-1936) and Chaim Weizmann (1874-1952); and by British Jews adamantly opposed to Zionism.

On June 13, 1917 Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour met with Lord Walter Rothschild, leader of the British Jewish community, and Zionist statesman Chaim Weizmann and suggested they submit a draft document encapsulating their hopes for Palestine that he could submit for Cabinet discussion.

The formula which the Zionists preferred was submitted by Rothschild to Balfour on July 18, 1917.

But the to-and-fro over the letter’s wording continued. […]

On October 6, 1917 the War Cabinet decided to send out the latest draft text to eight Jews—four anti-Zionists and four Zionists—for comment. The cover letter acknowledged that “in view of the divergence of opinion expressed on the subject by the Jews themselves,” the Government “would like to receive in writing the views of representative Jewish leaders, both Zionists and non-Zionists.””

One of the four anti-Zionists was Sir Philip Magnus, whose response can be found in the National Library of Israel. Also on October 6th 1917, the British sought the opinion of the US president Woodrow Wilson and, as Martin Kramer documents, the French government had also expressed its approval for “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality [nationalité juive] in that land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago” in June 1917 in the Cambon letter.

In short, the Balfour Declaration had been a ‘work in progress’ for at least five months before the ANZAC forces won the Battle of Beersheba and the BBC’s claim that the victory against the Ottomans “led to” Lord Rothschild’s letter is historically inaccurate and misleading to audiences.

(full article online)

Inaccurate BBC Balfour Declaration claim misleads audiences


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 2, 2017)




----------



## Hollie (Nov 2, 2017)

It would be appropriate for the Arabs-Moslems to apologize for their failures and ineptitudes, maybe return the stolen welfare fraud
money.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

Too many articles about Balfour give Great Britain credit for creating Israel, just like articles at the end of this month will credit the UN partition plan 70 years ago with creating Israel. Neither is true. Israel was created through the sweat and blood and hard work and foresight of a group of Jews who saw how important it was to have a Jewish state. They used international instruments to help them but the entire enterprise was created, sustained and completed by Jews alone, to rebuild the Jewish state that Jews have yearned for over two millennia.

The contrast with Palestinianism is striking. Palestinians haven't been building institutions - they have been sitting back and letting the world community build them. They haven't been creating an effective government - they have been taking NGO money to create their plans. Their leaders aren't craving the responsibility behind building a real state - they are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing the bare minimum to be take seriously.

Most importantly, Palestinianism is not nationalism in the sense that they want to live free and independently. It is anti-nationalism. because its entire purpose is the destruction of the Jewish state, not the building of another Arab state. if it wasn't for Israel the Palestinians would happily have become Jordanians and Syrians and Egyptians, depending on how history would have played out. There was certainly no Palestinian government in waiting in 1947. All the major Palestinian leaders in the 1930s had been involved in violence and incitement, not nation-building like the Jewish leaders were.

The Balfour Declaration didn't create Israel and it didn't destroy "Palestine." Jewish genius and creativity and hard work created Israel, and Palestinian hate, rejectionism and antisemitism is what ensured - and continues to ensure - that there will never be a viable, independent Palestinian state.

(full article online)

Zionist Jews created modern Israel, not Balfour ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

They should have created Judea.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> They should have created Judea.


They created what they had the right to create, minus TransJordan which was stolen in 1925.

They called it what they had the right to call it.  Israel. 
Because it has always been, regardless of the Greek name change, or the Roman name change, ISRAEL.

Thanks for caring so much about the Jewish nation and what they should be called, and where they should live, if anywhere at all.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/isr...exhibition-showing-at-the-knesset/2017/11/02/


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > They should have created Judea.
> ...


Israel and Israelites.  There are no Judeans without Judea.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


It was all one Nation.  Israel which split into Israel and Judah.
Why are you playing this useless gave with all the names the Jews have had in the past, and the name of their Nation/lands?

What in the world could be your purpose? Pray tell.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


There simply are no Judeans in modern times.  Only Israel and Israelites.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 2, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



Its just another play on the old "real" Jews vs. "synthetic" Jews canard.  Sigh.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

Bipartisan Senate resolution calls for recognition of 100th anniversary of signing of Balfour Declaration, affirms US support for Israel.

(full article online)

Congress to recognize centenary of Balfour Declaration


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

The _London Jewish Chronicle_ which lauded the Balfour Declaration, also made a poignant observation in 1917. “Neither England, nor France, nor the United States, can give Palestine to the Jewish people, it must be desired, it must be sought for, it must be earned.”

(full article online)


Reflections on the Balfour Declaration


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/a-century-of-missed-opportunities/


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

Israel given birth thanks to international efforts


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

The True Story Behind the Balfour Declaration


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

“There’s no need for Britain to apologize for the Balfour Declaration”


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

The significance of the Balfour declaration was that Britain, then a great power in the world, explicitly affirmed the inalienable right of the Jewish people to recreate its own ancestral home in the former land of Israel. The BBC has chosen to portray this as “controversial” on the false basis that it represented a “broken promise” – to those who have sworn to overturn it.

(full article online)

BBC Today’s disgraceful Balfour travesty | MelaniePhillips.com


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

Here’s Balfour Declaration Myth 4: The British failed to consult the Palestinian Arabs. True, they didn’t consult, but why was that a failure? 

• This was war, the British hadn’t yet taken Jerusalem. Who in history has consulted the population of enemy territory in wartime? 

• And they were the enemy. Palestinian Arabs didn’t revolt against the Turks or help the Allies. Lloyd George later called them “quiescent and cowering…. We could not get in touch with the Palestinian Arabs as they were fighting against us.” (See illustration: Arab recruits to Ottoman army leave Jerusalem for Gallipoli.) 

• The British ruled an empire of 400m people. They didn’t consult Indians or Egyptians about their future, so why expect them to consult Palestinian Arabs? 

• They did insist on the prior approval of the one world leader who championed self-determination: Woodrow Wilson. He signed off on the Balfour text in advance.

Martin Kramer


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

Reuven Rivlin: Jews and Arabs are destined—not doomed—to live together


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

Satire


Britain Apologizes To Balfour For Palestinians – PreOccupied Territory


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Reuven Rivlin: Jews and Arabs are destined—not doomed—to live together


What is the holdup on a State for Palestinians?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Reuven Rivlin: Jews and Arabs are destined—not doomed—to live together
> ...


The Palestinian Leaders.  Ask them.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Why not, de facto UN recognition; and let "them sort it out"?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The Palestinians do not, yet, have the prerequisite for a State.
The UN, which has become a majority Muslim/Christian anti-Israel organization, wants to help destroy Israel.
UNWRA
UNESCO

Look at who are seated at the Human Rights organizations.

The Palestinians need leaders who care for peace and a good life for their people and not the destruction of Israel.

And that is a subject for a different thread.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

The UN should have, "off the shelf plans for any territory to become a State; just for bureaucratic fun and bureaucratic practice.

A "UN marshal" could do the job.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> The UN should have, "off the shelf plans for any territory to become a State; just for bureaucratic fun and bureaucratic practice.
> 
> A "UN marshal" could do the job.


Send them a letter.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2017)

I merely need all the money in the world, to solve all the world's problems.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 2, 2017)




----------



## montelatici (Nov 2, 2017)

*Balfour Declaration: Banksy holds 'apology' party for Palestinians*

*Banksy holds Balfour 'apology' party*


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

*...The Jews would have returned to Zion with or without the consent of Europe. This is the people that, despite the murder of millions of potential Jewish citizens, and within Herzl’s predicted timeline of 50 years, recovered and defended its national sovereignty in the Land of Israel that had been under foreign domination for almost two millennia.*

Yet Britain went back on its word. Attempting to appease Arab rulers, it rewarded Arab violence in Palestine in the 1930s by preventing Jews from entering land promised to them by the Bible and the British. While the British betrayal did not directly abet Hitler’s war against the Jews of Europe, it signaled a readiness to abandon the Jews to their fate. It certainly spurred the Arab war against Israel, which began where Germany’s war against the Jews left off. Churchill reminded Parliament in 1939 that the pledge of a Jewish homeland in Palestine had been made not only to the Jews but to the world and that its repudiation was a confession of British weakness.

The Jews would have returned to Zion with or without the consent of Europe. This is the people that, despite the murder of millions of potential Jewish citizens, and within Herzl’s predicted timeline of 50 years, recovered and defended its national sovereignty in the Land of Israel that had been under foreign domination for almost two millennia. But most of the Arab world rejected the very principle of coexistence and consequently spiraled into ever-escalating intramural conflicts. For Arab nations, too, acceptance of an autonomous Jewish presence, if and when it occurs, will be the gauge of their political maturity.

(Full article online)

When Britain Renewed the Promise to the Jews


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2017)

Watch Britain’s May Underline UK Pride in Helping Pioneer State of Israel | The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com | Hana Levi Julian | 14 Heshvan 5778 – November 3, 2017 | JewishPress.com


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> But most of the Arab world rejected the very principle of coexistence and consequently spiraled into ever-escalating intramural conflicts.


The Zionists never wanted coexistence. They always wanted to pig the place for themselves.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 3, 2017)

But most of the Arab world rejected the very principle of coexistence and consequently spiraled into ever-escalating intramural conflicts.

The Zionists never wanted coexistence. They always wanted to pig the place for themselves.[/QUOTE
----------------------

You being a Christian, do you not yet have a ticket to go to Hell for all the lies you have told on these threads alone?

How easy it is to put all the Mizrahi Jews under the rug, not that you know what a Mizrahi Jew would be. They were not there, living on their ancient homeland. And apparently Never Mind all the Sepharadi Jews who also lived on the land and the surrounding areas.

No, they do not count. And apparently they are too stupid to "know" or care that the Jews coming from Europe, according to all the conspiracy theories you have read, written only since 1948, Are Not Jews deserving to be called Jews.

And let us not forget the British Zionists, or non Zionists who helped those Jews with the Balfour Declaration, and at the Sam Remo meeting, and at the UN who approved of the State of Israel once all the Jews were ready for it.

And let us Not Forget, that when the Arabs were rioting and murdering Jews in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936 to 1939 and in 1948, they made absolutely No Distinction between one Jew and another.

Mizrahi Jews, you are safe.
Sepharadi Jews, you are safe.

"It is only the Ashkenazi ones, who call themselves Zionists, who we want.
Those Europeans who dared to come here and spoil the peace we had with the Mizrahi and Sepharadi Jews."

How come that did not happen, Tinmore?

Where are those gallant and worthy Arabs who died to save the Mizrahi and Sepharadi Jews from being killed along with the ones who called themselves Zionists and had come from Europe?

How do you explain Muslim Arabs killing, or wanting to kill All Jews, and not just the European ones?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > But most of the Arab world rejected the very principle of coexistence and consequently spiraled into ever-escalating intramural conflicts.
> ...



So then, you can explain Arab-Israelis in Israel vs Israeli-Gazans in Gaza’istan. 

Thanks. I’ll await the expected sidestep.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 3, 2017)

4.    League of Nations Mandate

2.     The right to settle in the Land of Israel 

It is not the Balfour Declaration that granted Jews the right to settle in the Land of Israel. The document that gave us that right is the Bible. *The Koran corroborates this,* making Muslim objectors to our historical right not only ignorant but also blasphemers against their own religion.
--
The Balfour Declaration is the basis for the League of Nations decision regarding the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in our homeland. 
This was one of the functions of the British Mandate (on both banks of the Jordan).

5.      5.  International Law

The League of Nations decision is the only valid document in what is called "International Law" regarding the right of any people to this land.

_6.       6. _When does the Balfour Declaration matter?

The Balfour Declaration is important whenever someone lies, talking about "illegal settlements," "violations of international law," or "occupation". 
THAT is the moment when we must raise the Balfour Declaration and say: 
_We are not here by virtue of international law but by virtue of historical truth. 
We are ALSO here in accordance with international law - since the League of Nations adopted the Balfour Declaration - we are here by right. International law did not give us the right to this land, it recognized and reaffirmed our historical right to the land.
_
For that, Balfour, we thank you. 

(full article online)

Six things you need to know about the Balfour Declaration (Forest Rain and Michal Behagen) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)

*Palestinian girl, 11, to UK PM: Balfour celebration ‘a new obstacle to peace’ *

To Her Excellency Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Ms Theresa May

I hope you are well.

I have recently read about your British and Israel celebration of the one hundred years of the Balfour Declaration for Israel to occupy Palestine (which is not actually Balfour’s property). After that, an ocean of sadness and death flooded Palestine. To be completely honest, I do not understand why you would celebrate that day with pride. Are you proud of causing the Palestinians to be homeless? Are you proud of stealing peace from the Palestinians’ hearts, souls and minds without having the right to do that?

I live in Qatar, and I do have a lot of British friends, and I am in a British school. I am only eleven years old, but diving into the future, I realise that when my friends and I have graduated, they would all move back to their homeland. However, I would have no home to return to.

*Palestinian girl, 11, to UK PM: Balfour celebration ‘a new obstacle to peace’*


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2017)




----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)

Hollie said:


>


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> >



I always get a chuckle when you clueless types are reduced to cutting and pasting cartoons.


----------



## rylah (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> *Palestinian girl, 11, to UK PM: Balfour celebration ‘a new obstacle to peace’ *
> 
> To Her Excellency Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Ms Theresa May
> 
> ...



Let her move to the Emirate of Gaza, or talk to the royal family of Qatar that rules Hebron.
She could as well try Jordan with a Palestinian majority, on the other side of the river


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> *Palestinian girl, 11, to UK PM: Balfour celebration ‘a new obstacle to peace’ *
> 
> To Her Excellency Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Ms Theresa May
> 
> ...


Apparently this 11 year old, like so many others, was never taught that Palestine was under Ottoman control for over 500 years, with not one Arab "Palestinian" ever raising their hands or 
sword, or anything else against that Muslim invasion from Turkey.  

This 11 year old was never told, and never will, that Palestine is the ancient homeland of the Jewish People, who have every right to reestablish sovereignty over their ancient homeland, which was Never "Palestinian Arabs" homeland.

This 11 year old was never told that not only the Ottomans, but the Arabs in Palestine were on the side of the Germans during WWI and all of them lost that war.  

Not being Arab land, the victors had every right to do what they wanted with the land, and they did.

This 11 year old was never told, nor will she ever, that the Arab Muslims still managed to become sovereign of 99% of the land they stole from their original indigenous populations, like the Berbers, the Copts, the Kurds, the Yazidis, and many others whom this 11 year old, and so many other children, are not taught have never been able to have any PEACE thanks to the Arab Muslims who invaded their lands starting in the 7th Century CE.

This 11 year old has never been told, that like so many other refugees, that she can make Qatar her new home and be proud to live there the very same way all other refugees, from all over the world, move to a different part of the world - for all reasons- and gladly become a part of that new place helping that new place become one for all who live on it.

Who is going to have the heart or courage to tell this 11 year old , and all other children who are being forced to continue to call themselves Refugees, by the very Arabs and Muslims who should have been taking care of them, and not forced them into a lifetime of "waiting" for their alleged homeland, which is really on Arabian soil and nowhere else.

This 11 year old is never going to be told that for her to get her "homeland back" all the Jews have to be killed and Israel destroyed, on their own ancient homeland.

Is this 11 year as heartless as the Arab leaders want her to be?
Will she grow up to be as heartless as all the others?

She lives in a world where Jews are not given any sovereign rights, or any rights at all.

Here is hoping that she will be able to find out the truth and demand of her leaders, or become a leader herself, who wants and will bring peace between Israel and all other Arab countries.

Who will bring an end to Jew hatred as taught in the Quran.

Who will read the part of the Quran where it clearly says that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People.

Tikvah

Hope


----------



## rylah (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> *Palestinian girl, 11, to UK PM: Balfour celebration ‘a new obstacle to peace’ *
> 
> To Her Excellency Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Ms Theresa May
> 
> ...



And this "Palestinian" girl full name:

_"11-year-old Palestinian girl, *Hala Nasrallah*, has written a letter to the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, who is planning to attend a celebration to mark he Balfour Declaration"_

_
_

Q. Do You know which country belongs and being controlled by the Nasrallah family?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Apparently this 11 year old, like so many others, was never taught that Palestine was under Ottoman control for over 500 years, with not one Arab "Palestinian" ever raising their hands or
> sword, or anything else against that Muslim invasion from Turkey.


The Ottomans did not expel the population like Israel did.

There is no comparison.


----------



## rylah (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently this 11 year old, like so many others, was never taught that Palestine was under Ottoman control for over 500 years, with not one Arab "Palestinian" ever raising their hands or
> ...



Don't know about the Ottomans, but the Arabs DID expel Palestinian Jews during the pogroms before Zionism.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 3, 2017)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


The Ottomans welcomed the Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal.  They knew the Jews would help improve their Empire.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently this 11 year old, like so many others, was never taught that Palestine was under Ottoman control for over 500 years, with not one Arab "Palestinian" ever raising their hands or
> ...



As a dhimmi class, the Jews and Christians were a valuable income stream for the Ottomans. Of course, that period in time when Islamic fascism was enforceable is gone.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> ... they would all move back to their homeland. However, I would have no home to return to.



And THAT is exactly why we needed the Balfour Declaration.    So the Jewish people have a home to return to.  The Arabs need to stop being hypocrites.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently this 11 year old, like so many others, was never taught that Palestine was under Ottoman control for over 500 years, with not one Arab "Palestinian" ever raising their hands or
> ...



Actually, a part of the Ottoman / Islamist colonial project was to establish a  dhimmi status upon those they conquered and to impose a discriminatory social status and faxes upon the non-Islamists.

There is no comparison - no analog - to the dhimmi in either of the true Abrahamic religions of Judaism or Christianity.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 3, 2017)

[ This should be interesting   ]

“Balfour wrote explicitly 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,'” she said.

“So when some people suggest we should apologize for this letter, I say absolutely not,” she continued.

Former Hamas leader: We will trample Balfour Declaration


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


There has been no dhimmi status for 150 years.

You need to update your propaganda.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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


150 years.  So knowledgeable .  But I need a link for that.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



The collapse of the Ottoman colonial project began long before the last century. Jews and Christians eventually were able to throw of the fascist and discriminatory policies of dhimmitude only because the Islamic fascists were unable to enforce it. 

Imposition of dhimmitude has occurred throughout Islamist facsist history. You can make all the cheap excuses you wish but the fact remains that Jews and Christians alike were abused and suffered terribly under Islamic fascism.


----------



## abi (Nov 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> And THAT is exactly why we needed the Balfour Declaration.


It was a letter and has no legal weight.



Shusha said:


> So the Jewish people have a home to return to.


CORRECTION: So the zionist people have a home to immigrate to.



Shusha said:


> The Arabs need to stop being hypocrites.


I know what you did there and why, but total pot/kettle.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


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


The status of dhimmi "was for long accepted with resignation by the Christians and with gratitude by the Jews" but ceased to be so after the rising power of Christendom and the radical ideas of the French revolution caused a wave of discontent among Christian dhimmis.[106] While Muslims opposed abolishment of dhimma laws, continuing and growing pressure from the European powers and also pressure from Muslim reformers gradually relaxed the inequalities between Muslims and non-Muslims.[107]

The enforcement of the laws of the dhimma was widespread in the Muslim world until the mid-nineteenth century, when the Ottoman empire significantly relaxed the restrictions placed on its non-Muslim residents under Ottomanism. These relaxations occurred gradually as part of the Tanzimat reform movement, which began in 1839 with the accession of the Ottoman Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid I.[108]

On November 3, 1839, an edict called the Hatt-i Sharif of Gulhane was put forth by the Sultan that, in part, proclaimed the principle of the equality of all subjects regardless of religion. Part of the motivation for this was the desire to gain support from the British Empire, whose help was desired in a conflict with Egypt.[109]

On February 18, 1856, another edict was issued called Hatt-i Humayan, which built upon the 1839 edict. It came about partly as a result of pressure from and the efforts of the ambassadors of England, France, and Austria, whose respective countries were needed as allies in the Crimean War. It again proclaimed the principle of the equality of Muslims and non-Muslims, and produced many specific reforms to this end. For example, the _jizya_ tax was abolished and non-Muslims were allowed to join the army.[110][111]

Dhimmi - New World Encyclopedia


----------



## Shusha (Nov 3, 2017)

abi said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > And THAT is exactly why we needed the Balfour Declaration.
> ...



1.  I agree.  It was a letter with no legal weight.  Until it was written into the Mandate for Palestine.  And then it was transformed into international law.  

2.  Are you arguing that the Jewish people do not originate in historic Israel and Judea and Samaria and Galilee and therefore have no rights to it?  Are you arguing that there are REAL (TM) Jews and Synthetic Jews?

3.  Except that I am not doing the pot/kettle.  I believe fully that BOTH the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinians should have full sovereignty and self-determination on part of the land.  That is ultimately THE solution.  Why don't you tell me what you think the solution should be?  I've asked multiple times.  So has Teddy.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> 1. I agree. It was a letter with no legal weight. Until it was written into the Mandate for Palestine. And then it was transformed into international law.


The Mandate was not to be a Jewish state. It was to be a Palestinian state with Jews as citizens.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > 1. I agree. It was a letter with no legal weight. Until it was written into the Mandate for Palestine. And then it was transformed into international law.
> ...



The Mandate recognized the existing rights of the Jewish people to their ancestral and historical territory.  It set in law the rights to govern the territory to the Jewish people (see Articles 4 and 11).  Those are the powers of a State.  That is the formation of a State.  There is NO mention of those powers being set in law for ANY other group.

Further, even if the above were not true -- there is NO prohibition in the Mandate for the achievement of Statehood for Israel nor for any other party.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The creation of Israel was a unilateral move that was unrelated to the Mandate or Resolution 181.

So none of that is relevant.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



The creation of the government in Israel (Palestine) for the Jewish people based on their existing rights was an internationally sanctioned and approved event (aka international law) as per the Mandate (again, I refer you to Articles 4 and 11).


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)




----------



## theliq (Nov 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Israel declared Statehood illegally as it was not ratified by the Security Council thus Israel was an illegal entity


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


No mention of a Jewish state.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Indeed, the creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



There is a clear prescription for a Jewish government for a Jewish national home.  Its on you to prove that though the Jewish people were to have a national home (not just civil and religious rights -- but a national home) and they were to govern that national home but that the Jewish people were prohibited (and still are prohibited) from having national self-determination and sovereignty in the form of a State.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Indeed, you are so silly. It’s always worth a chuckle when you rattle on about international laws which you dont understand.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, the creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.



Oh please.  Name them.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


False. 

Dont you think it’s wise to know the facts as opposed to repeating falsehoods?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, the creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.
> ...


Acquiring territory through military aggression.
Military attacks on civilians.
Moving your own people onto occupied territory.
Denationalizing citizens due to religion.
Ethnic cleansing.
Destruction of private property.

There my be more.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You cut and pasted a laundry list of Islamist aggressions in 1948.

Oops.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.



*



			Acquiring territory through military aggression
		
Click to expand...

* --  Israel acquired territory through legal means according to the laws of the territory at the time.  (ie the Mandate we've been discussing.  Well, that I've been presenting and you've been ignoring.)

*



			Military attacks on civilians
		
Click to expand...

 *-- while attacks on civilians ARE a violation of international law -- this does not make the creation of a State which in breach of law a violation of international law and is therefore irrelevant.



> *Moving your own people onto occupied territory.*


 -- there was no occupied territory in 1948 when Israel was created.  Immigration of Jews to the Jewish national homeland was permitted by international agreement (law).  IF this is a violation (and I argue that it is not) it occurred AFTER the creation of Israel and is therefore irrelevant to the question.



> *Denationalizing citizens due to religion. *


 -- Israel did no such thing.



> *Ethnic cleansing*


. -- I'd argue that Israel's actions were in keeping with normative warfare at the time of her creation.  BUT even still this does not make the creation of the State of Israel illegal.



> *Destruction of private property.*


 -- again, while this is a violation of international law, -- this does not make the creation of Israel a violation of international law and is therefore irrelevant.


I think there is a confusion in the way you stated your remark.  You said, "The creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws."  I took this to mean that the act of creating a state (Israel) was illegal.

But I think now, what you meant to say is that Israel (and the government acting on behalf of the Jewish people) committed some acts which were in violation of international law at the time.[/quote]


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.
> ...


Israel could not be a state without these violations. These are not side issues, they are the core of Israel's existence.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 3, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Of course Israel could have been created without violating international law. The very basis of international law is peaceful agreements between States. 

There is nothing inherently illegal in the creation of a new State.


----------



## thetor (Nov 3, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> A new permanent exhibition highlights the British PM's unflinching support for the Jewish state -- even under heavy pressure from his government
> 
> (full article online)
> 
> Ahead of Balfour 100, UK enshrines Churchill’s headstrong case for Israel


I note that all the participants,Balfours great nephew,Teresa May and Nit and Yar, Who ARE ALL JEWS ...I rest my case and WIN AS USUAL


----------



## thetor (Nov 3, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


But when YOU were NO NATION,YOU WERE THE WORST TERRORISTS,THE ZIONIST SCUM that were taught by the NAZIS


----------



## theliq (Nov 3, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, the creation of Israel was a violation of many international laws.
> ...


Try These  
www.truetorahjews.org/naziismzionism
www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html


Read properly and you will see what DECEITFUL AND LYING TRASH THESE TERRORIST ZIONISTS ARE....They murdered their own creed to advance their CULT & TERRORISM

God Bless The Palestinians for fighting against these Barbarians


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

Even the Ottoman Empire, head of the world's Muslim community, seemed to have acknowledged the right of the Jews to collective revival in their ancestral homeland. On August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha, one of the triumvirs who had run the empire since 1913, issued an official communiqué expressing "sympathies for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and colonization" and offering to promote this enterprise "by all means" provided it "does not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population."[8]

Largely modeled on the Balfour Declaration and formulated in a similar process of lengthy discussions with prominent Jewish leaders, Talaat's proclamation came too late to have real significance—two-and-a-half months after its issuance, the Ottomans surrendered to the Allies—and was apparently designed to improve the Muslim empire's bargaining position in the looming postwar peace talks. Yet its issuance was nothing short of extraordinary given the violent Ottoman reaction to anything that smacked of national self-determination, from the Greek war of independence in the 1820s, to the Balkan wars of the 1870s, to the Armenian genocide of World War I. Indeed, only a year before the declaration, the Jewish community in Palestine (or the Yishuv) faced a real risk of extinction from the Ottomans for the very same reason, only to be saved through intervention by Germany, Istanbul's senior war ally.

*Arabs Embrace the Declaration*
_Emir Faisal._ Talaat was hardly the only regional potentate to accept the Jewish right to national revival. The leaders of the nascent pan-Arab movement were perfectly amenable to endorsing the Balfour Declaration so long as this seemed to be conducive to their ambitions. And none more so than the Hashemite emirs Faisal and Abdullah who, together with their father, the Sharif of Mecca Hussein ibn Ali, perpetrated the "Great Arab War" against the Ottoman Empire. They were, as it happened, generously rewarded for their endeavors in the form of vast territories several times the size of the British Isles. Yet since these spectacular gains (which comprise the current states of Iraq, Jordan, and parts of Saudi Arabia) only served to whet their appetite, the emirs continued to pursue their imperial ambitions under the pan-Arab guise.

*The Hashemite emirs continued to pursue their imperial ambitions under the pan-Arab guise.*

Even during the revolt, Faisal began toying with the idea of establishing his own Syrian empire, independent of his father's prospective regional empire. In late 1917 and early 1918, he went so far as to negotiate this option with key members of the Ottoman leadership behind the backs of his father and his British allies. As his terms were rejected by Istanbul, Faisal tried to gain great-power endorsement for his imperial dream, and it was here that his interests seemed to converge with that of the Zionist movement.

On June 4, 1918, Faisal met Chaim Weizmann, the Russia-born, Manchester-based rising head of the Zionist movement. The two struck up an immediate rapport, and the emir readily acknowledged "the necessity for cooperation between Jews and Arabs" and "the possibility of Jewish claims to territory in Palestine." Yet he refused to discuss Palestine's future until such a time "when Arab affairs were more consolidated."[9]

(full article online)

Turks, Arabs Welcomed the Balfour Declaration


----------



## theliq (Nov 4, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Even the Ottoman Empire, head of the world's Muslim community, seemed to have acknowledged the right of the Jews to collective revival in their ancestral homeland. On August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha, one of the triumvirs who had run the empire since 1913, issued an official communiqué expressing "sympathies for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and colonization" and offering to promote this enterprise "by all means" provided it "does not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population."[8]
> 
> Largely modeled on the Balfour Declaration and formulated in a similar process of lengthy discussions with prominent Jewish leaders, Talaat's proclamation came too late to have real significance—two-and-a-half months after its issuance, the Ottomans surrendered to the Allies—and was apparently designed to improve the Muslim empire's bargaining position in the looming postwar peace talks. Yet its issuance was nothing short of extraordinary given the violent Ottoman reaction to anything that smacked of national self-determination, from the Greek war of independence in the 1820s, to the Balkan wars of the 1870s, to the Armenian genocide of World War I. Indeed, only a year before the declaration, the Jewish community in Palestine (or the Yishuv) faced a real risk of extinction from the Ottomans for the very same reason, only to be saved through intervention by Germany, Istanbul's senior war ally.
> 
> ...


Moron


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Even the Ottoman Empire, head of the world's Muslim community, seemed to have acknowledged the right of the Jews to collective revival in their ancestral homeland. On August 12, 1918, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha, one of the triumvirs who had run the empire since 1913, issued an official communiqué expressing "sympathies for the establishment of a religious and national Jewish center in Palestine by well-organized immigration and colonization" and offering to promote this enterprise "by all means" provided it "does not affect the rights of the non-Jewish population."[8]
> ...



All of that is thoroughly documented, you uneducated Moron.

They had a brain and knew that endorsing the Jewish rights to sovereignty on their own ancient Homeland would be a good thing for all Arabs.
The Al Husseini clan thought otherwise.  And all the Arabs lost.
And continue to be the losers.
-----------------

*As late as August 1947, al-Wahda newspaper advocated the incorporation of Palestine into "Greater Syria."*

*Conclusion*
Mahmoud Abbas's rejection of the Jewish right to national self-determination, which was acknowledged a hundred years ago by the international community, including the world's foremost Muslim power, leaders of the pan-Arab movement, and ordinary Palestinian Arabs, affords a sad testament to the unchanging nature of the Palestinian leadership's recalcitrance.

It was Hajj Amin Husseini's predication of Palestinian national identity on hatred of the "other" rather than on a distinct shared legacy that "paved the road for the Nakba of Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land." And it was Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas's persistence in this zero-sum approach, despite their feigned moderation in the Oslo peace charade, which ensured the perpetuation of Palestinian dispersal and statelessness to date. It is only by shedding their century-long revanchist dreams and opting for peace and reconciliation with their Israeli neighbors that Palestinian leaders can end their people's suffering. And what can be a better starting point for this sea change than endorsement of the Balfour Declaration rather than its atavistic denigration?

Turks, Arabs Welcomed the Balfour Declaration


----------



## theliq (Nov 4, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Lying Zionist,you filth never wanted or want Peace...MORON


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


Stop insulting King Faisal and all other intelligent Arabs.

They had brains and actually spoke to the Jews.

You are just memorex from all the Jew hating sites, books, media you have swallowed your whole life.

Choose life, choose peace.

The Jewish people, never mind if becoming sovereign over one's own ancient homeland is called Zionism or anything else, HAVE the right to live on their ancient homeland even if the Al Husseini, Tamimi, Nasrallah of the world do not want to see Jews being sovereign of their own destiny, but rather, the "Let me have the pleasure of beating up some Jews today" ideology some Arabs have had for the previous 1300 years.

Stop your ignorance.  That is the first step.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2017)

I believe the problem is, no actual State of Judea was created; and now, we have no Judeans, but Only, Israelis and the Israelites.


----------



## theliq (Nov 4, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Sorry you can say what you like,try to make out Everyone thought having a Jewish State in Palestine was a good thing...Stop Being A Bloody Idiot...Europe did not want Jews and wanted to dump them in Uganda but the Zionists wanted part of PALESTINE and did everything to do that,your analogy that I hate Jews somehow is Crap...What I detest is Zionism and everything associated with this disreputable Terrorist Organization.

_I believe in a two state solution but Zionists do not ever and never will_


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


Reread what I wrote.  It says that some Arab clans, especially from Arabia, especially King Faisal, were very much for the Balfour Declaration and a sovereign Jewish State ON ancient Jewish homeland.  No one else's homeland.  Only on the Jewish ancient land.

The Jews did not want part of Uganda because it is not their ancient homeland, it belongs to someone else in Africa.  Africa is not the Jewish ancient homeland, Uganda, Kenia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Libya, Morocco, Egypt.....name it.

But Palestine is the ancient homeland of the Jewish people.  It has been for over 3000 years as many historical documents from all who ever did business with the Jewish Nation, or invaded the Jewish Nation will attest to it.

Some countries in Europe did not want the Jews, because they are Asians, from Asia Minor, from what the Romans decided to call after a Jewish revolt, Syria Palestinea.  

Good for you.  Hate the Jewish right to be sovereign on their own ancient homeland.  Call them terrorists for defending themselves from 1300 years of Muslim invasion and conquest and treatment of Jews as if they were not humans, or not human enough.

Enjoy the Muslims calling Jews Pigs and Apes, and wishing to kill all Jews anywhere they are hiding.

If you do not know what is written in the Quran, Islam's holy book which tells them how to treat people, then go and read it.

BUT.....do not fail to read the part where it is written in the Quran that Israel (aka Palestine) belongs to the Jewish Nation.


Which part of the Quran Muslims choose to read and believe continues to be the issue.

The land belongs to the Jews 

OR

Kill them wherever they can be found.


(Remind me.....who are the terrorists? Who had been terrorizing non Muslims on their very ancient lands for 1300 years before the Ottoman Muslim Empire lost a huge chunk of all it had.  And that after the Arab invaders, and the Christian invaders had already come along and treated non Muslims or non Christians in such a humane manner. )

Don't you agree that Islam does teach to treat non Muslims in such a way until they are forced to convert to Islam, which is the final ambition?

Haven't Christians treated non Christians the same way?  
So many pogroms, the Inquisition which is still going on, the Holocaust.

You wish to see the Jews as being terrorists that is your choice.

Jews and non Jews can see from history, that all Israel is doing is defending itself from people who have it IN WRITING that they wish to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews.

Just as Christians and Muslims were doing, especially doing WWII.

You may be a member of the Free Palestine At Any Cost, By Any Means, which has been bombing, ramming knifing, BDS ing, etc, etc, etc in the world.

That is your choice.

Israel chooses to strive, as it has done from the very beginning, at great cost, which would have been much greater for all Jews if the Jews had not worked, as approved by International Law, to develop and rebuild their own country.


REBUILD, something which once was and would have to be reborn at one point or another.
Considering the monstrous choices some Europeans were making to continue with treating Jews as non humans, only one choice was finally arrived to.

Time to rebuild the Jewish Nation ON, and only ON, its ancient homeland


You have learned anything different than that......that is your poor education, and no-one  else's.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

For Israelis, the declaration was just one step in a series of significant events that had started decades before Lord Balfour and continued after him, all contributing to the Jewish people’s return to the Land of Israel. The first wave of immigrants started in 1882, 35 years before Balfour’s declaration and long before the First Zionist Congress in 1897.

For the PA, the Balfour Declaration is a necessary component of the Palestinian narrative. The two foundations of Palestinian ideology, both fictitious, are that a Palestinian nation existed for thousands of years and that there never had been a Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.

But this left one problem: The PA needed to explain to its people why millions of Jews had immigrated from Europe and all over the world, if they had no connection to the land. The PA’s answer is colonialism and Balfour is the “proof.”

According to the PA’s adjusted narrative, Balfour and Britain’s support were not one step in the growing Zionist movement, but were the beginning of all Jewish history in the land. The PA says the Jews were chosen by Britain only because the Jews were so “evil” that Europe was looking for a way to be rid of them.

(full article online)

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Had-th...on-the-PA-would-not-have-been-invented-513217


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

100 years of Arab-Israeli history: Renowned British doctor pens surprising book on conflict


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

Simon Schama at Balfour lecture: ‘The life of Israel is Hitler’s failure’


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

_Ronnie Fraser tells the little-known story of the British Labour Party’s support for Zionism. Three months before the Balfour Declaration, its War Aims Memorandum made clear that ‘The British Labour Movement expresses the opinion that Palestine should be set free from the harsh and oppressive government of the Turk, in order that the country may form a Free State, under international guarantee, to which such of the Jewish People as desired to do so may return, and may work out their salvation’._

(full article online)

Balfour 100 | Before Balfour: The Labour Party’s War Aims memorandum


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

Netanyahu: I Won't Forget How UK Backtracked On Balfour Declaration


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

30 years after Thatcher’s rebuff, Theresa May celebrates Balfour with Israel


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 4, 2017)

Of course none of all this changes the fact that Britain promised to give away that which was not theirs.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course none of all this changes the fact that Britain promised to give away that which was not theirs.



No, they didn't.  They promised to support the EXISTING rights of the Jewish people to a national homeland in, you know, their homeland.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course none of all this changes the fact that Britain promised to give away that which was not theirs.


It was the Turks'.  For 500 years. It was "others" before the Turks for a period of time.

But it was always the Jewish ancient homeland as written in many Christian and Islamic books, including the Quran.
With the Jews being present on it for 3800 years.

It was not the Arabs' land.
It was not the Turks' land.
It was not the British Land.
It was not the Hashemite's land.


It was and continues to be the Jewish Nation's land.

Am Israel Chai !


----------



## thetor (Nov 4, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> 30 years after Thatcher’s rebuff, Theresa May celebrates Balfour with Israel


Well the hapless Teresa is a Zionist Jew


----------



## thetor (Nov 4, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Of course none of all this changes the fact that Britain promised to give away that which was not theirs.
> ...


and later when you got prior to and after nationhood,Israel was supposed to look after the Palestinians as part of their charter...What a load of absolute BULLSHIT that proved to be


----------



## thetor (Nov 4, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Of course none of all this changes the fact that Britain promised to give away that which was not theirs.
> ...


and Palestinian,Muslim,christian etc.,rights


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

thetor said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Look after?
Where does it say that?

Are you saying that the Arabs in what was to become Israel were not going to be able to take care of themselves, as Jews always did when living under Christian or Muslim lands?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2017)

thetor said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


And you have not paid attention that in Israel, Arab Christians, Muslims, Bahai and all others have equal rights.

Or maybe you were in Gaza and mistook it for Israel?

Or maybe you do not care to know that in Israel, many Palestinians in East Jerusalem are applying for Israeli citizenship and not wanting to be part of any State of Palestine?

Why would so many Palestinians apply for an Israeli citizenship if they would not be given equal rights in Israel?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 5, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course none of all this changes the fact that Britain promised to give away that which was not theirs.


Colonial occupation / occupation by war and conquest as was the case with the Turks and Arabs is not an Islamist entitlement granting Pal’Istan as an Islamist waqf.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 5, 2017)

Here are some of Abbas’ claims from his missive (“Britain must atone for the Balfour declaration — and 100 years of suffering,”).

Abbas claim:

[Balfour] disregard[ed] the political rights of those who already lived there.

Misleading.

The language used by Abbas (“those who already lived there”) buttresses the broader narrative, advanced repeatedly by Palestinian leaders, in their media and education system, that falsely frames Jews as interlopers with no historical or religious connection to the land of Israel.

In fact, Jews “already lived there” when Balfour was issued. Jews are an indigenous people to the land, and small Jewish communities remained even after their exile in 70 CE, during Byzantine, Muslim and Crusader rule. There has been a continuous Jewish presence in the Land of Israel for more than 3,000 years.

Abbas claim:

For the Palestinian people — my people — the events [Balfour] triggered have been as devastating as they have been far-reaching.

Misleading.

Tragic events for Palestinians didn’t just happen (“triggered”) as a result of Balfour, but were mostly the result of decisions by Palestinian (and Arab) leaders to reject political and territorial compromise, and maintain hostility to a permanent Jewish presence in the land.

Abbas claim:

This British policy, to support Jewish immigration into Palestine while negating the Arab-Palestinian right to self-determination, created severe tensions between European Jewish immigrants and the native Palestinian population.

Misleading.

His mention of British “support” for Jewish immigration omits the subsequent White Paper, which severely restricted such immigration — a fateful decision for untold numbers of Jews who were slaughtered in places like Auschwitz, Treblinka and Sobibor because the doors to Palestine were closed.

Further, suggesting that Jewish immigrants “created tensions” is a creative way of obfuscating continuous Arab violence against Jews, and implicitly suggests that the mere arrival of Jews escaping persecution was a provocation, one that would corrupt the land — a narrative, incidentally, that would likely resonate with far-right Europeans in the context of the current immigration crisis.

(Full article online)

Abbas’ Guardian Op-Ed Illustrates the Dishonesty of the ‘Palestinian Narrative’


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 5, 2017)

"Passions were so low that even when a group of pro-Israel protesters blocked the march for a few minutes on Oxford Street, the marchers were happy to wait while police asked them to move, and only some shouted “Zionist pigs!” before being hushed by others.
But this was a rousing success compared to the rally in Ramallah on Thursday."

It doesn't appear that more than 100 people attended. and traffic wasn't even stopped.

(full article online)

Anti-Balfour rallies in London, Ramallah, Gaza, Ankara pathetic failures ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 5, 2017)

History should not be hyperbole.

An “entire people” was not “uprooted from their homes and condemned to life in squalid refugee camps.” That Palestinians were displaced is not in dispute. However, as over 1.5 million Arab citizens living in Israel today demonstrates, significant numbers of Palestinians remained in Israel after its independence in 1948.

And those who did not remain? How is it even possible to claim that they all ended up in refugee camps?

As for the claim that the Balfour Declaration was the “death warrant for a historic nation,” this is historical revisionism on multiple levels:


There was never a sovereign Palestinian state. The Arabs living under the Ottoman Empire identified with their tribes and with the wider Arab population of the region, including Syria. Were the Palestinians ever a “historic nation?”
The Balfour Declaration was not the “death warrant” for Palestinians. Having been offered multiple opportunities to have their own state only to reject them, it is misleading to place the entire blame for the situation of the Palestinians on Balfour.
(full article online)

Historical Hyperbole and False Rape Allegations | HonestReporting


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2017)

The State of Judea was not established; thus, no Judeans or Jews; only Israel and the Israelites.

There is no excuse for the right wing to blame Judeans, in modern times.

Men get results, only wo-men should make excuses.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 5, 2017)

In other words, the ‘protest‘ and messaging given worldwide amplification by the BBC’s Jerusalem Bureau was actually pre-planned political agitprop organised by the Palestinian Authority and the PLO.

“The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) scheduled demonstrations, events and educational classes in schools across Jerusalem, Ramallah, Gaza, Nablus, Bethlehem, Tubas, Hebron, as well as in Syria and Lebanon. 

Most notably, one hundred thousand letters by Palestinian schools were hand-delivered to the British Consulate General in Jerusalem.

PLO Executive Committee Member, Xavier Abu Eid told Palestine Monitor this was the “most symbolic event that took place” across the day.”

The BBC, however, failed to disclose to its audiences the background to the political propaganda it chose to amplify.

(full article online)

BBC’s Bateman amplifies PLO’s Balfour agitprop


----------



## theliq (Nov 5, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Sooo if I were a Native American,I am at Liberty to reclaim All of the United States by your analogy then....as I said before Moron


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 5, 2017)

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


Nooooooo........

If one belongs to one of the 500 Nations still living in the USA, or even if members are living in other parts of the world, what each Nation/tribe has a right to is exactly the land they used to live on before the Europeans started to come by the thousands and take over all the best lands on the continent.

That is why it has been documented that there were about 500 Nation/tribes living on what is now US soil.

The Canadian indigenous have the very same rights to the lands they once lived on.

The same with the tribes from Mexico, or any other people living in any part of the Americas which was eventually flooded with Europeans, and then Asians and Africans, leaving the indigenous people without what had been rightfully theirs for thousands of years.


----------



## thetor (Nov 5, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> "Passions were so low that even when a group of pro-Israel protesters blocked the march for a few minutes on Oxford Street, the marchers were happy to wait while police asked them to move, and only some shouted “Zionist pigs!” before being hushed by others.
> But this was a rousing success compared to the rally in Ramallah on Thursday."
> 
> It doesn't appear that more than 100 people attended. and traffic wasn't even stopped.
> ...


I think you delude yourself,Millions worldwide including the UK,totally disagree with you and the despicable treatment of the Palestinians by the Zionist Trash,unless like you they think,Murder,Maiming,Destruction etc.,are OK but they don't,your commentary is just the usual Zionist Terrorist complete denial of the truth and facts....That is why in the UN,many more Countries SUPPORT The PALESTINIANS/PALESTINE THAN THEY DO ZIONIST ISRAEL....IT IS YOU WHO IS A PATHETIC FAILURE


----------



## thetor (Nov 5, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


BUT...Israel/Zionist Trash stole the P's Land and tried to ELIMINATE THE PALESTINIANS COMPLETELY...even today in some Israeli Schools they teach?indoctorinate that in 1948 the "LAND"they stole had NO PEOPLE LIVING THERE,IT WAS UNINHABITED.....what a Motely Crew you are,Lying is part of your character...You couldn't lay/lie straight in bed


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 6, 2017)

Try to find any record of a specifically Palestinian Arab heritage or civilization in any newspaper or book written before 1950. I've tried. There isn't any.

And there is a contradiction within this paragraph itself. If there was an ancient Palestinian people, then they lived in areas that were considered Palestine before Balfour and San Remo. Which means, they included Transjordan. But Abbas here says that the West Bank and Gaza are 22% of his "historic homeland" - yet they only include areas of British Mandate Palestine, not "Eastern Palestine".

Why does Mahmoud Abbas, so proud of Palestinian heritage, accept a colonialist definition of Palestine that excludes much of what was considered Palestine before 1917?

The answer is he same as to the question of why did the PLO in 1964 explicitly exclude the West Bank and Gaza from areas it claimed as its land. Because Palestinian nationalism was never about creating a state - it was about destroying one. And when Jordan and Egypt controlled parts of British Mandate Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas never claimed those areas as his own.

Only the land that Jews control are the ones that must be "liberated." Arabs controlling part of Palestine was fine.

Which means that Palestinianism is not a national liberation movement. It is an antisemitic movement.

But that isn't politically correct.

(full article online)

Fisking Mahmoud Abbas' anti-Balfour article ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 6, 2017)

All of the emphasis of articles should be on the international law that followed Balfour and that formed the basis for Israel—the decisions of the winning powers (not just the British) at San Remo and the unanimous decision of the 51 members of the League of Nations to issue the Mandate for Palestine.  The League issued the Mandate pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which provided a path towards statehood for peoples previously under Ottoman rule who were not immediately able to stand up a nation of their own.  Although it does not use these specific words, the Mandate in effect recognized the Jews as an indigenous people with aboriginal rights.


Emphasis should also be given to the fact that the decisions regarding Palestine were made at the same time that decisions were made to carve five Arabs nations out of the carcass of Ottoman Turkey’s Empire and mirrored decisions redrawing boundaries and changing sovereignties in Europe, Africa, and the Pacific at the end of World War I.


Some people may quibble with my statement that Balfour was “superseded by international law” because both the San Remo decision and the Balfour Declaration refer to it and quote from it.  Balfour was a very short and very vague document.  The Mandate for Palestine is a long and detailed document that provides for encouragement of Jewish immigration and close settlement on the land.  It specifies a Jewish governmental body (but no Arab governmental body) with which the British would interact during the period of the Mandate and which would be the basis for the new state.  It addresses a long list of other concerns, for example, access to holy places.  So I stand by my statement.  A few vague sentences issued by the British were supplanted by a detailed international law adopted unanimously by the League of Nations.


The answer to the question of “What gave the British the right to give land..." is that the British did not give away any land.  The disposition of conquered lands at the end of World War I was addressed by international laws that recognized five Arab nations and a single small Jewish nation in the Ottoman Middle East.  Few nations on earth have such a nice pedigree in international law as does Israel.

(full article online)

Have the Arabs weaponized Balfour? (Irene) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 6, 2017)

"The second event was the Holocaust of Jews at the time of the Nazi movement, which saw the destruction of a large number of the Jews of Europe during World War II, according to Jewish story. This story has been employed by Jews on a large scale as a means of sympathy for them, and they are exaggerating and amplifying this incident so much so that the United Nations issued a 2005 decision to commemorate it on 27 January of each year, despite denials by many historians that dispute the facts and evidence of the gas chambers which are alleged by the promoters of the Holocaust.

The Germans encouraged the Jews to emigrate to Palestine in the 1930s, and the Jews had the sympathy of the whole world and provided assistance and support to them, setting up the Israeli state in Palestine, and Germany paid compensation to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust and the State of Israel and still Israel blackmails Germany and the world with this Holocaust which is unconfirmed historically.

Compare that with the racist the Balfour Declaration, which was approved by the United States, France, Italy formally as well as Japan, and in 1922 and approved by the League of Nations Council on the draft mandate, and the consequent disastrous consequences inflicted on the indigenous Palestinian people people of the land, displacing and killing them and torturing them and alienating them in all around the ground and thousands of Palestinian refugees who found that many countries closed their doors in their faces, ...

The Holocaust of Hitler opened to the Jews the doors of the world, and everyone was looking for ways to rectify this alleged Holocaust, and give them a home on the land of Palestine even though their population did not exceed fifty thousand at the time, while the Holocaust of Balfour displaced Palestinian people and prevented them from establishing their home on their own land and the land of their ancestors."

----------------
This is the sort of stuff that Palestinian Arabs accept as fact.

(full article online)

Pal newspaper: Balfour Declaration worse than Holocaust (which is fake anyway) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 6, 2017)

There were lots of stories in the Arab media about the 96th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration on Saturday.

Some demanded that the Arab world sue Great Britain.

Some note the supposed treachery of the 1919 Faisal-Weizmann Agreement that allowed a Jewish home in Palestine while the entire rest of the Middle East went to Arabs.  

Hamas even produced a documentary about how Balfour was the beginning of all Arab woes and problems.

No Arabs, as far as I could tell, blamed themselves for any part of their problems.

I found an interesting article in the Palestine Bulletin from January 14, 1930, which shows that at least some Arabs saw the difference between how Jews were building a nation while Arabs did nothing but call meetings to complain about the Jews.

(full article online)

96 years of whining as Arabs mark Balfour anniversary ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 6, 2017)

The entire idea of partition is antithetical to Balfour who anticipated the Jewish National Home on all of Palestine. Peel attempted to change the rules.

Later on, in discussing holy places as a separate territory, Peel explicitly abrogates Balfour:

" Guarantees as to the rights of the Holy Places and free access thereto (as provided in Article 13 of the existing Mandate), as to transit across the mandated area, and as to non-discrimination in fiscal, economic and other matters should be maintained in accordance with the principles of the Mandate System. But the policy of the Balfour Declaration would not apply; and no question would arise of balancing Arab against Jewish claims or vice versa. All the inhabitants of the territory would stand on an equal footing. The only official language" would be that of the Mandatory Administration. Good and just government without regard for sectional interests would be its basic principle.Balfour implies the the Jewish national home would administer the holy places and allow full access (as Israel does today.) "
-------
Peel wrests that right away.

Finally, it remains fascinating that during this month of non-stop Balfour coverage, so little has been written about the third clause that was supposed to ensure that Jews in other countries would be treated well even with a Jewish national home in historic Israel. The Arabs - including the Arabs of Jordan, who were under British influence - certainly didn't adhere to this clause, and Great Britain did not do anything to enforce that among its Arab friends.

(full article online)

UK diplomat admits "second half of Balfour" doesn't exist - but it SHOULD ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 6, 2017)

Image posted on the official Fatah Facebook page

The image shows Palestinian children holding a poster featuring the PA map of “Palestine” that presents all of Israel as “Palestine” together with the PA areas. To the left a picture of Baron Rothschild is shown, and to the right is a picture of former British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour. In the bottom left of the poster appears the logo of the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration: A white circular logo with a _keffiyeh_ (Arab headdress) pattern on it. Inside the circle appears the number “100” with the PA map of “Palestine” in place of the “1.” A red dot appears on the map with the label “Jerusalem” in English and Arabic. The numbers “00” have an image of what appear to be Palestinian refugees imposed on them. Above and below the number “100” in English and Arabic respectively is the hashtag “#Balfour100,” indicating the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.
*
Text on poster: *“The Balfour Promise (i.e., Declaration), the theft of a homeland”

(full article online)

Kids hold poster condemning the Balfour Declaration as the “theft of a homeland,” with map erasing Israel - All Media


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 6, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> There were lots of stories in the Arab media about the 96th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration on Saturday.
> 
> Some demanded that the Arab world sue Great Britain.
> 
> ...


It sounds like it is Israel that is doing the whining.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 6, 2017)

Israelis don't have anything to whine about.  Judeans do.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 6, 2017)

Both, Judeans and Palestinians seem to have a similar, "chief complaint".  

Political coincidence or political conspiracy?


----------



## rylah (Nov 6, 2017)

Zionism came as an answer to the discrimination and pogroms against Jews in Europe, Asia and Arab pogroms in Syria-Palestine. The dire situation of the Jewish community was a continuous condition of Palestine.

Zionist activity was supported and coordinated by Palestinian Jews. The tools they used were a culmination of an age-old administrative system that served to help Palestinian Jews and elsewhere to survive. The same mechanism of financial aid and communication was transferred into an organized political party, that could efficiently represent that effort on the international arena.

*The Balfour declaration wasn't about big dreams, it was about what already existed - and for a long time.*


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 6, 2017)

Israel is central to Jewish religious and national identity: it is both a theological community and a political community. It is the one piece of land historically promised to the Jewish people as recorded in Genesis. It is the only land where the Jewish nation has ever experienced self rule. Despite the pervasive anti-Israel (/anti-Semitic) narrative, there has never been an autonomous Palestinian state in the area: it was ruled by a succession of empires until the Ottoman Empire fell in 1917 and the League of Nations granted the British a Mandate in 1920.

Archaeological discoveries continue to confirm the biblical record of a land promised to the Jews, who spoke and wrote Hebrew, and worshiped the God called YHWH in what is now called Israel at least 1,000 years before Jesus was born. Jews are the only people who have ever had an autonomous state on this tiny piece of land. They governed themselves as a national entity, producing kings, prophets and poets from whose pens flowed some of the most treasured writings in the history of the world.

Jews have inhabited the Holy Land continuously for 3,000 years. Despite attempts by successive occupying powers to expel them, communities of Jews have lived in the Holy Land continuously since the time of Abraham until the present, in, for example, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron. Jews returned to the Holy Land throughout the Diaspora period, notably from Spain and other Mediterranean countries in the late 13th and 14th centuries.

(full article online)

Balfour 100: we are not ashamed of (re-)creating the State of Israel


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 6, 2017)

Our crazy world | MelaniePhillips.com


----------



## Shusha (Nov 6, 2017)

The Balfour Declaration was nothing more than international support for the existing rights of an indigenous peoples to a national homeland (State) within their historical territory.  

There is NO way for Arab Palestinians to disagree with that concept while demanding international support for THEIR existing rights as a long-tenured people to a national homeland (State) within their historical territory.


----------



## abi (Nov 6, 2017)

Shusha said:


> The Balfour Declaration was nothing more than international support for the existing rights of an indigenous peoples to a national homeland (State) within their historical territory.


Oy.



Shusha said:


> There is NO way for Arab Palestinians to disagree with that concept while demanding international support for THEIR existing rights as a long-tenured people to a national homeland (State) within their historical territory.


I see what you did there. Dark.


----------



## theliq (Nov 6, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> All of the emphasis of articles should be on the international law that followed Balfour and that formed the basis for Israel—the decisions of the winning powers (not just the British) at San Remo and the unanimous decision of the 51 members of the League of Nations to issue the Mandate for Palestine.  The League issued the Mandate pursuant to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which provided a path towards statehood for peoples previously under Ottoman rule who were not immediately able to stand up a nation of their own.  Although it does not use these specific words, the Mandate in effect recognized the Jews as an indigenous people with aboriginal rights.
> 
> 
> Emphasis should also be given to the fact that the decisions regarding Palestine were made at the same time that decisions were made to carve five Arabs nations out of the carcass of Ottoman Turkey’s Empire and mirrored decisions redrawing boundaries and changing sovereignties in Europe, Africa, and the Pacific at the end of World War I.
> ...


All this Cherry Picking of part statements,to prove your argument and it's rubbish....Like buying a Big Mac and only eating the wrapper it came in...All Fluff and No Meat

Balfour was a Creep and a STOOGE FOR THE ZIONIST SCUM


----------



## thetor (Nov 6, 2017)

rylah said:


> Zionism came as an answer to the discrimination and pogroms against Jews in Europe, Asia and Arab pogroms in Syria-Palestine. The dire situation of the Jewish community was a continuous condition of Palestine.
> 
> Zionist activity was supported and coordinated by Palestinian Jews. The tools they used were a culmination of an age-old administrative system that served to help Palestinian Jews and elsewhere to survive. The same mechanism of financial aid and communication was transferred into an organized political party, that could efficiently represent that effort on the international arena.
> 
> *The Balfour declaration wasn't about big dreams, it was about what already existed - and for a long time.*


What Pogroms in Palestine....Link,moreover why did Zionists collaborate with the Nazis and help MURDER 100,000's of NON ZIONIST JEWS...Answer Please


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2017)

What is the holdup for Statehood for Palestinians?  Israel can use a stable trading partner on its border.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 7, 2017)

BlackFlag said:


> The people with the bigger army and better weapons are the ones who get to say their God mandated them that land, as has always been the case over there.



Who mandated it to the British?


----------



## Mindful (Nov 7, 2017)

Shusha said:


> The Balfour Declaration was nothing more than international support for the existing rights of an indigenous peoples to a national homeland (State) within their historical territory.
> 
> There is NO way for Arab Palestinians to disagree with that concept while demanding international support for THEIR existing rights as a long-tenured people to a national homeland (State) within their historical territory.



And when you think, the Arabs got most of the land earmarked for the Jews.

Merely because the British didn't want to upset the French Syrian Arabs, and thus risk war.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2017)

Mindful said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > The people with the bigger army and better weapons are the ones who get to say their God mandated them that land, as has always been the case over there.
> ...


The League of Nations?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2017)

I make a motion to start discussions on a UN marshal, taking charge of Palestine, and establishing a State for Palestinians.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 7, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> I make a motion to start discussions on a UN marshal, taking charge of Palestine, and establishing a State for Palestinians.



It was decided, and they turned it down. But they got Jordan.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2017)

How about a UN Administrator to make sure it happens, administratively?


----------



## Mindful (Nov 7, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> How about a UN Administrator to make sure it happens, administratively?



UN?

That Mickey Mouse outfit?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2017)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > How about a UN Administrator to make sure it happens, administratively?
> ...


Don't believe in "republican forms of democracy"?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 7, 2017)

BY JUDEA PEARL | PUBLISHED NOV 3, 2017 | OPINION


It has been 100 years since the Balfour Declaration – issued by the British government on Nov. 2, 1917 – offered the first international recognition of Jewish national aspirations. In many ways, its importance is obvious: it encouraged some 400,000 European Jews to emigrate to Palestine in the years 1917-1940, and made it possible to lay the groundwork for the State of Israel.

But there is another significance that has not been fully recognized among modern historians, even though it tells us more about the current obstacles to peace than any of the usual explanations. I am speaking of the politico-philosophical precedent set by the Balfour Declaration regarding national identity, land ownership, self determination and the notion of “indigenous people.”

On the surface, the declaration’s text touches on none of these issues. Known as “history’s most famous letter,” this 67-word text actually reads like a holiday greeting card: “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 that civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”


A close examination, however, reveals two asymmetries which, by today’s standards, would probably evoke bitter objections. First, the words “people” and “national” are attached to Jews, not to the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, who are referred to as “communities.” Second, the non-Jewish communities are assured “civil and religious” rights, not national rights, let alone a “national home.”

This asymmetry is probably what infuriated Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi who, in an emotional lecture on Sept. 25 this year, reportedly pounded the table and blasted the Balfour Declaration as “a declaration of war by the British Empire on the indigenous population of the land it was promising to the Jewish people.”

Khalidi’s outrage at former British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour and his Declaration is hardly justified. First, the idea that the Arab population of Palestine harbors national aspiration would have been news to Balfour, just as it would have been to any political observer in 1917. Khalidi admits as much in his book, “The Iron Cage,” in which he labors to explain why Arabs did not develop a ripe sense of national identity until the late 1920s, when it was too late to “crush the Zionist Movement.”

Second, the Balfour Declaration did not preclude the creation of a “national home” for other national groups in the region, side by side with the Jewish polity. Ottoman Palestine, as we recall, embraced a huge territory which included Jordan and parts of Syria. Various partitions and coexisting constellations were proposed in the course of time, most notably by the Peel Commission of 1937 and by the United Nations in 1947. While Khalidi’s book never mentions these proposals as options, and we understand why, it was in effect the Balfour Declaration that opened these opportunities for Palestinian statehood.

(full article online)

The Balfour Declaration at 100 and How It Redefined Indigenous People


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 7, 2017)

The Balfour Declaration was the first time in modern history that a world power arose and told the truth: The Land of Israel is the ancient and sole homeland of the Jewish people, and they have the unshakable right to rebuild their national home," said Edelstein.

"Since then, there have been mountains of words and commentaries on Balfour's concise statement, but the truth it expressed was not washed away in the rivers of ink; it remains short and clear, correct today as it always has been. The right we have today to thank His Majesty's Government and Balfour in the Knesset building, in Jerusalem, in the sovereign State of Israel - is decisive evidence of this.

"If I had the right today to add a few words to the 67 words written in the Balfour Declaration and give it a current and personal touch, I would add: 'On the 100th anniversary of the declaration, the State of Israel must declare and even commit itself to all its citizens to strive for peace between its neighbors and to cultivate its entire population without giving up parts of the homeland ... The State of Israel must fortify its borders and continue the momentum of construction throughout the country, including the north, the south, the Jordan Valley and Judea and Samaria," Edelstein concluded his suggestion.

(full article online)

The words Edelstein would add to the Balfour Declaration


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 7, 2017)

"Despite all the difficulties that have passed, and all the tensions within it, our State of Israel is strong, democratic, vibrant and successful. Today, the majority of the Jewish people speak Hebrew and live here in the land of Israel. A great sadness will always be with us because of the fact that our state arose only after the Holocaust, and that the declaration was not implemented before the worst disaster that our people experienced in the loss of the six million."

(full article online)

'Palestinians going 100 years backwards'


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 7, 2017)

The Balfour Declaration became binding in international law with the decisions of the San Remo conference and the British Mandate of the League of Nations, and the consequent chain of events. But it has never been accepted by the Arab world, though some Arab leaders for a time appeared to abide by the declaration.

A promising step, all too brief, came on January 3, 1919 in London when an agreement, conditionally accepting Balfour, was signed between Weizmann and Emir Faisal ibn Hussein, soon to be king of Syria and then Iraq. Its preamble commented on the racial kinship and ancient bonds between the Arabs and the Jewish people. It agreed to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale.

Later, Faisal, who had spoken of the necessity for cooperation between the two peoples, wrote that the Arabs, especially "the educated among us," looked with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement which is national and not imperialist, as is the Arab movement. The demands of the Zionists, he thought, were moderate and proper. Similar approval, if on a lesser level, was expressed in August 1918 by the Ottoman Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha for the establishment of a Jewish religious and national center in Palestine.

(full article online)

The Balfour Declaration and British Leftist anti-Semitism - The Commentator


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 7, 2017)

The Facebook page of Fatah – you know, the party to which our “peace partner” Mahmoud Abbas belongs – has marked the 100th year since the Balfour Declaration with this quaint little illustration.
------
The antisemitic caricature is a nice touch, don’t you think?

But seriously, if they truly saw this as purely a territorial dispute, why the disparaging of Jews?

(full article online)

Fatah Facebook Page Unleashes Some Antisemitism to Mark Balfour Anniversary


----------



## Shusha (Nov 7, 2017)

Again, the international recognition of a peoples to a national homeland where they have a long history is a positive thing. It does not negate anyone's rights to acknowledge a peoples rights. Every other dispute of this nature in the past hundred years has been solved by dividing the territory and forming a nation for each peoples. 

Yugoslavia is now what six? nations?  Why do the Arabs continue to refuse this simple solution?


----------



## thetor (Nov 7, 2017)

Mindful said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > The people with the bigger army and better weapons are the ones who get to say their God mandated them that land, as has always been the case over there.
> ...


very good question


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 7, 2017)

thetor said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...


Who mandated Lebanon and Syria to the French?
Or Mesopotamia (Iraq) to the British?

Why did the Ottoman Empire join the German Empire in WWI ?
Why did both lose that war?
What does it mean when countries lose wars where they wanted to expand their Empires?


----------



## thetor (Nov 7, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Miscalculation Sixties,every "Ëmpire" for use of a better word,die eventually...As Britain have shown since the end of WW2...I trust you are well,I quite like your posts(I can or am a bit of a bastard sometimes but I do appreciate much of your prose,although,not always agreeing with you) steven


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 7, 2017)

thetor said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...


If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

The Ottomans did not have any more say over the territory.  The victorious Allies did.  They did what they wanted to do, right or wrong, it worked or not.  Iraq, not! 
Left the Kurds without a State.

Things will get set the right way, if possible, eventually.

Britain is dying as an Empire?  We shall see.  During our lifetime, or not.


----------



## thetor (Nov 7, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Britain has already lost their Empire,it is to see if America does during our lifetime Sixties,that is the question...steven


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 7, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...





Sixties Fan said:


> If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?


Not really. The land was ceded to the new successor states. The Mandates did not acquire any land.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 8, 2017)

We really should put this in perspective. 

"The UN views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Arab Palestinian people."

Oh my. The HORROR!


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...


Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state. 

You continually lie about this.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 8, 2017)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



The question is: why does he?


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 8, 2017)

RE:  Israel and Palestine
※→  Mindful, Hollie, _et al,_

I highly suspect that he read this on some "anti-smectic" or "pro-Palestinian Website."



Mindful said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.
> ...


*(OBSERVATION)*

I think this point is very important to the Arab Palestinian.  If the is challenged, then the entire argument  behind the Arab Palestinian begins to crumble.

V/R
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2017)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > 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.*[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.  

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2017)

Hollie said:


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


The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil


----------



## Mindful (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



There has never been an independent State of Palestine.

For the thousandth time!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2017)

Mindful said:


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


I hear you babbling but I see nothing to back up your claim.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 8, 2017)

The so-called "Palestinians" are mostly trans-Jordanians (east of the Jordan River), Saudis and Egyptians. Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian, Mahmoud Abbas is a Syrian. And these can be verified by their REAL names.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



lol.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 8, 2017)

What objection can there be to a new State and trading partner on Israel's border?


----------



## Mindful (Nov 8, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> What objection can there be to a new State and trading partner on Israel's border?



The Pals don't really want one. If truth be told.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



I understand you're desperate to re-write history. However, you're approaching the "Conspiracy Theory Zone".


----------



## Mindful (Nov 8, 2017)

Hollie said:


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



One questions his zeal. And his motive.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2017)

Hollie said:


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


You still have nothing, huh?


----------



## Mindful (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Ditto.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2017)

Mindful said:


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


I posted proof.

You post Israeli bullshit.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



No need to address your conspiracy theories. The historical record (as opposed to your _hysterical_ record), survives in spite of your desire to re-write it.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You have nothing.

It's a sign you're floundering, when you get aggressive and demand copy and pastings.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2017)

Hollie said:


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


Where is your so called historical record?


----------



## Mindful (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You're trying too hard.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You will find references in this very thread. I would exclude your cutting and pasting from wiki, however.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2017)

Hollie said:


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



Just keep dancing. You have nothing.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Ditto.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2017)

Here is mine. Where is yours?

The Balfour Declaration

The Balfour Declaration


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Your usual retreat to cartoons. 

Here's a hint: you won't find historical data in your cut and paste cartoons.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Here is mine. Where is yours?
> 
> The Balfour Declaration
> 
> The Balfour Declaration


You do understand that there were events that preceeded the Balfour Declaration and events subsequent, right?

A great many of those events are elucidated in this thread and others. 

Your cut and paste link has been cut and pasted many times before. Is yours different; taken from a conspiracy theory aligned site?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2017)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Here is mine. Where is yours?
> ...


Too much blabber.

To little proof. (none)


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Proof of what? You can find the Balfour Declaration online. 

What are you attempting to defend with cut and paste cartoons?


----------



## Mindful (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Why does it matter so much to you?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2017)

How many pages of nothing are you people going to post?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> How many pages of nothing are you people going to post?



I think most here understand your revulsion for Jooooos and your denial of history. Your high pitched screeching about historical events you are unable re-write is something you will have to come to terms with.


----------



## montelatici (Nov 8, 2017)

"The Balfour Declaration, issued on 2 November 1917, was a short document which changed the course of history. It committed the British government to support the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, provided nothing was done “to prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. At that time the Jews constituted ten per cent of the population of Palestine: 60,000 Jews and just over 600,000 Arabs. Yet Britain chose to recognize the right to national self-determination of the tiny minority and to flatly deny it to the undisputed majority. In the words of the Jewish writer Arthur Koestler: here was one nation, promising another nation, the land of a third nation..................the main motive for issuing the declaration was cold calculation of British imperial interests. It was believed, wrongly as it turned out, that Britain's interests would best be served by an alliance with the Zionist movement in Palestine. Palestine controlled the British Empire’s lines of communications to the Far East. France, Britain's main ally in the war against Germany, was also a rival for influence in Palestine...."

The Balfour Declaration: A Study in British Duplicity


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2017)

montelatici said:


> "The Balfour Declaration, issued on 2 November 1917, was a short document which changed the course of history. It committed the British government to support the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, provided nothing was done “to prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. At that time the Jews constituted ten per cent of the population of Palestine: 60,000 Jews and just over 600,000 Arabs. Yet Britain chose to recognize the right to national self-determination of the tiny minority and to flatly deny it to the undisputed majority. In the words of the Jewish writer Arthur Koestler: here was one nation, promising another nation, the land of a third nation..................the main motive for issuing the declaration was cold calculation of British imperial interests. It was believed, wrongly as it turned out, that Britain's interests would best be served by an alliance with the Zionist movement in Palestine. Palestine controlled the British Empire’s lines of communications to the Far East. France, Britain's main ally in the war against Germany, was also a rival for influence in Palestine...."
> 
> The Balfour Declaration: A Study in British Duplicity



You cut and pasted someone else's opinion. Good for you.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 8, 2017)

That region needs another stable State on Israel's border; to have better trade.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2017)

danielpalos said:


> That region needs another stable State on Israel's border; to have better trade.


The region of the planet subject Muhammud's politico-religious ideology has seen 1400 years of conflict and war.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 8, 2017)

RE:  Israel and Palestine
※→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_

OH, don't be foolish.  They are not even talking about the same kind of entity.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Judgment #5 
*            A05  Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions *
*




 Judgment of 26 March 1925 (including the text of the declaration of M. Altamira)             *​



See Page 7 (Eng) of the Judgment #5​The Palestine in the Judgment is the same as the Civil Administration of Palestine under the UK.  It was the UK that had to pay compensation to Greeks; not the Arab Palestinian.  Why, because it was the Allied Powers that determined the boundaries of Palestine.  The could make it as big or as small as they desired.

In this case, and every other case, the Government of Palestine = Mandatory Power for Palestine =  UK.  It has nothing to do with the political environment.  It is not talking about the existence of an independent or autonomous established state.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 9, 2017)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  Israel and Palestine
> ※→ P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> OH, don't be foolish.  They are not even talking about the same kind of entity.
> ...


As the trustee for Palestine, it was Britain's responsibility to handle their affairs.

So, what is your point?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2017)

De facto UN recognition of another State in historic Palestine.


----------



## rylah (Nov 9, 2017)

thetor said:


> What Pogroms in Palestine....



Arab Pogroms in Syria-Palestine against Jews:

1517 Sefad and Hebron
1660 Tiberias
1660 Safed
1834 Hebron
1834 Safed
1838 Safed
1840 Damascus affair

Just to name a few, all happened before any Zionist ever shot a bullet.
The condition of Jews in Syria-Palestine was much worse than in any other Arab country.
The later Arab pogroms against the Jews were the continuation of the same story, it's just that this time Jews decided to STOP paying Arabs for "protection", took arms and stood for themselves.
Arabs didn't expect such a response from a weak minority, they've subjugated for 13 centuries..


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 9, 2017)

Among the lies he spouted came a new one: The Arabs in Palestine did not sell their land to the Jews in the early part of the 20th century, but took the land by force.

He elaborated that it was actually the British who took the land from the Palestinians by force and gave it to the Jews.

His proof?

"It is impossible that the Arabs would  flee and leave their land or sell it to the Jews."

(full article online)

Hamas says Jews didn't buy any land in British Mandate Palestine - "they stole it" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 9, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> Among the lies he spouted came a new one: The Arabs in Palestine did not sell their land to the Jews in the early part of the 20th century, but took the land by force.
> 
> He elaborated that it was actually the British who took the land from the Palestinians by force and gave it to the Jews.
> 
> ...


There was a lot of confusion about land. The Ottomans had a land rights system. Britain had a land ownership system. Some land that the Palestinians had the right to did not have "deeds." Land rights could be bought, sold, and inherited.


----------



## thetor (Nov 9, 2017)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > "The Balfour Declaration, issued on 2 November 1917, was a short document which changed the course of history. It committed the British government to support the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, provided nothing was done “to prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. At that time the Jews constituted ten per cent of the population of Palestine: 60,000 Jews and just over 600,000 Arabs. Yet Britain chose to recognize the right to national self-determination of the tiny minority and to flatly deny it to the undisputed majority. In the words of the Jewish writer Arthur Koestler: here was one nation, promising another nation, the land of a third nation..................the main motive for issuing the declaration was cold calculation of British imperial interests. It was believed, wrongly as it turned out, that Britain's interests would best be served by an alliance with the Zionist movement in Palestine. Palestine controlled the British Empire’s lines of communications to the Far East. France, Britain's main ally in the war against Germany, was also a rival for influence in Palestine...."
> ...


Your posts are Idiotic and a lie


----------



## thetor (Nov 9, 2017)

rylah said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > What Pogroms in Palestine....
> ...


How ridiculous,the Palestinians were the Jews greatest Friends...I will stop all the Zionist rantings on here for good...When Zionism was in its seminal stage of development...A delegation of Zionists Leadership came to (PalestineTheir word...to see for themselves)...At the following General Zionist Conference,these very same Zionions STATED THAT "ALTHOUGH THE PRINCESS(PALESTINE) WAS BEAUTIFUL AND FAIR<SHE WAS MARRIED TO ANOTHER MAN (THE PALESTINIANS) and he would not give her up"

At this point the The Zionists changed tack from A PEACEFUL APPROACH TO VIOLENCE,TERRORISM,STEALTH AND GREED FOR THIS LAND....Which through graft and bribery,having Zionists especially recruited into positions within the British Government and System(The Governor of the British Mandate in Palestine was a Zionist as was his Deputy)to forward the Dispossesion of the Land of the Palestinians...The Zionists played a very skilful political hand..in collusion and conjunction with their Murderous Terrorist arm of that Organisation...Flooding Palestine with European Converts to Judiasm all Zionists to enter Palestine,all ILLEGALS OF COURSE...In the end through BRIBERY to some countries in the UN(That Organization that Israelis and Jews today HATE,Ironically)..and others that wanted to see the back end of Jews,their application to statehood was granted...obviously the Palestinians wanted no part in giving part of Palestine they were promised, to anyone,Jews in this instance.....Due to the six-day War and occupation of the West Bank Occupied Territories...Israel intends NEVER TO GIVE THE  PALESTINIANS THEIR LAND OR STATE.

The Arrogance of Zionists on here is sickening,you have no right to this area you deserted but you gained it through the attempted extinction of another more genuine original race......Question Who helped the NAZIS EXTERMINATE JEWS ?


ANSWER THE ZIONISTS


----------



## rylah (Nov 10, 2017)

thetor said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...




Q. So how do You explain rape, expulsion and massacre of  Palestinian Jews by their Arab neighbors - before Zionism?

Please answer in short, I have no interest in those tirades of Yours.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 10, 2017)

A UN Blue Ribbon Commission on Nation Building, for bureaucratic fun and bureaucratic practice.

Should we ask for Chinese participation for city building purposes?


----------



## thetor (Nov 10, 2017)

rylah said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


No Tirades,just ACTUAL FACTS ACTUALLY,that cannot be disputed.......There were skirmishes on both sides but in general Palestinians and Jews got on very well.....FACT...

Forever and Sixties there is nothing funny at all,as shown later by the Zionists deliberate attempt to Exterminate the Palestinians you ignorant Fools


----------



## rylah (Nov 11, 2017)

thetor said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...



More fairytales of Arab kumbayah won't do. 

The Arab pogroms in Syria-Palestine were no different than the pogroms in Europe at the time.
Already then it caused a wide international response, like in the Damascus affair - all decades before Zionism.

Written by a Palestinian Jew of 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


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 11, 2017)

Our crazy world | MelaniePhillips.com


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 11, 2017)

On 2 November 2017 we celebrated the Balfour Declaration centenary. On the 29th November, we celebrate seventy years since UN resolution 181 – the United Nations ‘partition plan’. Looking at much of the discussion over Balfour, there is still clearly misunderstanding over the process that led to the creation of Israel.

The Balfour Declaration was a stepping stone, an important point of recognition. Yet the United Nations went on to divide the land, something Balfour never proposed. So – what changed?

There are twenty-eight days from the start of one anniversary to the end of the other, so here I have listed twenty eight stepping stones, twenty eight events, that took Balfour through to partition, and into the civil war that was to bring about the creation of the State of Israel.

(full article online)

November 2nd to November 29, Twenty-eight stepping stones to partition


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 11, 2017)

How Balfour Shaped History


----------



## thetor (Nov 11, 2017)

rylah said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


JEWS SLAUGHTERED 300,000 Palestinians since 1900...You talk of LOOTERS YOU BARE FACED SCUMBAG,considering you STOLE Palestine.....You are mentally unhinged,and a Filthy Zionist Liar,,,No wonder you are the most detested Terrorist Organization in the World


----------



## thetor (Nov 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> How Balfour Shaped History


Jewish/Zionist History


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 11, 2017)

thetor said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...


Of course you have this "300,000 Palestinians killed by Jews" since 1900 well documented, do you not?

We will wait patiently for you to show us the evidence that Jews have killed Arabs in cold blood, basically, for 117 years.

Nothing before that?
Not one Jew killing an Arab before 1900 ?


----------



## theliq (Nov 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


Sure there were,but I also have not included the 100,0000's of Jews the Zionist filth sent to the GAS CHAMBERS in Nazi Germany....Zionists really have so much BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS THAT THEY ARE SWIMMING IN IT....You should change the Star of David and the two horizontal lines on the Israeli Flag to RED,to represent the BLOOD SPILT ....Now back to your Zionist Mantra so you read more of the machinations of your Criminal Cult


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 11, 2017)

theliq said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...


You poor thing....hit your head when you fell off the bed this morning?
That's ok.

There is still a need for verifiable sources to your "Jews killed Arabs before 1900, and "Jews sent Jews to the Gas Chamber" your heroes the Nazis built and sent to in the concentration camps they built to kill ALL the Jews, Zionists or not, helped by that wonder of all Arabs, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem  Al-Husseini.

Now, take a good nap and ring the evidence forward.

Otherwise, all of the above you spat out, is known as LIBEL.

As in:
Jews kill Christian or Muslim children for their Matzo


Isn't that, one of your very favorite things to spit at Jews?


----------



## thetor (Nov 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


I don't spit at Jews just Zionists get you facts straight


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 11, 2017)

thetor said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


The Majority of Jews ARE Zionists. And always have been.

So, yes, you and your friend, are spitting at Jews.


----------



## thetor (Nov 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


No the Ultra's and most secular Jews are not,mainly only the Synthetic Jews and the Barbaric Settler Jews from America...and how you Zionists treat Non Zionist Jews,Ultra's and Palestinians is CRAP,get your facts right,Zionists try to make out they are somehow tied in to being Judaism which they are not but Rabble,just mouthy ignorant Rabble...But I will SPIT IN YOUR MOUTH ANYTIME YOU LIKE,now F off...killers of Jews


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 11, 2017)

thetor said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...



Do you have anything of interest to discuss about the Balfour Declaration ?  

No ?

Goodbye.


----------



## thetor (Nov 11, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


"Goodbye" Thank God for that...Whoopee No more listening to your indoctorinated Bull ****


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 12, 2017)

The Balfour Declaration was a November 2, 1917 letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild that made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922.

(full article online)

The History of the Balfour Declaration


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 12, 2017)

Abdo Wazen in Al Hayat is upset that two major French literary awards were recently given to Holocaust-themed novels.

After saying that the books really aren't deserving of any honors, he goes into full blown Arab conspiracy theory territory:

(full article online)

"Balfour as bad as the Holocaust" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## rylah (Nov 12, 2017)

thetor said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...



Poor Arabs, I guess they didn't expect a response to their pogroms.
Good thing they got Jordan - no Jews there.


----------



## thetor (Nov 12, 2017)

rylah said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


There are and were(Jews inparticular lived and thrived throught the Arab world but after the Establishment of Israel that obviously changed,with most Jewish families(unharmed) going to Israel the US and other countries,a few stayed....Look I know you try but the Palestinians were never given Jordan but the House of Saudi were(one of the Saudi Princes),it was called Trans-Jordan at the time.

The Palestinians were promised Palestine but you know that story so I will not repeat it ... I like most of your posts Rylah but you have a tendency to muddy the waters with inaccuracies,steve

Interestingly over the past 65 years,and pre 1948 when the Zionist Terrorist Trash(sorry but true) drove Palestinians into Jordan,Egypt,Syria and Lebanon....I think the population in Jordan has the Palestinians as the largest population now in that Country moreover The Queen of Jordan is Palestinian decent and very highly regarded and respected worldwide


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 12, 2017)

thetor said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...


Thor,

Most respectfully, I hope you will read any book about the experience of Jews for the 1300 years before WWI under Muslim conquest.

And I do also hope that you will get yourself more acquainted with the many tribes of Arabia and which countries some of them  have power over.

Thirdly, do get acquainted with how the Arab tribes in power in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, etc do treat those Arabs who are not part of their tribe.

Regardless of fact that the Queen of Jordan is a Palestinian, TranJordan being part of the Mandate of Palestine, how are all the other Arab Palestinians being treated in that country?
Do they have citizenship?  Why was it taken away from them? Are they allowed to vote, get good jobs?
(They seem to be treated the same or worse than the Jews were during the 1300 years before.  And all to help powerful Arabs destroy Israel )

This thread is about the Balfour Declaration.  I am sorry to see that again it needs to be diverted towards 1948 and after that.
That....is on another thread.

Do you have anything new to contribute about the Balfour Declaration?


----------



## Ria_Longhorn (Nov 12, 2017)

Balfour was sincere about his feelings for the Jewish people.  When he was nearing the end he told his daughter that his 1917 declaration was the best thing he did in his life.


----------



## Ria_Longhorn (Nov 12, 2017)

"
The practical significance of the Balfour Declaration is that in our times it is the modern basis of the legitimacy of the Jewish National Home and the State of Israel.  . . . The historic Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel is the real claim to statehood."  -- Dore Gold
The Historical Significance of the Balfour Declaration


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2017)

thetor said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...



1. The condition of Jews in Palestine was worse than in any other Arab country, especially due to special "Jew taxes' and Arab pogroms.

2. Did You just say that on the other side of the river there's a state with a Palestinian majority and a Palestinian queen?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 13, 2017)

Bipolar Britain


----------



## Shusha (Nov 13, 2017)

thetor said:


> ...I think the population in Jordan has the Palestinians as the largest population now in that Country moreover The Queen of Jordan is Palestinian decent and very highly regarded and respected worldwide



One has to wonder why the Palestinians aren't fighting for sovereignty and territory from Jordan as well as from Israel.


----------



## theliq (Nov 13, 2017)

Shusha said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > ...I think the population in Jordan has the Palestinians as the largest population now in that Country moreover The Queen of Jordan is Palestinian decent and very highly regarded and respected worldwide
> ...


Because Jordan was never part of Palestine


----------



## Shusha (Nov 13, 2017)

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...



Seriously?


----------



## theliq (Nov 13, 2017)

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The trouble with your side is that you blow assumptions which are not the truth,just an assumption..........I have never met such an Ignorant group of people who are so poorly educated about their own history(the Jewish in your case) or any others(the Palestinians in this instant).

Your arrogance knows no bounds with the post SERIOUSLY,as if you know all,sorry but my daughter is doing her degree about this board and so many of you are a laughing stock,even to her Professor who is Jewish.....or in Cockney parlance.."A front wheel skid"= A Yid= A Jewish person


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 14, 2017)

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


Have your daughter add these maps to her degree:












Map - British Mandate 1920 & 1922 - Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - ProCon.org

If she needs to, there is a complete map evolution of what happened to that Mandate, and no other Mandate at the time.

Maybe she can write an essay as to why.

Palestinian Conflict in Ten Maps


----------



## theliq (Nov 14, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


I will pass this information on,you should note 60's that Pro-Con.org is a Conservative site who's Board members are mainly Jews but No Palestinian members....What she would like to see probably is the Original Source Material for these maps,because the maps shown are not of the 1920's....If you think I am enquiring she will be more astute...Trust you and yours are well 60's ...steve

Ps...60's I note these maps are from a Jewish site,not official......naughty the most interesting map is from 1948,showing Jerusalem as an International City and the Land area for the State of Israel much smaller about 35% of the Land they ILLEGALY OCCUPY today


----------



## thetor (Nov 14, 2017)

rylah said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


This is 2017 not 1917 Where have you been....Yes the Queen of Jordan is of Palestinian Purity....and All the Palestinians you Murdered,and Drove out of Palestine circa 1947-1948 to Jordan now make up a higher % of the population in Jordan...Let Palestinian Purity Live in their own Country Palestine where they belong and in so many ways have more authority to be in the Holy Land that most Jews....The Palestinians are a Pure race,which is more than can be said for Converts to the Jewish faith,as you know as do most Synthetic Jews because that is what all of you are on here....Not Pure Jews but people of other races who call themselves Jews/Zionists...Let the Real Jews speak, only they would have Peace with the Palestinians because only they have Jewish Purity


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 14, 2017)

thetor said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...


Where are these real Jews you are speaking about?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 14, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


OK, but the Mandate was not Palestine. It was a temporarily appointed administration.


----------



## thetor (Nov 15, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


Some still live in Israel where they have always been,you know that and what I mean 60's Pure Jews,not the Syntho's they have let in illegally prior to TSOIsrael 1948...and the millions after...anyone can become a Sydo-Jew even me,which would build up the Bloodlines no doubt,but I would always be a Synthetic not a Pure Jew...steve


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 15, 2017)

thetor said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...


Are you referring to the Jewish People as a race?  Where one cannot become a pure Jew unless they are totally, 100 % of the Jewish race?


----------



## thetor (Nov 19, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Just Purity 60's


----------



## TheParser (Nov 19, 2017)

I do not  know its accuracy, but one source says that one reason for the Declaration is that the British government wanted the Jewish people in the United States to add their influence in getting the then-neutral United States into World War One.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Nov 19, 2017)

TheParser said:


> I do not  know its accuracy, but one source says that one reason for the Declaration is that the British government wanted the Jewish people in the United States to add their influence in getting the then-neutral United States into World War One.




The source is Alison Weir and she never backed up that claim with any evidence.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 19, 2017)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration 
※→  ForeverYoung436, TheParser, _et al,_

The US was trending towards political isolation and neutrality on the front-end of both The Great War (WWI) and World War II,  In the UK, there is a very strong vein of patriotism that branches through all walks of life and all social stations.  The evidence of quiet diplomacy.



ForeverYoung436 said:


> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> > I do not  know its accuracy, but one source says that one reason for the Declaration is that the British government wanted the Jewish people in the United States to add their influence in getting the then-neutral United States into World War One.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There were all manner of influences _(both openly and privately)_ being focused on turning the American Public to actively join the Alliance.  There were many foreign lead activities ad sponsorship that were meant to cast a more favorable eye on the Alliance.  But the two most enlightening events that brought America into The Great War were.

•  The resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean the allied effort; and the sinking of the RMS Lusitania!
•  The attempt by the German Government to recruit Mexico!​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 20, 2017)

"The reaction in Egypt remained decidedly pro Zionism well into the first half of the 1930’s, the Government reportedly banned the word ‘Palestine’ from Friday prayers, according to the Leila Ahmed.

The Wafed Government shutdown the sole Palestinian publication with the charge of being pro Palestinian propaganda. Zionist newspapers and magazines continued to operate freely well into the late 1940’s, according to Awatef Abdel Rahman."
----
The article goes on to claim that while refugee ships from Europe during the Holocaust were routinely turned back by Western nations, Egypt welcomed them. I have no idea if this is true.

 ....Yad Vashem, other memorials and Holocaust history in general, offers no special recognition of the role that Egypt and Egyptians played in saving the lives of Jews. A disgusting byproduct of the recent rise of anti-Semitism in Egypt with the wide circulation of books by Holocaust deniers states that few Egyptians are even aware of this important history that Egypt and all Egyptians should be proud of.

 This seems incredible. If true, this should all be publicized.

(full article online)

Was Egypt pro-Zionist after Balfour? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## rylah (Nov 20, 2017)

thetor said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...



Just to think that this *"Palestinian Purity"* racist BS came as a response to discussion about all the Arab Pogroms in Syria-Palestine against Jews before Zionism.

Thank You for proving my point about Arab violence further.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 20, 2017)

BBC’s Corbin sidesteps prime issues in Balfour reports – part one


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 20, 2017)

BBC’s Corbin sidesteps prime issues in Balfour reports – part two


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 20, 2017)

Satire 

Facts That Support Israel’s Version Of Events Should Not Be Dismissed As ‘Israel Claims,’ Israel Claims – PreOccupied Territory


----------



## theliq (Nov 20, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> "The reaction in Egypt remained decidedly pro Zionism well into the first half of the 1930’s, the Government reportedly banned the word ‘Palestine’ from Friday prayers, according to the Leila Ahmed.
> 
> The Wafed Government shutdown the sole Palestinian publication with the charge of being pro Palestinian propaganda. Zionist newspapers and magazines continued to operate freely well into the late 1940’s, according to Awatef Abdel Rahman."
> ----
> ...


Sixties,NO ONE WAS PRO ZIONIST at this time or after because they all knew the ZIONISTS WERE TERRORIST SCUM,your "News" is Fake News and Silly,I thought you would do due diligence before scribing Zionist Propaganda,Why can't you be more positive about the Palestinians

I say this because I believe you to be far more passionate and educated than most of the Zionista Trolls on here...YOU ARE NOT A TROLL>>>YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE PRAGMATIC>>>>SOON FORWARD


----------



## thetor (Nov 22, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> "The reaction in Egypt remained decidedly pro Zionism well into the first half of the 1930’s, the Government reportedly banned the word ‘Palestine’ from Friday prayers, according to the Leila Ahmed.
> 
> The Wafed Government shutdown the sole Palestinian publication with the charge of being pro Palestinian propaganda. Zionist newspapers and magazines continued to operate freely well into the late 1940’s, according to Awatef Abdel Rahman."
> ----
> ...


Apologies 60's I misread the "1930's"...you are probably right on that score BUT everthing changed after 1945 for obvious reasons

Most Arab nations resent the Palestinians (and Jewish people) because the P's and J's are so much smarter than they are......These Countries just LOVE the Status-Quo and are a hinderance to the Palestinians and Jews....steve


----------



## thetor (Nov 22, 2017)

rylah said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


So Jewish Purity is then BS too,according to you...God you talk some Shit

By the way you tend to mouth off about Pogroms,so what would you call what the Zionist Filth did to the Palestinian then 1940 onwards?????????Attempted EXTERMINATION,see I said it for you,YOU FOOL


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 22, 2017)

thetor said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > "The reaction in Egypt remained decidedly pro Zionism well into the first half of the 1930’s, the Government reportedly banned the word ‘Palestine’ from Friday prayers, according to the Leila Ahmed.
> ...


1) The reasons are obvious to you, not to anyone else.

2) Arab nations did not resent the Arabs living in Palestine.  They used 
those Arabs in many ways, and in the worse ways in their attempt to destroy Israel.  That goes to the leaders like Arafat, as well.

3)  The Hindrance to Peace between Israel and the PA are the PA and other Arab leaders.  Read their charters.  They won't give the main ideology written in them up.  

4) The Arabs in the PA are given more opportunities for jobs and education than the ones in Gaza, which is why so many would rather become Israeli citizens than PA citizens.

Nothing has changed in the Muslim/Arab mentality and ideology about Jews and Christians .  The Jews/Israel had to be stronger and remain stronger than all the Arab countries put together to survive what was very clear the Arab Nation intention.

When people come to learn and understand what the Muslim/Arab mentality is about non Muslims, it may help in the peace process.

There is no peace, since 1920, because Muslim mentality will not accept Jews as sovereign of any land ever conquered by Muslims.

Egypt and Jordan wanted peace because they suffered economic hardship because of the wars against Israel.
Unfortunately we have so many Muslim countries like Qatar and Iran, sponsoring Hamas and the PA that it makes it impossible to bring those two groups to want to negotiate for peace as Egypt and Jordan did.

With or without the Balfour Declaration, the Jewish People would eventually have succeeded in declaring sovereignty over any part of their ancient homeland.

There is no Muslim resentment over Jews being "smarter" then the Muslims.  
Read the Quran, and read all other writings.  Al Husseini was not "jealous" of Jews, he felt the usual Muslim superiority to Jews as taught in the Quran since Mohammad.

At what point in the previous 13 centuries, Muslims attacked Jews because they were "jealous" of them for any reason?

And it goes on.....


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 22, 2017)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> > I do not  know its accuracy, but one source says that one reason for the Declaration is that the British government wanted the Jewish people in the United States to add their influence in getting the then-neutral United States into World War One.
> ...


Well documented and irrefutable.

*Alison Weir - The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel*

**


----------



## Hollie (Nov 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > TheParser said:
> ...



You have a habit of announcing your conspiracy theories as "well documented and irrefutable", until they're not.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 22, 2017)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...


Of course you will not refute anything she said.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Am I going to refute your YouTube video? How will your YouTube video respond to my comments? 

If I post a YouTube video in response/rebuttal to your YouTube video, how will your YouTube video respond?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 22, 2017)

Hollie said:


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


You don't understand how a discussion board works.


----------



## rylah (Nov 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Usually when people have little to say, they keep spamming with YouTube.
Discussion is when people converse - not videos.

You should try talking like a real person.


----------



## rylah (Nov 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > TheParser said:
> ...



How is this related to a declaration made by Britain?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 22, 2017)

rylah said:


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


That is how discussions work. Somebody posts a newspaper article or video or whatever, and people discuss the content.


----------



## rylah (Nov 22, 2017)

thetor said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...



_"Jewish Purity"  _I really don't know what it means... spare me with that racist BS.
_"Extermination" - _doesn't result in multiplying of a population , as is the case with Palestinian Arabs. 

Zionism was a response to 13 centuries of occupation and colonization. 
What happened in the 1940's was a response to those same Arab Pogroms in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



What has your YouTube video discussed?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 22, 2017)

Hollie said:


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


You have to watch it first, duh.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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


All she does is talk and talk, show slides and that is it.
Nothing she says is proof of anything which would or should delegitimize the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine as the recreation of the sovereign Nation of the Jews.

yacki ti yacki ti yack  

Did you hear anything which would suggest otherwise from the video, point it out to us.  From which minute?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 22, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


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


The information is pretty intertwined but if you start about 30:30 you can skip to the relevant part.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


How does the saying goes?

If someone tells you that Muslims, Christians and Jews in the late 19th Century in Palestine were :

1) "All Living Together Quite Successfully"

2) "These Populations Had Been Living together without conflict for centuries"

And those are just in the few minutes after 30:30 min which you mentioned.....

What planet do you think that person lived on?


----------



## Shusha (Nov 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > TheParser said:
> ...



She lost me in the first 30 seconds when she said something about "the latest massacre".  Now, I have no idea when this was filmed or what she thinks the "latest massacre" was -- but anyone who uses that language is not going to have any valid criticisms of Israel.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> The information is pretty intertwined but if you start about 30:30 you can skip to the relevant part.


.

Now you tell us?!  Seriously?  This would be REALLY helpful for you to mention every time you post a long video.  (And by long, I mean more than 5 minutes).  And then give us a few words of your own to start the conversation on what you would like to discuss.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 22, 2017)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ForeverYoung436 said:
> ...


(On the video click play and then on YOUTUBE, and it will take you directly to the youtube site and the video )

Published on Aug 1, 2014

TalkingStickTV - Alison Weir - The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel


----------



## Hollie (Nov 22, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Why don’t you provide a synopsis of the salient points and provide some commentary.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 22, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...




“What planet do you think that person lived on?”

The one with no oxygen to support life as we know it.


----------



## thetor (Nov 23, 2017)

rylah said:


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


You can TALK!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## thetor (Nov 23, 2017)

Hollie said:


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


Stop using words you know Not the meaning of,,,,thanks


----------



## thetor (Nov 23, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


FCUK ME but what has most of this have to do with my post 60's ...........st


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 23, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


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


Nobody needs to delegitimize the Balfour Declaration. It was a promise by Britain to give away something that was not theirs.

It was illegitimate on its face.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 23, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



False premise. That’s why your attempt to rewrite history fails.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 23, 2017)

thetor said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > thetor said:
> ...


F YOU indeed  

Which one of your points did I not address?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 23, 2017)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


What you really mean is that, if the land had been promised to Muslims or Christians you would not have had any issues with how it was given, any more than you have shown any problems with Lebanon, Iraq and Syria being given to Arab Muslims and not their Muslim or any other religion indigenous inhabitants of those new countries.

But, thanks for showing one more time how you do not know history, and do not care about it, that you did not criticize one thing, at all, which Alison Weir said in her video.

Thanks for the very interesting discussion about the whole video, which you chose to post here.  Which had WHAT to do with the Balfour
Declaration?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 25, 2017)

The Full Balfour Centenary Lecture with Simon Schama


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 26, 2017)

J-Street has a page dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, including criticism of the document by this supposedly "pro-Israel" organization.

 [T]he Declaration didn’t explicitly mention the rights of the indigenous Palestinian people who had inhabited the land for centuries and, most importantly, failed to recognize the Palestinian right to self-determination in a national home alongside the Jewish state. In many ways, these omissions laid the groundwork for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jeremy Ben Ami adds:
 As we mark 100 years since the Balfour Declaration and even celebrate the first international recognition of the cause of Jewish national independence in the modern era, there seems to me to be good reason to take equal notice of the century of violence and the ongoing conflicts that trace their origins to the mistakes and gamesmanship of the Balfour era.Really? There was no Arab violence against Jews in Palestine before 1917?

Idiot.

But what is more interesting is that this "pro-peace" group did not say a word about the most successful peace event of the past century for Israel - the 40th anniversary of  Sadat's visit to Jerusalem, which happened this month.

(full article online)

40th anniversary of Sadat's visit ignored by "pro-peace" groups ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## thetor (Nov 26, 2017)

Sixties Fan said:


> thetor said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


That didn't sound quite right 60's...st


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 3, 2018)

Hamas on Saturday marked the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration by emphasizing its commitment to the liberation of all of “Palestine”.

The 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by then-British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, proclaimed Britain’s support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in then-Palestine.

Palestinian Arab organizations have in recent months been waging a campaign aimed at forcing Britain to apologize for the document. The Palestinian Authority cabinet in Ramallah has demanded not just a British apology for the document, but also compensation.

In a statement posted on its website on Saturday, Hamas noted that the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration takes place at a time when Israel and the United States are trying to eliminate the Palestinian problem and completely deny the national and historic rights of the Palestinian people.

Hamas praised the Palestinian people who hold onto the city of Al-Quds (Jerusalem), Gaza, the West Bank, the 1948 territories (Israel) and their resistance to all conspiracies and plots aimed at eliminating the national rights of the Palestinian people. These conspiracies and plots, claimed the terrorist organization, began with the Balfour Declaration and continue with President Donald Trump’s so-called “Deal of the Century”.

Hamas accused Britain of perpetrating a "historic massacre" against the Palestinian people, and demanded that it repent by restoring the rights of the Palestinians, publishing an apology, assisting in the return of the “refugees”, providing compensation for them and supporting their right to freedom and independence.

(full article online)

Hamas: Britain committed 'historic massacre' of Palestinians


----------



## Denizen (Nov 4, 2018)

Boston1 said:


> So where's the contrast, and um, you do realize a condition of war still exists between Israel and much of the Arab population both inside and surrounding Isreal ?
> 
> Thats why the Geneva Conventions apply and why there is still martial law in certain areas of Israel.
> 
> ...



Why don't they do that in Israel? Atrocities have been committed by Israel and are committed nearly every day.


----------



## gtopa1 (Nov 4, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


> Hamas on Saturday marked the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration by emphasizing its commitment to the liberation of all of “Palestine”.
> 
> The 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by then-British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, proclaimed Britain’s support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in then-Palestine.
> 
> ...




And this is according to those who failed to murder ALL Jews in the Middle East?? Pardon me sir/ma'am but as far as I'm concerned Hamas and Co can go to hell!!

Greg


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2018)

I make a motion for a State of Judea in historic Palestine.

Judeans should have a true refuge and sanctuary enabled by a State.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 4, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> I make a motion for a State of Judea in historic Palestine.
> 
> Judeans should have a true refuge and sanctuary enabled by a State.



I think you meant a State of Judea in historic Judea


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2018)

Shusha said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > I make a motion for a State of Judea in historic Palestine.
> ...


Historic Palestine is where Judea was; from my understanding of literature.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The REGION of Palestine is not "historic".

Israel and its 12 Tribes, which includes Judea....are the ones who are Historic.
You will find them in many History books.  

And once again, you post about which you are extremely obsessed about. 
Delegitimizing Israel with your "State of Judea" nonsense.

Do you have anything to say about what this thread is about?
The Balfour Declaration?

No ?????


Then kindly move on.  Start your own thread about your obsession.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Historic Palestine: The name was used by ancient Greek writers, and it was later used for the Roman province Syria Palaestina, the Byzantine Palaestina Prima,--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_(region)


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2018)

Shusha said:


> Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.
> 
> The relevant text, for reference:
> 
> ...


Judea should have been established for the Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 4, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


----------



## Shusha (Nov 4, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Judea should have been established for the Jews.



So if the Jews had just called their State Judea instead of Israel, you would not be posting all this nonsense repeatedly?


----------



## Shusha (Nov 4, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...




You guys are ridiculous.  Trying to argue that "Palestine" existed before Judea.  Give me a break.  

All the Balfour Declaration does is acknowledge the existence of the Jewish people, who like the other people in the dissolved Ottoman Empire, should have self-determination based on their existing RIGHT as a people whose historic homeland is in that place.  

If you disagree with any of this then you have NO BASIS for self-determination for any people, in any place based on historic rights to homelands.  Which means, therefore, that you have no right to demand it for the Arab Palestinian people.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 4, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...




Yes. There was a geographic area known as Palestine. 

You should not feel a need to cut and paste the catalog of maps you usually cut and paste trying to represent a geographic area as something other than a geographic area.  

In anticipation of your usual claim that your invented “country of Pally’land” was created by Treaty of Lausanne, no, it was not.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 4, 2018)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...





Hollie said:


> In anticipation of your usual claim that your invented “country of Pally’land” was created by Treaty of Lausanne, no, it was not.


I never said it did.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 4, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


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




You fell down and bumped your head again.

One State


----------



## theliq (Nov 4, 2018)

gtopa1 said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Hamas on Saturday marked the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration by emphasizing its commitment to the liberation of all of “Palestine”.
> ...


What an OBCENE POST,considering what the ZIONIST TERRORISTS DID TO THE PALESTINIANS circa 1933 to 1949 and beyond,YOU should be  Banned from this site because you LIE and are incapable of any sembelance of the Truth


----------



## Hollie (Nov 4, 2018)

theliq said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



obscene.


----------



## theliq (Nov 4, 2018)

Hollie said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > gtopa1 said:
> ...


Thank you for agreeing and the spelling correction the Zionist Terrorists have much to answer for


----------



## gtopa1 (Nov 4, 2018)

theliq said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



........and their scum proxies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greg


----------



## rylah (Nov 5, 2018)

*What Those "Palestine" Maps Really Show
*


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Several States occupy historic Palestine.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2018)

Shusha said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Judea should have been established for the Jews.
> ...


Judea used to exist for the Jews.  Why does Israel exist for Israelis but not Judeans.

Or, can "alleged Jews" simply stop claiming Jewness and simply claim Israeliness.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 5, 2018)

Hollie said:


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


Read that again.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2018)

the right wing only has a problem with Jews who have no State of Judea, not Israelis who do.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 5, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Wait what?!  So you think there should be not one but TWO states for Jews?  One named Israel for the false Jews and one named Judea for the real (TM) Jews?  

Who gets to decide which is which?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2018)

Shusha said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


True Judeans should want to belong to the State of Judea.  True Israelis should want to belong to the State of Israel.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 5, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Calling Dr.  Freud  !!!!

Calling Dr.  Freud  !!!!

You have a patient waiting for you !!!


Roger!!!!


----------



## Hollie (Nov 5, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Failed deflection.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 5, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



So self-identification, then?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 6, 2018)

Shusha said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Know thyself; is what Any religion could say.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 6, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



It seems that the Jewish people have self-identified, as a collective, and created the State of Israel.  So there you go.  Nothing more for you to discuss.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2018)

Shusha said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


They have a State of Israel not a State of Judea; whence any claim to Judea, when Israel was Chosen, instead.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 7, 2018)

Shusha said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Time to ignore anything from El Palos   

All of us, Israelis, Judeans, Samrians, or from any of the other Israeli tribes are doing just fine, which is all that matters......on our ancient homeland.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Why "Judeans" instead of Israelis, or Any other tribe?


----------



## Shusha (Nov 7, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> They have a State of Israel not a State of Judea; whence any claim to Judea, when Israel was Chosen, instead.



The Jewish people, having given permission by you (cough cough) to self-identify and self-determine, have done so.  You don't get to decide that they should have chosen something else.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 7, 2018)

Shusha said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > They have a State of Israel not a State of Judea; whence any claim to Judea, when Israel was Chosen, instead.
> ...


There is no State of Judea; only the South has a Cause, more lost.


----------



## Kondor3 (Nov 10, 2018)

fanger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.
> ...


The trouble with Gaza is that it has Muslim-Arabs in it... they need to pack up and move... before they're forced out.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 10, 2018)

Kondor3 said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


A State of Judea could be inclusive; if you a a citizen, you are a Judean.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 10, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> A State of Judea could be inclusive; if you a a citizen, you are a Judean.



Oh.  You mean like Israel.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 10, 2018)

Shusha said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > A State of Judea could be inclusive; if you a a citizen, you are a Judean.
> ...


Yes; but they would be Judeans, not Israelis.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 10, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


All you have to do is ask the PA and the other Arabs to leave Judea so that Jews can, as it was to be, be sovereign over Judea.
It will not be a separate State, but part of Israel, just as it was at the time of King David and King Solomon.  

They will be Judeans, just as before, living in the Nation of Israel.

Over and done, all problems solved, especially yours.

Your confusion will be all gone.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 11, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Why the Tribe of Israel and not the Tribe of Judah?


----------



## Mindful (Nov 11, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Which tribe are you?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 11, 2018)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


Is of the tribe of Christianity, the one which is intent in keeping Jews as lepers and never allow them to have sovereignty or freedom from the garbage Christianity invented about all Jews.

He knows very well the history of the Nation of Israel and does nothing but waste his time with retarded questions meant to demean that Nation.

The Mods have asked us to ignore any of his posts.

Time for us to do so.  Let him stew in his hatred of Jews and never ending conspiracy theories.

Let us have fun!!!!!!


----------



## Mindful (Nov 11, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...




"Ignore his posts."

Shouldn't be hard to do.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 11, 2018)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


I don't claim one but have another.


----------



## Humanity (Nov 12, 2018)

Shusha said:


> Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.
> 
> The relevant text, for reference:
> 
> ...



Well, like a bad penny... I'm back!

So, yes, absolutely, a national homeland for the Jewish people....

The rest didn't work out so well did it?

And, to answer a question you asked early on in the thread... I for one don't think it was executed correctly. Do you?


----------



## Lipush (Nov 12, 2018)

Ohhh, lookie who's back indeed....


----------



## Shusha (Nov 12, 2018)

Humanity said:


> Well, like a bad penny... I'm back!
> 
> So, yes, absolutely, a national homeland for the Jewish people....
> 
> ...



What didn't "work out so well?"  Did you want to be specific?

The civil and religious rights of the Arab Palestinians are preserved in Israel, and in Area C which Israel rightly controls by law (with two exceptions which I criticize Israel for).

The civil and religious rights of Jews have been severely curtailed within Israel, in all the Arab Palestinian areas -- including their right to life(!) -- and in nearly every Arab country.  The political status of Jews in other Arab countries has been eliminated.  At least one has a different set of laws for Jews.  (You know what that is, right?)

The civil rights of Arab Palestinians in territories controlled by Arab Palestinians are severely curtailed by their own governments. 

So, yes, I see things didn't "work out so well", mostly for the Jews.  Who is responsible?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 12, 2018)

Free Judea for free Judeans!


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 12, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→  Humanity, Shusha, et al,

Funny you should mention "the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."  

•  What were the civil rights of the Arab a century ago?
•  What were the religious rights of the Arab a century ago?

•  What documented and enforced these rights (if any)?​
I tend to think that we have a habit of forgetting that these many rights that are often assigned here, are realy non-existent in 1917. 

Most Respctfully,
R


----------



## Humanity (Nov 12, 2018)

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Well, like a bad penny... I'm back!
> ...



Same old Shusha eh...

Thought I would just bring in the section you posted, just to remind you of what is being discussed rather than you wandering off all over the place...

*"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."*

Shall we break it down further...

*"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" *Check!

*"will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object" *Check!

*"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" *Hmmm it all starts unravelling at this point don't you agree?

Yes dear, I know, you are just going to carry on with the same old bullshit 'victimhood' which, really, is surprising considering you got what you wanted!

Quite ironic however, that you quote the Balfour Declaration as some kind of winning flag yet the cronies within Israel decided to go against the very mechanisms that were in place/were being put in place to achieve independent Jewish homeland.

You have become more belligerent, more extremist in your old age Shusha. Shame.


----------



## Humanity (Nov 12, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→  Humanity, Shusha, et al,
> 
> Funny you should mention "the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
> ...



I would probably suggest that one of the "rights" was to be able to remain in their homes and not be evicted!


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 12, 2018)

Humanity said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ...


You mean.....like the hundreds or thousands of Jews who did not get to stay in their homes after 

1920  Gaza
1925  TranJordan
1929  Hebron, Sfad
1948  Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem ?


All of them were evicted from their homes.

When do they get their rights back?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 12, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Where is their BDS? I'l join.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 12, 2018)

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...




And I see you continue to avoid addressing the points of my post.  Which are:

Which Jewish rights have been prejudiced?  Who is responsible for this?

Which Arab rights have been prejudiced?  Who is responsible for this?


----------



## Shusha (Nov 12, 2018)

Humanity said:


> I would probably suggest that one of the "rights" was to be able to remain in their homes and not be evicted!



As usual, Team Palestine discussing "rights" in a vacuum without acknowledging the reality of the situation, including the war which occurred between Israel and hostile locals and five invading armies.  

The Jewish people were evicted or needed to flee from ALL surrounding Arab nations -- against the Balfour Declaration and without the context of war.  

The Jewish people, in their entirety, in Gaza and the "West Bank' were evicted or needed to flee from ALL territories eventually held by Arabs.  This remains true to this day, 100 years later.  No Jews live in those territories.  

The Arab people in Israel were partially evicted or forced to flee in the context of the war.  Many remained and are living in Israel with full civil and religious rights.  Reality on the table:  Arabs in Israel.  No Jews in "Palestine" and most other Arab states.


You can not even attempt to discuss this without including the context of the war.  It was the WAR which caused the uprooting of people on both sides -- not the idea of a Jewish homeland.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 12, 2018)

Reality:  No Jews living Arab controlled territories.  Plenty of Arabs living in Israel.  

It was the Jewish people who were failed by the results from the Balfour Declaration.  Not the Arabs.


----------



## rylah (Nov 12, 2018)

Shusha said:


> Reality:  No Jews living Arab controlled territories.  Plenty of Arabs living in Israel.
> 
> It was the Jewish people who were failed by the results from the Balfour Declaration.  Not the Arabs.



Palestine was already thriving with Zionist enterprise for at least good 50 years prior to the Balfour declaration.

Britain merely took the train.


----------



## Humanity (Nov 13, 2018)

Shusha said:


> As usual, Team Palestine discussing "rights" in a vacuum without acknowledging the reality of the situation, including the war which occurred between Israel and hostile locals and five invading armies.



The war that Israel started you mean? Is it that one you are talking about?


----------



## Humanity (Nov 13, 2018)

Shusha said:


> The Arab people in Israel were partially evicted or forced to flee



700,000 of them!


----------



## Humanity (Nov 13, 2018)

Shusha said:


> Reality:  No Jews living Arab controlled territories.  Plenty of Arabs living in Israel.
> 
> It was the Jewish people who were failed by the results from the Balfour Declaration.  Not the Arabs.



A Jewish homeland was achieved... And you call that a failure?


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, Team Palestine discussing "rights" in a vacuum without acknowledging the reality of the situation, including the war which occurred between Israel and hostile locals and five invading armies.
> ...



The war started with the Arab pogroms in Syria-Palestine against the local Jews. This in effect forced them to raise a call of help to the Jewish communities in the diaspora -which resulted in Zionism and Israel independence.

Britain was among the first to recognize the positive changes in Palestine brought by Jewish the enterprise, and saw the potential in relying on Zionists as an alternative to the Ottoman control in the region, as they did with Arab clans in other parts of the empire.
Eventually the colonial powers of France and Britain made a mess drawing totally unrealistic borders squeezing together many warring tribes into artificial countries. Jews  on the other hand already had their own agreements with the Arab King from Mecca who was to control majority of the territory of the Levant. If Britain and France didn't interfere both Arabs would have a united Levant and Jews a much bigger Israel.

Also, no Zionist ever shot a bullet before Arab pogroms,  but the anti-Israel folk will never discuss it.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 13, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→  Humanity, Shusha, et al,

Well, I can see how you might say that, if you were applying modern "civil rights" criteria in strict compliance.  However, history shows us that what is discussed as rights in time of peace, is the first casualty in time of war and conflict.  In fact, today, war and conflict have been replaced by newer terminology.

•  International Armed Conflict (IAC)
•  Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC)​
*“In Palestine as of Right and Not on Sufferance ...”*
“When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance.” 

_Winston Churchill_
_ British Secretary of State for the Colonies _
_ June 1922_​
Many are of the opinion that the creation of the State of Israel _(as the Jewish National Home)_, which displaced the Palestinian regional majority, was the primary trigger in the conflict which ignited between the Arab Palestinian  -  and the State of Israel.  But is that actually true?



Humanity said:


> I would probably suggest that one of the "rights" was to be able to remain in their homes and not be evicted!


*(COMMENT)*

THE FIRST QUESTION:  While this statement sounds reasonable, where does it say that?  What assurance do the Arab Palestinians (non-Jewish) have on the matter of "civil rights."  Remember, under the Rule of the Sultan, the rights were what the Sultan granted.

Not even in modern times are all Customary and International Humanitarian Law is the same in both the IAC and the NIAC.  For instance, Common Article 3 applies to "armed conflicts not of an international character (NIAC) occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties."

Interesting enough, all of the peacetime applicable provisions, of the Gevena Convention, apply to all cases of declared war → or → of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.  This is very applicable to the current Arab Palestinian engagements with the State of Israel.  You will sometime hear a pro-Arab Palestinian Advocate suggest that the Arab Palestinians have no peace treaty because they have not been at war with anyone.

But in any case, the civil rights of the Arab Palestinians during the period 1917 through 1922 were not codified.  It is hard to say what rights were envisioned, or even if the concept of rights existed for Arab Palestinians. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Humanity (Nov 13, 2018)

rylah said:


> This in effect forced them to raise a call of help to the Jewish communities in the diaspora -*which resulted in Zionism* and Israel independence.



Wow, really?


----------



## Humanity (Nov 13, 2018)

rylah said:


> If Britain and France didn't interfere both Arabs would have a united Levant and Jews a much bigger Israel.



Well, thank goodness for Britain and France!


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 13, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→  Humanity, Shusha, et al,
> 
> Well, I can see how you might say that, if you were applying modern "civil rights" criteria in strict compliance.  However, history shows us that what is discussed as rights in time of peace, is the first casualty in time of war and conflict.  In fact, today, war and conflict have been replaced by newer terminology.
> ...


_To the Editors_:

Avishai Margalit errs in his book review essay [“Palestine: How Bad, & Good, Was British Rule?,” _NYR_, February 7]. He writes that the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine conferred on Britain was to prepare the country “to be a ‘national home for the Jews,’ without ‘impairing the civil and religious rights of the indigenous Arab people.’”



That is quite wrong as the Mandate decision does not include the phrase “indigenous Arab people.” The phrase that actually appears is: “nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Arabs, as such, are not mentioned. Political rights were the prerogative of the Jewish people*. Residency rights, religious rights, personal liberty rights were to be assured. But nothing more than that and certainly no state which was to be established in the territory of Transjordan, partitioned from the original Mandate area in 1922.*

Yisrael Medad
Shiloh, Israel

(full article online)

Palestine: What the Mandate Said


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→  Humanity, Shusha, et al,
> 
> Well, I can see how you might say that, if you were applying modern "civil rights" criteria in strict compliance.  However, history shows us that what is discussed as rights in time of peace, is the first casualty in time of war and conflict.  In fact, today, war and conflict have been replaced by newer terminology.
> ...


Well...

_Recognizing​_that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

_Expressing its grave concern_ that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

_Guided_ by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

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

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

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

(_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​
At what time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians obtain these rights?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ...



It is the umpteenth time you put up that worthless link to that worthless nonsense in 1974, not in 1920, by Yasser Arafat, which are nothing but Arab DEMANDS, and have nothing to do with the Balfour Declaration OR the Mandate for Palestine.

Keep lying and inserting what never was the Declaration or the Mandate wherever you can.  It is fun to watch you lose again and again.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


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


Only Zionists try to replace actual documented proof with Israeli bullshit.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You !   are the BS that never ends.

That is a 1974 document manufactured by Arafat with the help of all Israel/Jew haters in that organization.

It is absolutely worthless in the real world.

It does not change the fact that the Arabs refused their own State since 1937 and will continue to refuse to create one as long as Israel is on the map of the world.


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



How does a non-binding resolution from 1974 changes the obligations of the international law regarding Balfour declaration?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 13, 2018)

Shusha said:


> Reality:  No Jews living Arab controlled territories.  Plenty of Arabs living in Israel.
> 
> It was the Jewish people who were failed by the results from the Balfour Declaration.  Not the Arabs.


A State of Judea should have been created for the Jews.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 13, 2018)

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Reality:  No Jews living Arab controlled territories.  Plenty of Arabs living in Israel.
> ...


An Israeli homeland was achieved.  There is no State of Judea for Judeans.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...


You don't understand UN resolutions.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



lmao.

You must be one of  them.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 13, 2018)

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, Team Palestine discussing "rights" in a vacuum without acknowledging the reality of the situation, including the war which occurred between Israel and hostile locals and five invading armies.
> ...




Israel started the war?  How so?  By what actions did Israel start the war?


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...




What is the point in quoting a non-binding UN resolutions?
The Balfour Declaration on the other hand became binding by an act of international law, as well as eventually the law of US.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 13, 2018)

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



You do realise you are posting to a dolt?


----------



## Shusha (Nov 13, 2018)

Mindful said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



He's going to dodge the question.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 13, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→  Humanity, Shusha, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> Well...
> 
> _Recognizing_
> that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, I agree → all that was said → but it does not mean that the Israelis, or anyone else, needs to make way for the Palestinians.  The rights that they talk about here also apply equally to the Israelis.

BTW:  Neither of the Resolutions cited has any special meaning in law.  UN A/RES/3236 and A/RES/3237 were was published in November 1974.  That would be well after all three major Arab Palestinian conflicts (1948/1967/1973).  

The State of Israel was internationally recognized decades before the State of Palestine was declared in 1988.  So it only stands to reason that any territory that the Israels had control over before the November 1988 PLO proclamation is Israeli; unless they abandon it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> Yes, I agree → all that was said → but it does not mean that the Israelis, or anyone else, needs to make way for the Palestinians. The rights that they talk about here also apply equally to the Israelis.


Then post the UN resolution for the Israelis.


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I agree → all that was said → but it does not mean that the Israelis, or anyone else, needs to make way for the Palestinians. The rights that they talk about here also apply equally to the Israelis.
> ...



Because it magically turns those US resolutions into binding international law?


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

*Q.How much UN resolutions does it take to rewrite the US law?*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> BTW: Neither of the Resolutions cited has any special meaning in law. UN A/RES/3236 and A/RES/3237 were was published in November 1974. That would be well after all three major Arab Palestinian conflicts (1948/1967/1973).


Yes but the resolution referenced the UN Charter that predated Israel's declaration. It also said:

_Expressing its grave concern​_that the Palestinian people* has been prevented* from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,​
Preventing a peoples rights (by aggression, external interference, etc.) is a violation of the law.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > BTW: Neither of the Resolutions cited has any special meaning in law. UN A/RES/3236 and A/RES/3237 were was published in November 1974. That would be well after all three major Arab Palestinian conflicts (1948/1967/1973).
> ...



Given that the Jews were Palestinian people before the State of Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

Mindful said:


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


Indeed, a few percent of Palestinians were Jews and they had the same rights as all of the other Palestinians.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> The State of Israel was internationally recognized decades before the State of Palestine was declared in 1988.


The state of Palestine was widely recognized, including by the US, all during the period that it was administered by the Mandate. The League of Nations Covenant stated that the Mandate was to administer the territory in the best interest of the inhabitants implying the right to self determination.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > BTW: Neither of the Resolutions cited has any special meaning in law. UN A/RES/3236 and A/RES/3237 were was published in November 1974. That would be well after all three major Arab Palestinian conflicts (1948/1967/1973).
> ...


You keep giving the wrong facts about history.

The ones to be first attacked, in 1920, were the Jews.
The ones who continued to be attacked by the Arabs, were the Jews.
Not only attacked, but expelled from their homes as in 1920 and 1929, long before 1948.

The ONLY ONES to prevent the Arab Palestinians from their right to self determination from 1920 on, and specifically since 1937 on when the first partition was offered was the Arab League, led by that wonderful Nazi Muslim .....Al Husseini and all other Arabs he managed to convince to think as he did.

SO....the only ones to keep the Arab Palestinians from any possible rights they already had, to keep their homes and have a decent life, be it under Israel or any Palestinian State were the Arab Leaders in the League.....The Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, etc who voted to deny the Jews THEIR RIGHTS to any part of their ancient homeland.

Correct

"Preventing a peoples rights (by aggression, external interference, etc.) is a violation of the law"

Which is what the Arabs have been doing since 1920.

More than time for them to stop spilling their own Arab people's blood over something they do not have the right to have.

ISRAEL


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The State of Israel was internationally recognized decades before the State of Palestine was declared in 1988.
> ...


For the Jewish People, with the Arabs living under Jewish sovereignty.

See my previous post for the rest of it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


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





Sixties Fan said:


> You keep giving the wrong facts about history.
> 
> The ones to be first attacked, in 1920, were the Jews.


Not true. The Palestinians were being attacked before 1920.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


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


The inhabitants have sovereignty. Foreigners do not.

Look it up.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 13, 2018)

I did.


*State in Palestine
August 10, 2016 | Eli E. Hertz*
Source:  There Has Never Been a Sovereign Arab State in Palestine

The artificiality of a Palestinian identity is reflected in the attitudes and actions of neighboring Arab nations who never established a Palestinian state themselves.

The rhetoric by Arab leaders on behalf of the Palestinians rings hollow. Arabs in neighboring states, who control 99.9 percent of the Middle East land, have never recognized a Palestinian entity. They have always considered Palestine and its inhabitants part of the great “Arab nation,” historically and politically as an integral part of Greater Syria – _Suriyya al-Kubra _– a designation that extended to both sides of the Jordan River. In the 1950s, Jordan simply annexed the West Bank since the population there was viewed as the brethren of the Jordanians.

The Arabs never established a Palestinian state when the UN in 1947 _recommended_ to partition Palestine, and to establish “an Arab and a Jewish state” (not a Palestinian state, it should be noted). Nor did the Arabs recognize or establish a Palestinian state during the two decades prior to the_ Six-Day War _when the West Bank was under Jordanian control and the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control; nor did the Palestinian Arabs clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian and Egyptian rule.

And as for Jerusalem: Only twice in the city’s history has it served as a national capital. First as the capital of the two Jewish Commonwealths during the First and Second Temple periods, as described in the Bible, reinforced by archaeological evidence and numerous ancient documents. And again, in modern times as the capital of the State of Israel. It has never served as an Arab capital for the simple reason that there has never been a Palestinian Arab state.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Oh, I cannot wait to see the news about it.

Let us have those links.

The ONLY  Palestinians ever attacked during any century on that land before 1920 were the Indigenous Jewish People of Palestine.   THOSE Palestinians were the only ones to face attacks after attacks, pogroms after pogroms from your saintly Palestinian Arabs.


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The State of Israel was internationally recognized decades before the State of Palestine was declared in 1988.
> ...



Yet the US ratified their recognition of the Jewish sovereignty over Palestine into binding international law:

In the *1924 Anglo American Convention* the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:


Drawing the borders of Palestine 

Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide 

Recognizing the Jewish People's historical connection to the land
There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab state in Palestine.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


The indigenous Inhabitants, The Jewish People, have all the rights to their ancient homeland.

The invading Arabs, who even chose a nationality where they bring up that they are INVADERS, are the foreigners from that land you do not like people to remember.

Arabia Peninsula.

And that is not Ancient Canaan, and never has been a part of Ancient Canaan.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

Mindful said:


> I did.
> 
> 
> *State in Palestine*
> ...


So you post an Israeli propaganda site. 

*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​


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > I did.
> ...



Your source is revision discussion on wikipedia?


----------



## Mindful (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > I did.
> ...




Took you long enough.

Your desperation is showing.


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

Both the Anglo-American Convention (1924) and The Lodge-Fish Resolution (1922) confirm the irrevocable historic right of the Jewish nation to Palestine - under the constitution making it into US law.

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine - Eretz Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an *actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution)*,* which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".*
*
*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


History did not change. The newer version focuses more on current events.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Revision means.....changing the history....

The question is...

Who is doing that revision.....and why....

and why is ALL of the history of the Jewish people being revised?


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Irrelevant to discussion.
Balfour Declaration was specifically incorporated into international law.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The State of Israel was internationally recognized decades before the State of Palestine was declared in 1988.
> ...



All during the period that it was administered by the Mandate, the right of self-determination of the Jewish people was recognized.

Arguing against that in light of the actual documents is just foolish.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


*Israel, Jews, Zionists Seminar Takeover of Wikipedia Online Information to Implement Disinformation*

**


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Says the guy who insists a wiki revision makes his case.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 13, 2018)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Sixties Fan said:
> ...



I wonder why he's such a zealot about making 'his case'.

He must eat, sleep, and dream this stuff.


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

Mindful said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Single topic, on a daily basis, for 9 years.
Not one positive post about Jews and Israel.

Magic.


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

*How does the Balfour Declaration stand as a legal document?*
Dr. Jacques Gauthier is the principal and founder of Gauthier & Associates, an international law firm established in Toronto, Canada, in 1984. He has spent decades promoting the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to Jerusalem under international law.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






One look at the bombs strapped to their chest, and you know what makes the Palestinians tick….


----------



## Mindful (Nov 13, 2018)

Much of the argument against the state of Israel’s existence and the Jewish connection to the land is based on the fallacy that Jews had little presence there until the advent of mass immigration from Europe a century ago. Too many academics and anti-Semites want the world to believe that. They claim the Jews stole the land—a lie exposed and refuted early on in “Reclaiming Israel’s History.” 

Disarming Israel’s Revisionist Detractors


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Colonization requires violence. People do not get colonized voluntarily.


----------



## rylah (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



*Pan-Arab colors*
 The black was the color of the banner of Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphate and was later adopted by the Abbasid Caliphate; white was used by the Umayyad Caliphate; green was used by the Fatimid Caliphate; and red was both the flag held by the Khawarij and also represented the Hashemites, as well as the Ottoman Empire.[4] T







Q. Does the Calipahte sound like a voluntary colonization?


----------



## Shusha (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Colonization requires violence. People do not get colonized voluntarily.



Sure.  Neither did the Jewish people get invaded and colonized voluntarily.  

Your point, once again, is that the MERE PRESENCE OF JEWS in their own homeland is "violence."


----------



## Shusha (Nov 13, 2018)

Or alternatively, you are suggesting the RETURNING to your own homeland is an act of violence.  

Ummmmm....Might want to think THAT one through!


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 13, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→P F Tinmore,  et al,

The UN Resolutions and laws that cover the America and every other country in the world also covers Israel.  YET!  It would be absurd for the UN to publish 139 different resolutions to express the:

(a)  Self-determination without external interference;

(_b_) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I agree → all that was said → but it does not mean that the Israelis, or anyone else, needs to make way for the Palestinians. The rights that they talk about here also apply equally to the Israelis.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

And, once again, it is important to note that the two resolutions you cite have no force of law.  The 1945 UN Charter (Chapter One) covers all 139 members; which includes Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Nov 13, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The UN Resolutions and laws that cover the America and every other country in the world also covers Israel.  YET!  It would be absurd for the UN to publish 139 different resolutions to express the:
> ...



He also might want to check out UNGA 273 and UNSC 69.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 13, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is your interpretation.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > BTW: Neither of the Resolutions cited has any special meaning in law. UN A/RES/3236 and A/RES/3237 were was published in November 1974. That would be well after all three major Arab Palestinian conflicts (1948/1967/1973).
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

It does not actually say who, how, or when _(basic interrogative to an allegation)_ the rights were prevented.  It merely expresses a concern.  It is a feel-good type of resolution.

Remember, that the Israelis, following the recommendations of the General Assembly, completed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and carried forth the process.  It was the Arab League, representing the Arab Palestinians, that cross their borders in an assault on Israel.  _(First act of aggression, attempting to prevent the Jewish People from effecting self-determination.)_

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→  Humanity, Shusha, et al,
> 
> 
> ...





RoccoR said:


> The rights that they talk about here also apply equally to the Israelis.


Then why do the Israelis have rights and the Palestinians do not.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 13, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The State of Israel was internationally recognized decades before the State of Palestine was declared in 1988.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Don't confuse the "Government of Palestine" _(Civil Administration by the British Government)_ with the "State of Palestine" _(PLO Declaration of 1988)_.



			
				"Political History of Palestine under British Administration 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 Arab Palestinians developed a childish policy of "all or nothing."  If they could not have the entire territory, they would not participate in the development of a self-governing institution. 

The outcome of today is the fault of the Arab Palestinians reaching back to the time the Mandate was implemented.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is your interpretation.
> ...





RoccoR said:


> It was the Arab League, representing the Arab Palestinians, that cross their borders in an assault on Israel.


Israeli crap. Israel was not attacked.

You base your conclusion on false premise.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This is your interpretation.
> ...





RoccoR said:


> It does not actually say who, how, or when _(basic interrogative to an allegation)_ the rights were prevented.


It started with the British who were in cahoots with the Zionists. Britain denied their right to self determination right out the gate.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 13, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is no more true today, then it was in the time of the Ottoman Empire.



P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You will not find this nonsense codified in any international law.  What you will find is something like this:



 ​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 13, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→  P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not recall anyone saying the Arab Palestinians do not have rights...



P F Tinmore said:


> Then why do the Israelis have rights and the Palestinians do not.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, this is nonsense.  The Israelis and the Arab Palestinians have essentially the exact same rights.  But the Arab Palestinians cannot come in after the fact and attempt to usurp Israeli rights. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 13, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,



P F Tinmore said:


> It started with the British who were in cahoots with the Zionists. Britain denied their right to self-determination right out the gate.


*(COMMENT)*

Again, nonsense.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I do not recall anyone saying the Arab Palestinians do not have rights...
> ...





RoccoR said:


> But the Arab Palestinians cannot come in after the fact and attempt to usurp Israeli rights.


The Palestinians did not "come in after the fact," They were already there at home before all of this started.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Nonsense.
> ...


There can't be a Mandate for Palestine without Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> ...


The Balfour Declaration scratched the Palestinian's national and political rights. Britain ran with those violations of the Palestine's rights from day one.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Then why do the Israelis have rights and the Palestinians do not.



Both the Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians had rights.  They both still have rights now.  

The only one who is arguing against this is you.  Well, you and Hamas.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> The inhabitants have sovereignty. Foreigners do not.
> 
> Look it up.



Patently, demonstrably not true.  

United States of America.  Canada.  Australia.  Any number of South American State.  

But even if you want to call it true -- then there can be no return of foreigners to upset the current inhabitants of Israel.  The inhabitants have sovereignty.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> It started with the British who were in cahoots with the Zionists. Britain denied their right to self determination right out the gate.




Well, no.  Arabs right to self-determination in Palestine were acknowledged with the separation of Palestine into an Arab State and a Jewish State (Israel and Jordan).  Arab rights to self-determination were again acknowledged with the UN Partition Plan.  Arab rights to self-determination were again acknowledged with numerous UN resolutions.  Arab rights to self-determination were again acknowledged with the withdrawal from Gaza.  And Arab rights were again acknowledged with the Oslo Accords.  And with the Olmert plan and other peace negotiations.  Even the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel is an acknowledgement of Arab rights to self-determination.  

Arab rights to self-determination are acknowledged all over the damn place.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 13, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Balfour Declaration scratched the Palestinian's national and political rights.



The Balfour Declaration did no such thing.  The Declaration only recognized the rights of the Jewish people.  See:  Czechoslovakia, as example.  The rights of one do not require the removal of rights of the other.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 14, 2018)

Periodically Gaza takes centerstage on the world news. The circumstances change but the conflict remains the same – Israel vs Gaza, Gazans vs Israelis, terrorists vs the State of Israel. Depending on the media source, the story seems different but more often than not, the main message seems to be: Israel = bad / aggressive and possibly even criminal.

Watching this unfold from a distance can be very confusing. What is happening on the ground? How can I know what is true? If the Jewish State is actually bad as so many of these reports imply, what does that say about me?

Many questions rise to the surface. Left unanswered, they open the door to damaging misperceptions – the most damaging of which is the undermining of pride in Jewish identity and connection to the only Jewish State, Israel. This is why we have put together teaching resources that address the issue of Israel and Gaza in a non-political way.

*Our goal is not to promote, justify or explain any political stance or party but rather to focus on the human experience surrounding this issue. Human rights are not political. Neither is morality or decency. This is about understanding what is happening, in context and having the tools and critical thinking skills to make fact-based conclusions.*

*Disengagement from Gaza and North Samaria (2005)*

*Hamas violent takeover of the Gaza Strip (2007)*

*Operation Cast Lead (27 December 2008 - 18 January 2009)*

*Operation Pillar of Defense (14-21 November 2012)*

*Operation Protective Edge (8 July - 26 August 2014)*

*March of Return Gaza riots (30 March 2018 - *
*DISENGAGEMENT FROM GAZA AND NORTH SAMARIA (2005)
Israel's plan of unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip and North Samaria put forward by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was carried out on 15 August 2005. The purpose of the plan was to improve Israel's security and international status in the absence of peace negotiations. With the implementation of the plan, IDF installations and forces were removed and over 9000 Israeli citizens living in 25 settlements were evicted. By 22 September 2005, Israel's withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip to the 1967 Green Line, and the eviction of the four settlements in Samaria, was completed.

GUSH KATIF
Jews have lived in Gaza since Biblical times. Famed residents include medieval rabbis such as Rabbi Yisrael Najara and the renowned Rabbi Avraham Azoulai. A historic Jewish community existed in Gaza City prior to its expulsion for safety reasons by the British during the infamous 1929 riots by the city's Arabs. Land for the village of Kfar Darom was purchased in the 1930s and settled in 1946. It was evacuated following an Egyptian siege in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

Gush Katif began in 1968 as Jewish was viewed vital to Israel's security in the area, which had been captured the previous year in the 1967 Six-Day War. In 1970, Kfar Darom was reestablished as the first of many Israeli agricultural villages in the area. Throughout the 1980s new communities were established, especially with the influx of former residents of the Sinai.

The sum of exports from the greenhouses of Gush Katif, which were owned by 200 farmers, came to $200,000,000 per year and made up 15% of the agricultural exports of the State of Israel. The combined assets in Gush Katif were estimated at $23 billion.

Of Israel’s total exports abroad, Gush Katif exported: 
· 95% of bug-free lettuce and greens 
· 70% of organic vegetables 
· 60% of cherry tomatoes 
· 60% of geraniums to Europe

The Jewish residents of Gush Katif became subject to frequent terror attacks during the First Intifada (1987–1990). During the al-Aqsa Intifada (2000), Gush Katif settlements were the target of thousands of violent attacks by Palestinian militants. More than 6000 mortar bombs and Qassam rockets were launched into Gush Katif, miraculously causing only few fatalities though tremendous property and psychological damage.

Disengagement and the people of Gush Katif


Read more, much more......


Israel & Gaza

*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 14, 2018)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The inhabitants have sovereignty. Foreigners do not.
> ...


Refugees are not foreigners.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 14, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Are you starting.....again???


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 14, 2018)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > It started with the British who were in cahoots with the Zionists. Britain denied their right to self determination right out the gate.
> ...


Not so. Any foreign plan to divide Palestine is a violation of their rights.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 14, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



False premise.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 14, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



False. You just don’t understand history.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 14, 2018)

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Refugees are citizens, not foreigners.


----------



## rylah (Nov 14, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Once a refugee receives citizenship he's been re-settled.
This is the standard practice.

There were many refugees during those times, including millions of Jews from Europe and about a million Jews from the Middle East. All have been resettled in Israel and other countries where they have citizenship.


----------



## Humanity (Nov 14, 2018)

Shusha said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



I'm still awaiting your responses to questions from months ago when you went on 'vacation'... Funny that!


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 14, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→  P F Tinmore, et al,

I think that your need to find some high ground, on which to base the claim that the Arab Palestinian _(residents of the former Enemy-occupied territory of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic)_ were treated unfairly different, from the people that have lost wars and territory to superior powers throughout the history of the region, that you assign rights to the vanquished that no previous defeated people had before them. 



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > But the Arab Palestinians cannot come in after the fact and attempt to usurp Israeli rights.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The fact that the defeated Arab Palestinians of the Ottoman Empire lived in the region in larger numbers than the Jewish People does not mean that the Arab Palestinians held some special benefit over and above that of the Jews.  It only means that the Arab Palestinian represented a greater threat to peace and security in the post-Conflict Phase.

The victors of a conflict usually set the civil and political protocols on the defeated population.

The Arab Palestinians do not have the means to re-write post-Conflict protocols in their favor or re-interpret new protocols simply because it suits them.

*("come in after the fact,")*

There is no question at all that the intent of the Allied Powers, with the rights and title in hand under Article 16 (Treaty of Lausanne), was to establish in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.  It is also the case that the Arab Palestinians declined to participate in the build self-governing institutions simply because they could not get their own way and dictate the outcome.  Further, it is no question that the Jewish People adopted and followed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as recommended by the United Nations; AND finaly, the Jewish People exercised their right of self-determination and declared independence several decades before the Palestine Liberation Organization. 

No portion of the territory outlined by the PLO was not already under the control of the Israelis in 1988.  No international law sets the requirement that the Israelis, having previously established territorial control, must relinquish that control to a non-existent government.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 14, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, NONSENSE*!*



P F Tinmore said:


> The Balfour Declaration scratched the Palestinian's national and political rights. Britain ran with those violations of the Palestine's rights from day one.


*(COMMENT)*

_*W*_hat authority do you refer to - that outlined "Palestinian's national and political rights" prior to November 1917*?*

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Nov 14, 2018)

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Oh lookie.  Dodged the question as predicted.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 14, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Again, NONSENSE*!*
> ...


Stupid post. Palestine (like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan,) was not a state in 1917.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 14, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you need to re-read your statement...



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Again, NONSENSE*!*
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

→ You said:  The Balfour Declaration scratched the Palestinian's national and political rights.
※  I asked:  "_*W*_hat authority do you refer to - that outlined "Palestinian's national and political rights" prior to November 1917*?*"
​Of course, I know that Palestine was not a state in 1917, and thus had no "Palestinian's national and political rights."  I just asked the question because your statement makes it seem that the Balfour Declaration of scratched (canceled or struck-out) some pre-existing Palestinian "national and political rights."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 14, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I think you need to re-read your statement...
> ...


it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,​
Specified civil and religious rights. no mention of national or political rights. As soon as Britain took over those rights were not there and are still not there. And you spend your life denying those rights.


----------



## rylah (Nov 14, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ...



That's none sense,
Britain facilitated the establishment of those rights for the Arab nation on 78% of the land,  infringing upon their obligations by banning all Jews from that state. Establishing another such state on the rest 22% of the land would further constitute a severe infringement on the right of the Jewish nation as signed into international law both by Britain, France and the US.

Arabs gained most of Jewish land as a result of Balfour Declaration.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 14, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I did not specify "national or political rights" → you did...



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > I think you need to re-read your statement...
> ...


*(QUESTION)*

In 1917, what were the civil rights?  What was denied?

v/r
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 16, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I did not specify "national or political rights" → you did...
> ...


Clearly you have no knowledge of Palestine beyond Israeli propaganda.The first thing Britain did was to shove the Palestinians aside like they have been doing to natives for hundreds of years. Mandate was a mere euphemism for military occupation. Laws and policies were imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. Any attempt to exercise their right to self determination was violently put down by the British. Their leaders were arrested, exiled, or even killed.

Britain destroyed a functioning society. What rights were *not *violated?


----------



## Mindful (Nov 16, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ...



Another day of this.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 17, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is not at all what we were talking about.  The facts pertaining to the political considerations given the inhabitance under the former Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) of the Allied Powers _(particularly France and the British Government)_, has nothing to do with the actual rights _(whether we suggest they be *national/political* or *civil/religious*)_ afford the inhabitance.  It may sound odd, but that was generally how things were done a century ago.  A century ago, such rights _(*national/political* or *civil/religious*), _if they were considered at all, were thought of completely different from how they are viewed today.



PF Tinmore said:


> Clearly, you have no knowledge of Palestine beyond Israeli propaganda.The first thing Britain did was to shove the Palestinians aside like they have been doing to natives for hundreds of years. Mandate was a mere euphemism for military occupation. Laws and policies were imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. Any attempt to exercise their right to self-determination was violently put down by the British. Their leaders were arrested, exiled, or even killed.
> 
> Britain destroyed a functioning society. What rights were *not *violated?


*(COMMENT)*

I was going to say _(as the saying goes)_ - I've never been to Timbuktu, but I know what a desert is.  _(But actually I have been to Timbuktu; my grandmother (Minorcan) took me there when I was a boy.)_ 

Contrary to the Islamic popular belief, the Israelis are NOT the sole source for history.  In fact, while there are undoubtedly a few Jewish Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, I'm sure that a century ago, they did not control the knowledge base for most of the English Speaking world.  

Self-determination, is a peremptory norm derived from modern customary international law _(jus cogens...)_ from a time when it was first promoted as a political theory in the nineteenth century.  However, it has no real definition.





The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, 
nonpartisan federal institution 
created by Congress (1984)​


			
				Graham E Fuller said:
			
		

> •  First, Fuller maintained that existing borders between internationally recognized nation-states are “artificial, arbitrary, and accidental.” Furthermore, they are not permanent.
> •  Second, although some states, mostly in the West, are a reflection of the congruence of ethnic and territorial boundaries, most are not so constituted.  These other states are typically “mini-empires” or even greater empires of ethnically distinct peoples who find themselves arbitrarily forced to live within the same borders.
> •  Third, the current concern over self-determination is not merely a “post-Soviet blip”; that is, the dilemma is not just a regional, short-term phase following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Many peoples around the globe are going through their own process of self-discovery. More than ever before, these peoples seek liberation to “get back to their history.”





			
				Professor Ralph Steinhardt said:
			
		

> •  Self-determination *has little legal meaning* but is nevertheless a tremendously powerful political principle.
> •  International law is not “univocal” on the subject. *Self-determination has never been defined*; hence, its mere mention conjures up several different meanings at once.
> •  The third basic proposition about the legal context of *self-determination is that it is not a “suicide pact”* in that it does not oblige any state to subjugate its own self-interest. Law is basically an expression of self-interest and has evolved accordingly over time.
> •  The fourth proposition is that law is constantly changing. After several distinct eras, Steinhardt maintained, the self-determination norm is at a legislative turning point. *There are several new meanings or “clusters of principles” that should be included in the right to self-determination*, just as there are new ways in which the right should be interpreted.


Each state, or nation has three competing self-interests:  territorial integrity, the rights to self-determination, and secession.  But again, Self-Determination is NOT a "suicide pact."  Israel does NOT have to give up a limb or dissolve just to appease Arab Palestinian political and military failures to achieve their confused nationalist objectives.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## rylah (Nov 17, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is not at all what we were talking about.  The facts pertaining to the political considerations given the inhabitance under the former Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) of the Allied Powers _(particularly France and the British Government)_, has nothing to do with the actual rights _(whether we suggest they be *national/political* or *civil/religious*)_ afford the inhabitance.  It may sound odd, but that was generally how things were done a century ago.  A century ago, such rights _(*national/political* or *civil/religious*), _if they were considered at all, were thought of completely different from how they are viewed today.
> ...



There's no other objective but to oppose any form of Jewish sovereignty.
Even the later calls by Arab leaders for Palestinian independence were echoes of initial attempts to cede the lands to Syria under the governance of Mecca, as envisioned in the beginning by the Hashemite leaders. 

In other words the obligation to "not prejudice the rights of the non-Jewish populations" is also preconditioned by the obligation that Jewish rights are not damaged, therefore because of Husseini war on Jewish communities around the middle east (and Europe) - their lands were eventually transferred as compensation for lost property and rights in the Arab states.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 17, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is not at all what we were talking about.  The facts pertaining to the political considerations given the inhabitance under the former Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) of the Allied Powers _(particularly France and the British Government)_, has nothing to do with the actual rights _(whether we suggest they be *national/political* or *civil/religious*)_ afford the inhabitance.  It may sound odd, but that was generally how things were done a century ago.  A century ago, such rights _(*national/political* or *civil/religious*), _if they were considered at all, were thought of completely different from how they are viewed today.
> ...





RoccoR said:


> Each state, or nation has three competing self-interests: territorial integrity, the rights to self-determination, and secession. But again, Self-Determination is NOT a "suicide pact." Israel does NOT have to give up a limb or dissolve just to appease Arab Palestinian political and military failures to achieve their confused nationalist objectives.


OK, let's take this apart.

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

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


28 September 1948​

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

AHMED HILMI PASHA
PREMIER AND ACTING FOREIGN SECRETARY​
Now compare this to the universal rights that the UN says the Palestinians have.

The right to self determination without external interference.
The right to independence and sovereignty.
The right to territorial integrity.
Virtually a perfect match going back before 1948. You keep trying to smokescreen the issues but the Palestinians are on solid ground.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 17, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ...




What “country of Pal’istan” is your friend Ahmed referring to?

When you refer to “universal rights”, where is islamist universal right to gee-had and the Islamist “right” to drive the Jews into the sea spelled out?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 17, 2018)

Hollie said:


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


 Irrelevant questions.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 17, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


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




   Can’t find a YouTube video, huh?

Indeed!


----------



## rylah (Nov 17, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ...



That late Arab declaration is exactly the smokescreen.
Can't declare independence post factum without any sovereignty.

It's like a kid who plays air guitar in front of the mirror.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 17, 2018)

rylah said:


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


----------



## rylah (Nov 17, 2018)

*The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (Summary - part 1)*


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 17, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are NOT on solid ground.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Well, this is not at all what we were talking about.  The facts pertaining to the political considerations given the inhabitance under the former Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) of the Allied Powers _(particularly France and the British Government)_, has nothing to do with the actual rights _(whether we suggest they be *national/political* or *civil/religious*)_ afford the inhabitance.  It may sound odd, but that was generally how things were done a century ago.  A century ago, such rights _(*national/political* or *civil/religious*), _if they were considered at all, were thought of completely different from how they are viewed today.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The puppet regime established and funded by the Egyptian Government _(and by the way, the Egyptian Government dissolved the All Palestine Government)_ was unable to take any successful act that established "sovereign territory."  They could not claim any actual territory to which they had control and they were the undisputed government.  On the other hand, the Egyptians, the Jordanians and the Israelis all had territories, and all have areas they controlled.  Jordan even, for a while, annexed the West Bank and Jerusalem; all of which they abandon to Israeli control in 1988.

It has only been since 2005 that the Arab Palestinians assumed control of the Gaza Strip.  They claim to be a government with sovereign control.

Nothing about the September 1948 Declaration by the All Palestine Government show any overt act to establish control of any aspect or portion of the territory.  It's just a cablegram with nothing substantial behind it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 17, 2018)

rylah said:


> *The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (Summary - part 1)*


Oh good grief!


----------



## Shusha (Nov 17, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ...



Your argument has two insurmountable flaws: 

Every one of those rights you claim for the Palestinians is ALSO and EQUALLY valid for the Jewish people.  

"Territorial integrity" has NEVER been an obstacle for partition or self-determination for ANY people.  And while international law has not explicitly stated this yet, territorial integrity of an existing State is not generally considered an effective reason in law to prevent the self-determination of a people.  (Witness USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Korea, Sudan, India/Pakistan, Indonesia/East Timor, Ethiopia/Eritrea and any of dozens of other examples. Palestine included.)


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 17, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ※→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You are NOT on solid ground.
> ...





RoccoR said:


> The puppet regime established and funded by the Egyptian Government _(and by the way, the Egyptian Government dissolved the All Palestine Government)_ was unable to take any successful act that established "sovereign territory." They could not claim any actual territory to which they had control and they were the undisputed government.


OK, but Palestine did not have territorial control because it was occupied by three military forces and it was a civilian population. However, a state does not cease to exist because it is under military occupation. Remember, occupations do not acquire sovereignty.


----------



## rylah (Nov 17, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ...



There's no sovereignty without occupation, this is the part You keep missing. And one of the reasons why the Arab declarations were invalid.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 17, 2018)

rylah said:


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


Not true. India was India before the British. It was India during the British occupation. It was India after the British left. An occupation is merely a period in history. Occupations do not acquire sovereignty. Nobody has the authority to dismantle or dissolve a state.


----------



## rylah (Nov 17, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


What about Pakistan?
What about Jordan?

You don't seem to have a problem with 78% of Palestine going to an exclusively Arab state.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 17, 2018)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


It is a deflection.


----------



## rylah (Nov 17, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Totally destroys Your claim
What about Mesapotamia...was it ever a real state, is it still on the map?


----------



## Shusha (Nov 17, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Nobody has the authority to dismantle or dissolve a state.



Patently, demonstrably not true.  States are dismantled all the time.  Dozens over the past 100 years.


----------



## Shusha (Nov 17, 2018)

rylah said:


> What about Pakistan?
> What about Jordan?
> 
> You don't seem to have a problem with 78% of Palestine going to an exclusively Arab state.



He is going to have to ignore this.  If he addresses the partition of Palestine into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the (ahem cough cough) State of Palestine it destroys his entire argument and he knows it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 17, 2018)

rylah said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


In Jordan the people stayed with their territory as did all of the people in the region except Palestine.

What about Lebanon? Did it cease to exist when it was occupied by Syria?

Did Kuwait cease to exist when it was occupied by Iraq?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 17, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Oh, yes, in Jordan the people, the Arab people stayed with their territory.

Yes, they did .......while all the Jews were murdered or forced out of that 78% of Mandate of Palestine territory by 1925.
Which, by the way, was part of the Jewish Nation Homeland and no Jew was to be prejudiced and forced out of their homes, and their civil rights, etc......just as the Arabs were to be respected in the rest of the mandate when sovereignty given to the Jewish people.

Gee, what could have happened there?

Lebanon and Syria were Mandates and remained the Mandates they were meant to be.

Iraq definitely wanted to swallow Kuwait.  If they had succeeded would they have changed its name as the Jordanians did with Judea and Samaria and would the Arab world and the rest of the world have minded?

Maybe, just maybe.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 17, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > rylah said:
> ...


Jordan had its issues but this is the Israel and Palestine forum.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 17, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Yes, Jordan certainly had its issues. Among those issues was a little dalliance known as Black September.

Shirley, you can find a YouTube video.


----------



## rylah (Nov 17, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> rylah said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Yes the sovereignty over Palestine was divided between the Arabs in Jordan and Jews in the remaining 28% of the territory.

Q.Since when did Jews cease to be "the people in the region"?


----------



## Humanity (Nov 27, 2018)

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Oh lookie... It still can't answer a question from several months ago because it got all butthurt then accuses!


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 27, 2018)

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


Repeat the question.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

Does anyone believe we would be worse off with a State of Judea in historic Palestine?


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 27, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
⁜→  danielpalos, et al,

That is a question that some serious Jews _(already in the West Bank) _are going to answer themselves.  An outsider cannot do it.  Not even an Israel Jew can fully answer the question of establishing a State under Jewish Law. 



danielpalos said:


> Does anyone believe we would be worse off with a State of Judea in historic Palestine?


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not even sure what it is possible for a state governed by Jewish religious laws (based on the Torah) is possible. 

◈  What would it look like? 
◈  How much different is it from a Jewish Autonomous Oblast (JOA)?
◈  Could such a State under Jewish Law even survive in the modern world?
❖  There are a thousand and one questions that have to be considered. That would include the desired end-outcome.  And I'm not sure there is any agreement on that.​
I don't think we can raise an ancient State under the Torah Rule of Law (_Halakha)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 27, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ⁜→  danielpalos, et al,
> 
> That is a question that some serious Jews _(already in the West Bank) _are going to answer themselves.  An outsider cannot do it.  Not even an Israel Jew can fully answer the question of establishing a State under Jewish Law.
> ...


He asks this question out of an attempt to annoy.  Ignore him.
It is another attempt to delegitimize Israel and the Jewish people.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Does anyone believe we would be worse off with a State of Judea in historic Palestine?



Who is 'we'?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 27, 2018)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone believe we would be worse off with a State of Judea in historic Palestine?
> ...


Ignore the jester.  He is a one idea poster.  A State of Judea.
blah, blah, blah.
On this thread, on EVERY  thread.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 27, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ⁜→  danielpalos, et al,
> 
> That is a question that some serious Jews _(already in the West Bank) _are going to answer themselves.  An outsider cannot do it.  Not even an Israel Jew can fully answer the question of establishing a State under Jewish Law.
> ...


I have high hopes and pipe dreams, it can be done.  Even a secular and temporal State would be enough.


----------



## Mindful (Nov 27, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ...



What are you talking about?


----------



## Shusha (Nov 27, 2018)

Humanity said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



I can't remember what question you asked months ago that I didn't have time to answer before my trip.  But dude, just ask again.  I'll answer.


----------



## rylah (Nov 27, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ⁜→  danielpalos, et al,
> 
> That is a question that some serious Jews _(already in the West Bank) _are going to answer themselves.  An outsider cannot do it.  Not even an Israel Jew can fully answer the question of establishing a State under Jewish Law.
> ...



The idea of establishment of a separate Judean state was promoted by the locals as a reaction following the Gaza expulsion. I remember vaguely at least one time, when it was used as an ultimatum to the government, it was a media campaign on the internet , probably for recruitment, that also reached some TV channels.
As far as I know at the time their public relations wing was non-existent, and they haven't yet figured out what was their vision, and how to package it for the public consume.

It naturally disappeared from public discussion and dismissed as a radical dream.
As far as I remember they did propose a state based on Jewish law (Halacha) at the initial stage.
After years of absence from the public discussion and consciousness, the Judeans have reorganized and returned with a more clear sounding vision, still in the process of shaping the details. However their main theme has transformed into "Medina Yehudit" (Jewish state - don't conflate with the recent nation state law) as opposed to "Medinat Halacha" (Jewish law govt), which was realized as improbable for several reason.

After realizing that they can reach their goals by building on top of the current order, they've abandoned the radical revolutionary ideas and separatism in favor of persuasion and open dialogue.
This of course correlated with a fierce pressure from security forces, while at the same time initiation of direct channels with local Arab tribes, and vast investment and modernization in Judean communities.

I think this recent transformation in both the movement and the govt .demonstrates a healthy shift towards the correct vision of integration between the seemingly opposing ends of the spectrum in the Israeli society.

That said I don't think anyone abroad can really grasp the specificities of this inner dialogue without intimate understanding of Judaism and the Israeli society.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 27, 2018)

Mindful said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Nonsense, right out of his brain.


----------



## rylah (Nov 29, 2018)

*Dr. Einat Wilf - Thank You Lord Balfour, We'll Take it From Here.*


----------



## Humanity (Dec 1, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



You know, I would if it weren't so long that Shusha had to run for cover because any response would destroy her own belief!

It went something along the lines of "Oh shit, wait, I gotta go outta town on vacation or some shit" - Strange then that she continued to post throughout her "outta town vacation" whilst ignoring the question!


----------



## Sixties Fan (Dec 1, 2018)

Humanity said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


If you go back to page 50 on this thread, a page before or after, you will refresh your memory as to was so important to ask that you kept demanding an answer to it.

Take your time, but do return with the question you had in mind.  Thanks.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 1, 2018)

Humanity said:


> You know, I would if it weren't so long that Shusha had to run for cover because any response would destroy her own belief!
> 
> It went something along the lines of "Oh shit, wait, I gotta go outta town on vacation or some shit" - Strange then that she continued to post throughout her "outta town vacation" whilst ignoring the question!



There is absolutely no point in you coming back here only to avoid discussion and poke at me.  You want to discuss, let's discuss.  

Yes, I remember last spring you posed a question which would have required a long answer.  Yes, I informed that I was going to Israel (for work, actually) as a courtesy to let you know I was not, in fact, deliberately ignoring your question.  I did not take my computer with me and at the time had no idea what availability of internet access I would have nor how much free time I would have.  Yes, I did make a few posts from my phone while I was in Israel, including one, as I recall, responding to your question.  

I reiterate, I would be happy to answer your question, if you would refresh my memory.  It is disingenuous to continue to claim that I don't answer questions when I am here repeatedly offering to answer any questions you have.  

Meanwhile, you claimed that Israel started the war in 1948.  Defend your claim.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 1, 2018)

Shusha said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > You know, I would if it weren't so long that Shusha had to run for cover because any response would destroy her own belief!
> ...


All during the Mandate period the Zionists spoke of colonizing Palestine and creating a Jewish state. However, when Britain planned on leaving Palestine only 1/3 of the population were Jews and they only owned about 7% of the land. They had to drive out the Palestinians and steal their land to create a Jewish state.

The war was not a matter of defense. It was a matter of necessity. No war, no Jewish state.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 1, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,

"Population - The figures given for the distribution of the settled population in the two proposed States ... are approximated as follows:



* •  Source**:* *Division for Palestinian Rights (DPR)  •*




III. THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE​When the second session of the United Nations General Assembly convened in September 1947 it constituted itself as an Ad Hoc Committee to deal with the Palestine question while considering in its normal session the other items on its agenda.

*✪  The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem:  ✪*
*PART II*
*1947-1977*


 ​


P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The borders of the 1948 A/RES/181(II) Jewish State were arranged with no consideration of security; hence, the new state's frontiers were virtually indefensible.  

The territorial was distributed:

◈  Jewish State ≈ 5,500 square miles population 
≈  538,000 Jews and 
≈  397,000 Arabs.​◈  Arab State ≈ 4,500 square miles population of 
≈  804,000 Arabs 
≈  10,000 Jews.​
While it appears the Jews were allotted more total land, large portions were desert.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 2, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> "Population - The figures given for the distribution of the settled population in the two proposed States ... are approximated as follows:
> ...


Everything in my post is correct. Since Resolution 181 didn't happen your Arab state/Jewish state thing is irrelevant.


----------



## rylah (Dec 2, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ...



Wasn't 181 the first time an Arab state was mentioned?


----------



## rylah (Dec 2, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ...



What's also incorrect is Your assumption that all land not owned by Jews must be private land owned by Arabs. That is patently a false premise.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 2, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE:  The Balfour Declaration
> ...



The Jewish State thing did happen. As usual, you’re not paying attention.

This is the place in the thread where you cut and paste your usual excuses / conspiracy theories to explain the failure / incompetence on the part of the Arabs-Moslems to build a state.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 2, 2018)

RE:  The Balfour Declaration
⁜→  P F Tinmore,  et al,

Just because YOU think it is irrelevant does not mean it is.  The Controversies, Debates, and Consensus of the day were reflected in the outcome that came to be known as A/RES/181 (II).

The only reason it did not happen according to the plan is because the Arab League tried to enforce there will over the territory and jumped across their the international boundaries; and in an act of aggression and violation of their promise to the Charter to refrain from such action, they attempted to deny the Jewish People their attempt to establish the Jewish National Home (Israel).



P F Tinmore said:


> Everything in my post is correct. Since Resolution 181 didn't happen your Arab state/Jewish state thing is irrelevant.


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab League, every single one of them today, is much further behind along the line of Human Development than Israel, did nothing but afford them an opportunity to grab additional territory.  While Israel remained in one piece, actually bigger than the original plan, the territory that would have constituted an Arab State for the Arab Palestinians was absorbed by the occupations of Aggressor Arab Nations.  The Arabs are the cause of the unconstructed Arab State.  They declined and rejected every single offer to establish the self-governing institution.  THEN, using armed force, the Arabs scuttled the plan to create an Arab State.

The Arabs did it to themselves.  Who knows what would have developed if Israel did not have to defend itself in the 1948 War of Independence.

For the Arab Palestinians, the Arab-Israeli Conflict, is very much like Hollywood "quicksand."  It will pull on the Arab Palestinians until they disappear; destroying themselves.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 2, 2018)

rylah said:


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


Your assumption, not mine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 2, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> The only reason it did not happen according to the plan is because the Arab League tried to enforce there will over the territory and jumped across their the international boundaries; and in an act of aggression and violation of their promise to the Charter to refrain from such action, they attempted to deny the Jewish People their attempt to establish the Jewish National Home (Israel).


Of course that is Israeli bullshit.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 2, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> The Arabs did it to themselves. Who knows what would have developed if Israel did not have to defend itself in the 1948 War of Independence.


The Arab armies entered Palestine because it was under attack by the Zionists.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 2, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The Arabs did it to themselves. Who knows what would have developed if Israel did not have to defend itself in the 1948 War of Independence.
> ...



The combined Arab armies crossed the frontier in furtherance of the Arab stated goal to drive the Jews into the sea by machine gun fire.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 2, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The Arabs did it to themselves. Who knows what would have developed if Israel did not have to defend itself in the 1948 War of Independence.
> ...



"Under attack by Zionists" meaning, of course, the Jewish people establishing their national homeland in, you know, their homeland.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 2, 2018)

RE: The Balfour Declaration
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This type of propaganda is only an attempt to lay some kind of "self-defense" foundation and pull on the emotion of justification.



Shusha said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Anyone that looks at the San Remo agreement, and the follow-on Mandate, knows that the Allied Powers came to an agreement to put into effect ※→ the Balfour Declaration, adopting the idea of the establishment of a Jewish National Home.  The Allied Powers envisioned that through the development of self-governing institutions that would benefit the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and with all Jews who are willing to assist, a Jewish National Home could be established.

Palestine was NOT attacked by the Jews.  Not at all.  The Allied Powers set the British Administration to the task of facilitating Jewish immigration, in co-operation with the Jewish Agency.  The Jews were originally invited to build a Jewish National Home...

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 2, 2018)

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Balfour Declaration
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> This type of propaganda is only an attempt to lay some kind of "self-defense" foundation and pull on the emotion of justification.
> ...


OK, but the Mandate flopped. No independent state of any kind was established as it was charged to do. Then Resolution 181 flopped and did not partition Palestine.

The Zionists had nothing so they rolled their terrorist gangs across Palestine attacking and expelling Palestinian civilians. About half of the refugees were created before any Arab army entered Palestine so the refugees were not a result of the war. It was a planned ethnic cleansing.  Then Israel expropriated the land left behind by the refugees.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 2, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE: The Balfour Declaration
> ...



I'll repeat Rocco's words and say:  _This type of propaganda is only an attempt to lay some kind of "self-defense" foundation and pull on the emotion of justification.
_
The war -- that is the civil war between the territory's Jewish population and the territory's Arab population -- began long before May of 1948.  To pretend otherwise is sort of silly.  Thus your diatribe about a one-sided "expulsion" of Arabs by Jews under (cough cough) peaceful circumstances prior to 1948 is nothing but a deliberate attempt to lay some kind of self defense foundation and pull on the emotion of justification.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 2, 2018)

[/quote][/indent]RE: The Balfour Declaration
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



			
				Palestine Commission adjourns SINE DIE - Press release (17 May 1948) said:
			
		

> 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.*"





P F Tinmore said:


> OK, but the Mandate flopped. No independent state of any kind was established as it was charged to do. Then Resolution 181 flopped and did not partition Palestine.
> 
> The Zionists had nothing so they rolled their terrorist gangs across Palestine attacking and expelling Palestinian civilians. About half of the refugees were created before any Arab army entered Palestine so the refugees were not a result of the war. It was a planned ethnic cleansing.  Then Israel expropriated the land left behind by the refugees.


*(COMMENT)*

Yeah, Anyone can jumble these issues together in order to invoke confusion...

I think your allegations of "ethnic cleansing" is suspect and biased.  I certainly believe that some one somewhere address the option of "ethnic cleansing;" but I think it was a minority opinion.

Most movement was a matter of ridding the Rear Area of Arab Fifth Columnist.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 2, 2018)

[/indent]RE: The Balfour Declaration
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,



			
				Palestine Commission adjourns SINE DIE - Press release (17 May 1948) said:
			
		

> 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.*"





P F Tinmore said:


> OK, but the Mandate flopped. No independent state of any kind was established as it was charged to do. Then Resolution 181 flopped and did not partition Palestine.
> 
> The Zionists had nothing so they rolled their terrorist gangs across Palestine attacking and expelling Palestinian civilians. About half of the refugees were created before any Arab army entered Palestine so the refugees were not a result of the war. It was a planned ethnic cleansing.  Then Israel expropriated the land left behind by the refugees.


*(COMMENT)*

Yeah, Anyone can jumble these issues together in order to invoke confusion...

I think your allegations of "ethnic cleansing" is suspect and biased.  I certainly believe that some one somewhere address the option of "ethnic cleansing;" but I think it was a minority opinion.

Most movement was a matter of ridding the Rear Area of Arab Fifth Columnist.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Unarmed farmers posed what kind of threat?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Dec 3, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> [/indent]RE: The Balfour Declaration
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> 
> ...


Unarmed farmers posed what kind of threat?[/QUOTE]
Yes, let us ask :

Unarmed Jews in Gaza in 1920 posed what kind of threat?

Unarmed Jews in TranJordan posed what threat in 1925?

Unarmed Jews in Hebron in 1929 posed what threat?


And just to give you a break, what unarmed Arab farmers are you talking about during the Balfour Declaration?

Because we are talking about Balfour, right, or have you moved the goal post to 1948, already, as always?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 3, 2018)

Sixties Fan said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > [/indent]RE: The Balfour Declaration
> ...


Yes, let us ask :

Unarmed Jews in Gaza in 1920 posed what kind of threat?

Unarmed Jews in TranJordan posed what threat in 1925?

Unarmed Jews in Hebron in 1929 posed what threat?


And just to give you a break, what unarmed Arab farmers are you talking about during the Balfour Declaration?

Because we are talking about Balfour, right, or have you moved the goal post to 1948, already, as always?[/QUOTE]
The Jews were never "unarmed." They worked under the cover of the British military.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 3, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


The Jews were never "unarmed." They worked under the cover of the British military.[/QUOTE]


By the standards of your usual loopy conspiracy theories, this one is less entertaining.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 30, 2018)

*Part 1- "BALFOUR’S LEGACY: Confronting the Consequences"*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 30, 2018)

*Part 2- "BALFOUR’S LEGACY: Confronting the Consequences"*

**


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 30, 2018)

*Part 3- "BALFOUR’S LEGACY: Confronting the Consequences"*

**


----------



## Hollie (Dec 30, 2018)

P F Tinmore said:


> *Part 3- "BALFOUR’S LEGACY: Confronting the Consequences"*
> 
> **



Yes, the Balfour legacy is an uncomfortable truth for the Islamic Entity.

Israel was able to defend itself from the Islamic gee-had and defend itself in war of aggression waged by Arab states. In spite of the above, Israel transformed itself into a world-class economy.

The legacy of the Islamic Entity on the other hand is one of continuing failure.

That is not a legacy I would think you would want to support by chain-dumping YouTube videos.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 3, 2019)

Arab media are upset. Egypt's Youm7 said her statement "provokes Arabs."
Hanan Ashrawi on Saturday demanded not only that Britain apologize for the declaration and to immediately recognize a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders, but that Britain should compensate the Palestinians for their suffering.
The Democratic Reform Movement of Fatah echoed Ashrawi's words, adding that the world must "submit to the principle that there is no peace, security and stability in this region of the world until the restoration of our people's rights, the first of which is the right to independence and the building of its state and its capital Jerusalem." 
A handful of bored looking people make a half-hearted protest at the British embassy in Amman, Jordan.



An Egyptian site interviewed a few young people, none of whom had ever heard of the Balfour Declaration, even in university courses.

(full article online)

Arabs upset that Britain refuses to apologize for Balfour Declaration ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News


----------



## Sixties Fan (Dec 6, 2020)

[It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.  After thousands of people killed by the Arab Muslims, especially their own,  in order to take a tiny piece of land, not theirs,  which is not being run by Muslims.  Lie, cheat, cry, harm and kill....in the name of Allah....against those fi......  Jews (those descendants of Apes and Pigs.....as the Muslims put it.....written in the Koran....a "holy" book....or not.......Islam = submission......let us never forget what Islam actually means.   Thank you Christianity for creating Islam.

Submit Everyone....or there will be no peace ]


Britain has donated no less than £473,038,638.64 ($632,443,199) to various Palestinian causes in the last five years alone [UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office website], and will continue in 2021. In an ironic expression of gratitude, a group of Palestinians submitted a lawsuit to the Palestinian Authority court system against Britain for issuing the Balfour Declaration and for alleged “crimes” of British soldiers against the Palestinian people during the Mandate period.

While the lawsuit, which was submitted to a PA court, was initiated by ostensibly private individuals, its narrative entirely adopts the narrative of the PA: That the Balfour Declaration is the cause of Palestinian suffering:



> “The lawsuit, which has a political impact and a media aspect,* lays the responsibility on the government of Britain for the consequences of the Balfour Promise, which gave Palestine as a national homeland to the Jews and enabled the Zionist gangs to occupy Palestine, and the consequences that stem from its behavior that contradicts international rules, morals, and law.”*
> [Official PA daily _Al-Hayat Al-Jadida_, Oct. 23, 2020]


As absurd as this trial may be, the PA courts are not only entertaining the lawsuit, but are also hearing evidence:



> “A 100-year-old witness began to speak before the Nablus Trial Court about the cooperation between the Zionist gangs and the British Mandate army. He brought examples of the exchange of roles and transferring of camps full of weapons to the Zionist gangs in that period.”
> [Official PA daily _Al-Hayat Al-Jadida_, Nov. 18, 2020]


The attorney for the plaintiffs, Luay Abdo, explained that the goal of the suit is to persuade Britain to confess that the Balfour Declaration “destroyed the life of an entire Palestinian people and entity, whose place was taken by a racist colonialist entity.” He added:



> “The lawsuit is legally solid and meets all the requirements, and therefore there is a good chance that it will succeed in the local courts… and afterwards will become a Palestinian legal ruling, after which the matter will be brought before the international courts, and specifically in the British arena.”
> [Official PA daily _Al-Hayat Al-Jadida_, Nov. 18, 2020]


As Palestinian Media Watch has exposed, the PA constantly attempts to rewrite history and say the Balfour Declaration is responsible for Israel's establishment, and blames their current situation on Britain.  

Needless to say, this approach is far from being representative of reality.

(Full article online)









						Palestinians sue Britain - as thanks for over half a billion dollars in aid | PMW Analysis
					

Palestinians rewrite history and sue Great Britain demanding it confess that the Balfour Declaration “destroyed the life of an entire Palestinian people.”




					palwatch.org


----------



## Lee Edwin (Dec 16, 2020)

Humanity said:


> Sixties Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...



Free palestine? Fake Roman name for ancient Israel, later British name for the British Mandate which became modern Israel. Roman Empire is gone and Israel is free.

BTW, palestine map is based on a flag designed by the British: Not very authentic.


----------



## Lee Edwin (Dec 16, 2020)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > RE: The Balfour Declaration
> ...



Israel was “reconstituted“ under the British Mandate, the purpose of the Mandate: The term “reconstitute” is actually in the text of the Mandate, signifying international recognition of ancient Israel’s existence. Now, you know.


----------



## Lee Edwin (Dec 16, 2020)

Shusha said:


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



Arabs themselves were responsible for Arabs fleeing in the ‘48 War, by imploring Arabs to leave in order to facilitate defeat of the Jews. They wuz wrong.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Oct 29, 2021)

Of course, Said’s anti-colonialist narrative is conveniently selective. While focusing on Britain’s 1917 support for the creation of a Jewish National Home, it downplays later British proposals to establish an independent Arab Palestine, markedly in the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan that recommended the establishment of such a state on the majority of Mandatory Palestine; and again in the Palestine White Paper of 1939, when the British called for the creation of an Arab Palestine on all the territory of the Mandate (proposals rejected by the Palestinian leadership for not going far enough to meet its maximalist demands).

Yet not only do Said’s disciples choose to overlook British benevolence toward the Palestinians; they all but ignore that the Jews ended up being primary victims of Britain’s policies. For as the Nazis were beginning their march across Europe, “perfidious Albion” violated its commitments under the League of Nations’ mandate and locked the gates of the Jewish National Home to European Jews facing Hitler’s “Final Solution.”

In the ultimate expression of cynical realpolitik, Whitehall knew that the Jews had no alternative but to support Britain in the upcoming conflict with Nazi Germany, while the loyalty of the Arabs to the Allied cause was in question. Britain needed to ensure control of the Suez Canal, protect the Middle East oil fields, and maintain its support across the Moslem world (including the loyalty of millions of Muslims in the British Raj), and those British interests demanded the Arabs be appeased.

In _The Revolt_, Menachem Begin’s account of the Irgun’s struggle against the British Mandate, the man who went on to become Israel’s sixth prime minister places indirect responsibility for the Holocaust on the British. Begin argued that by closing Mandatory Palestine to the millions of Jews desperate to flee the Nazi inferno, Britain helped seal their fate.

During this horrific period in Jewish history, far from being the beneficiaries of British largesse, the Jews of Mandatory Palestine were forced to fight for their national freedom.

In the final years of the Mandate, the Jewish underground conducted an armed struggle against British rule, targeting the Mandatory regime and its British personnel. Most famously, Begin’s Irgun conducted a devastating attack in July 1946 on the Mandate Government Secretariat and British Armed Forces Headquarters located at Jerusalem’s King David Hotel.

When the armies of seven Arab states invaded the territory of Mandatory Palestine in 1948 to destroy the Jewish state at birth, those Arab forces were armed with British weapons, and in the case of Trans-Jordan’s Arab Legion, commanded by British officers. There was even a dogfight in the skies over Sinai between the RAF and the newly established Israel Air Force (the Israeli pilots were victorious).

In the early years following independence, Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, feared what he believed to be the very real prospect of British military action against the Jewish state on behalf of the Arabs.

Author Amos Oz captured the spirit of the time in his autobiographical _A Tale of Love and Darkness_. Emblematically, Oz described how as a boy growing up in Jerusalem he built a toy rocket in the back yard of his apartment block, threatening to launch the fictitious missile against London unless King George VI reversed Britain’s anti-Jewish stance.

Proponents of the Said thesis deride the Jewish struggle for statehood. For them, the State of Israel will forever be an illegitimate European implant, and the Balfour Declaration’s endorsement of a Jewish National Home camouflage for a nefarious anti-Arab imperial conspiracy. The truth is very different.

In the long history of the British Empire, there were many occurrences over which modern-day Brits are justifiably ashamed. The Balfour Declaration does not fall into that category.

Like the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 that sought to eliminate a great injustice, the Balfour Declaration expressed support for the legitimate national aspirations of a long-persecuted people. All Britons should be proud of that. That Britain later reneged on its commitments to the Jews is, of course, quite another matter.

(full article online)









						Balfour Declaration, Palestinian weaponization of post-colonial guilt
					

In the long history of the British Empire, there were many occurrences over which modern-day Brits are justifiably ashamed. The Balfour Declaration does not fall into that category.




					www.jpost.com


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2021)

As Palestinian Media Watch has shown, every year the PA and its institutions mark November 2nd with a comprehensive diatribe against the declaration. This year, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas issued a new “presidential decree” in which he ordered that the “national flag” be flown at half-mast on all the PA governmental buildings, including embassies and representative offices abroad. According to the official PA news agency WAFA, the aim of lowering the flag is to remind “the world in general and the United Kingdom in particular of the suffering of the Palestinian people and their rights to achieve independence, statehood and self-determination.” [Oct. 10, 2021] Last year, the PA courts held a trial against the UK government demanding that it be held accountable for the declaration and its consequences.

Unsurprisingly, the PA never mentions that prior to 1917, much of the Middle East and other regions were part of the Ottoman/Turkish Empire for 400 years. They never mention that an independent “State of Palestine” never existed. They similarly do not mention that the Balfour Declaration was not merely a British whim, but rather a decision adopted and ratified by the international community at the San Remo Conference in 1920. The PA also never mentions that the Declaration was also adopted by the League of Nations in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine. At that time, “Palestine” included both Israel (including Judea and Samaria) and Jordan.

While pretending to the international community that Israel only has to withdraw from the areas it captured from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War, and that this will be sufficient to achieve peace, the reality is that every day the PA further intensifies the anti-Israel propaganda and brainwashing of the Palestinian population. For the PA, only the cancellation of the Balfour Declaration and the undoing of its consequences – i.e. the destruction of Israel – will suffice.

To understand the central place of the Balfour Declaration in PA ideology read PMW’s op-ed: “Had there been no Balfour Declaration, the PA would have had to invent it.”

(full article online)









						No peace until Israel destroyed! - The PA on the 104th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration | PMW Analysis
					

Fatah: “The Balfour Promise – a promise from one who has no ownership to one who has no right. Lest we forget!!”




					palwatch.org


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2021)

Leaders from Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, the DFLP and the PLO wrote a letter to Queen Elizabeth II demanding that she "wash away the shame of the fateful Balfour Declaration."

Islamic Jihad leader Ahmed Al-Mudallal described the Balfour Declaration as a big sin that will continue to shame Britain as long as Israel exists.

The terror leader whose group is proud of murdering hundreds of Jews says that the whole world is experiencing "instability and insecurity" as a result of "the continuation of this occupation caused by the Balfour Declaration."

Member of the Central Committee of the murderous Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Iyad Awadallah, said that the declaration wa a "crime against humanity."

A leader of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist group, Mahmoud Khalaf,  said, "Britain, with this promise, has made a historical mistake, and it is time for it to atone for it, admit its guilt and apologize to the Palestinian people for giving the land of Palestine to the Jews to establish an alleged state on it." He added: "For 104 years we have been striving for the end of the occupation and the enjoyment of the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital." 

His knowledge of history is a little lacking.

A member of the Executive Committee of the PLO, Tayseer Khaled, said, "The British promise is fundamentally invalid" and called for launching the 'Palestinian Holocaust' museum project "in order to break the silence of the international community on the crimes committed by the British occupation on Palestine and its Zionist colonial tool."

I'm not sure if these terrorist leaders broke out in a chorus of "Kaybar, Khaybar al-Yahud" after expressing their concern for human rights and fairness.









						Terrorist organizations write letter to Queen Elizabeth to rescind the Balfour Declaration, because it is immoral
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2021)

Today is the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, where Great Britain announced its support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine.

As with every year, the Palestinians are marking the day with mourning. PA president Abbasinstructed all flags to be flown at half-mastevery November 2. Palestinians got the secretary general of the Arab League to issue his annual statement calling on Great Britain to "correct this historical mistake and assume its historical, legal and moral responsibility by offering an apology to the Palestinian people and recognizing the Palestinian state on the June 4, 1967 lines with its capital East Jerusalem."

They like to pretend that the Balfour Declaration is the source of their problems. 

But it was just a letter. It wasn't a legal obligation. 

What happened afterwards is arguably more important.

It was endorsed by the French and Italian governments, as well as the United States. It was incorporated into the San Remo Resolution in 1920. Finally, it was then incorporated into the Mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations.

That's when it became international law to support Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people.

Interestingly, the Arab opposition to the Mandate was not only against the concept of a Jewish homeland, but also  against the concept that Palestine was a political entity of its own rather than part of Syria. (Of course, they also insisted that Jewish immigration be stopped totally.) 

There were years of work by Zionists to turn Balfour from a vague statement of intent into international law. That is part of what gives Israel its legitimacy under international law today.

When the Palestinians say they want to reverse Balfour, they are saying they want to erase Israel. 

The Mandate's incorporation of Balfour is also the source of Israel's legal claims to the entire area under the British mandate. Nothing that happened since then has superseded the Jewish national claim to Judea and Samaria.  









						The Balfour Declaration didn't legally mean much until it was supported by the international community
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2021)

The 315-page scholarly, yet accessible, work unpacks the different twists and turns of Jewish and world history in the 18th and 19th centuries as they led — individually and jointly — to the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, in which a major world power recognized for the first time the right of the Jewish people to a homeland in Palestine.






Arthur Balfour, and the Balfour Declaration. (Wikipedia)
In a recent interview with The Times of Israel from Toronto, his home since 1970, Goldstein lamented the lack of knowledge about the Balfour Declaration, not only among Israel’s younger generation but also among academics.

“And those who do write about the Balfour Declaration tend to do so only in light of the events that came after it, in terms of World War II and also the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Goldstein said.

Goldstein meticulously demonstrates how the national interests of the countries involved in World War I concurred, at least at the time, with the aspirations of the strengthening Zionist movement.

Throughout the book, Goldstein likens the process to precision clockwork.

“Each element, regardless of shape or size, played an essential part in the functioning of the whole, while the absence of one of them would have altered the outcome of the entire process,” he writes in the book’s introduction.

The author devotes chapters to each of the various pieces and delves into the motivations — and secret machinations — of the British Empire as it vied for power in the Middle East with other European powers and the Ottomans.

“The Jews were crushed between the two tectonic forces of the British Empire’s geopolitical interests and the Islamic world,” he said.

In his book, Goldstein, also shows how the United States’ entry into WWI in April 1917 turned the tide for the Allies and had a major positive impact on the diplomatic process eventually leading to the Balfour Declaratio

(full article online)









						Holocaust survivor publishes PhD dissertation on ‘serendipity’ of Balfour
					

Paul Goldstein, whose studies were interrupted in WWII, became one of the oldest doctoral recipients in the world when he graduated last year from Israel's Ariel University




					www.timesofisrael.com


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2021)

Had Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolow and other Zionist leaders pressing the matter at the time adopted A SIMILAR line of thinking, it is likely THE Balfour Declaration would never have emerged. The Balfour Declaration shows just how instrumental evangelical support has been for the Zionist cause.

And, secondly, Jewish voices against Zionism and Israel are not something new or invented by Jewish Voices for Peace, IfNotNow or the two Jewish Google employees behind a recent effort to get Google and Amazon to back out of a $1.2 billion contract with Israel.

The loudest voice raised against The Balfour Declaration when it circulated among Lloyd George’s cabinet in July 1917 came from a Jew, Edwin Montagu, an ardent anti-Zionist who was the Secretary of State for India.

Montagu’s vehement opposition led the draft to be changed from His Majesty’s government viewing with favor the establishment of Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people and calling for free Jewish immigration there, to the final text where the government viewed favorably the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, with no mention of immigration.

Thanks to the intervention of Montagu, a Jew, the declaration was toned down and rendered much more equivocal.

The Balfour Declaration may have been issued 104 years ago, but – in light of the debate that swirls around Israel today – the dynamics that accompanied its publication prove the axiom that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

(full article online)









						Balfour Day: Dynamics that accompanied famous declaration still at play
					

In 1917, the Balfour Declaration became the seminal document that led eventually to the establishment of the State of Israel.




					www.jpost.com


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 2, 2021)




----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 4, 2021)

As Palestinian Media Watch has shown, every year the PA and its institutions mark November 2nd with a comprehensive diatribe against the Balfour Declaration.

This year, PA Chairman and President Mahmoud Abbas issued a new “presidential decree,” ordering that the “national flag” be flown at half-mast on all the PA governmental buildings, including embassies and representative offices abroad.

According to the official PA news agency Wafa, the aim of lowering the flag is to remind “the world in general and the United Kingdom in particular of the suffering of the Palestinian people and their rights to achieve independence, statehood and self-determination.” Last year, the PA courts held a trial against the UK governmentdemanding that it be held accountable for the declaration and its consequences.

Unsurprisingly, the PA never mentions that prior to 1917, much of the Middle East and other regions were part of the Ottoman/Turkish Empire for 400 years. They never mention that an independent “State of Palestine” never existed. They similarly do not mention that the Balfour Declaration was not merely a British whim, but rather a decision adopted and ratified by the international community at the San Remo Conference in 1920.

The PA also never mentions that the Balfour Declaration was then adopted by the League of Nations in the 1922 Mandate for Palestine. At that time, “Palestine” included both Israel (including Judea and Samaria) and Jordan.

While pretending that Israel only has to withdraw to the 1967 borders to achieve peace, the reality is that every day, the PA further intensifies the anti-Israel propaganda and brainwashing of the Palestinian population. For the PA, only the cancellation of the Balfour Declaration and the undoing of its consequences — i.e. destroying Israel — will suffice.

To understand the central place of the Balfour Declaration in PA ideology read this article by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) staff.

(full article online)









						Palestinians Admit: Only Destroying Israel Will Bring Peace
					

A group of Palestinians in Bethlehem mark the centenary of the Balfour Declaration by burning Israeli flags alongside an effigy …




					www.algemeiner.com


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

Sixties Fan said:


>



Lies.
The Balfour Declaration did NOT address a Jewish state at all.
It only professed a sympathy for a Jewish homeland within an Arab Palestine state.

That is easy to prove.
Just read the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922.





__





						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.
...}


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

{...
The Churchill White Paper of June 3, 1922, officially the Palestine - Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organization, was drafted at the request of Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for the Colonies, partly in response to the 1921 Jaffa Riots. While maintaining Britain’s commitment to the Balfour Declaration and its promise of a Jewish national home in Palestine, the paper emphasized that the establishment of a national home would not impose a Jewish nationality on the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. To reduce tensions between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine, the paper called for a limitation of Jewish immigration to the economic capacity of the country to absorb new arrivals. This limitation was considered a great setback to many in the Zionist movement, though it acknowledged that the Jews should be able to increase their numbers by immigration as of right and not on sufferance.
...}




__





						Churchill White Paper (1922)
					

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


----------



## rylah (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Lies.
> The Balfour Declaration did NOT address a Jewish state at all.
> It only professed a sympathy for a Jewish homeland within an Arab Palestine state.
> 
> ...



This is a common argument -  and as well easily disproven,
by the text in which the Balfour Declaration was finalized into international law.

What made it international law is not Britain's commitment to any of their interpretations,
but the The League of Nations specifically signing into law the *re-constitution* of the Jewish nation.


----------



## rylah (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> {...
> The Churchill White Paper of June 3, 1922, officially the Palestine - Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organization, was drafted at the request of Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for the Colonies, partly in response to the 1921 Jaffa Riots. While maintaining Britain’s commitment to the Balfour Declaration and its promise of a Jewish national home in Palestine, the paper emphasized that the establishment of a national home would not impose a Jewish nationality on the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. To reduce tensions between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine, the paper called for a limitation of Jewish immigration to the economic capacity of the country to absorb new arrivals. This limitation was considered a great setback to many in the Zionist movement, though it acknowledged that the Jews should be able to increase their numbers by immigration as of right and not on sufferance.
> ...}
> 
> ...



Who said the White Paper is legal? *Read **article 27*.
Churchill had no authority to amend terms set by the League of Nations.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

rylah said:


> This is a common argument -  and as well easily disproven,
> by the text in which the Balfour Declaration was finalized into international law.
> 
> What made it international law is not Britain's commitment to any of their interpretations,
> but the The League of Nations specifically signing into law the *re-constitution* of the Jewish nation.



wrong.
The Balfour Declaration was never written into international law and never could be.
International law over Palestine was established by the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, and no one has the authority to change that.
The League of Nations too ZERO action over Palestine, and was never accepted  by Congress even.
The only relevant legal documents were from the negotiations by the WWI participants, 
And Zionists never played any role in WWI or any peace negotiations.
So they have zero legal authority over Palestine.

The only thing close to legal authority the Zionists got over Palestine was from the UN, under Truman, after WWII was over.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

rylah said:


> Who said the White Paper is legal? *Read **article 27*.
> Churchill had no authority to amend terms set by the League of Nations.



Lies.
The League of Nations never said a word about Palestine, and the League of Nations was itself never legal.
Churchill ever tried to amend any terms of anything, but merely cleared up misunderstandings as to what the Balfour Declaration actually meant.
And all it meant was some facilitated immigration.
It did not imply any sovereignty at all, in any way.

The British Mandate for Palestine was for England to help prepare the Palestinian Arab for independence.


----------



## rylah (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> wrong.
> The Balfour Declaration was never written into international law and never could be.
> International law over Palestine was established by the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, and no one has the authority to change that.
> The League of Nations too ZERO action over Palestine, and was never accepted  by Congress even.
> ...


Have you even read it?

The San Remo as well orders the *re-constitution* of the Jewish nation,
explicitly referring to the approval of the declaration by The League of Nations -





__





						San Remo Convention - World War I Document Archive
					






					wwi.lib.byu.edu


----------



## rylah (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Lies.
> The League of Nations never said a word about Palestine, and the League of Nations was itself never legal.
> Churchill ever tried to amend any terms of anything, but merely cleared up misunderstandings as to what the Balfour Declaration actually meant.
> And all it meant was some facilitated immigration.
> ...


Can you show any international law or binding document,
even remotely mentioning Arab independence or national rights?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

rylah said:


> Have you even read it?
> 
> The San Remo as well orders the *re-constitution* of the Jewish nation,
> explicitly referring to the approval of the declaration by The League of Nations -
> ...



Wrong.
A "Jewish homeland" refers to and has always referred to only facilitated immigration, and NEVER suggest any Jewish sovereignty or statehood.

{...
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 favour 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 connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;
...}

It clearly says that the current majority is Moslem Arab and that this Moslem Arab majority was to remain in charge.
There has NEVER been a Jewish majority in Palestine or anywhere in the Levant, at any time.
Even now, there are 6 million Jews in Palestine/Israel, but 12 million Arabs in Palestine/Israel.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

rylah said:


> Arab independence?? Where is that mentioned?
> Show me any international law or binding document.



Everywhere.
The population of Palestine in 1920 was less than 5% Jewish.
So obviously the vast majority of the population was Moslem Arab, and that is who they are always referring to.

{...
it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine
...}
The civil rights of the Moslem Arab majority obviously means it was then to be a Moslem Arab state in majority.

The whole point of the treaties were to reward the Moslem Arabs for helping to defeat the Ottoman Empire.
Jews played no part in defeating the Ottoman Empire.


----------



## rylah (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> A "Jewish homeland" refers to and has always referred to only facilitated immigration, and NEVER suggest any Jewish sovereignty or statehood.
> 
> {...
> ...


Simple truth, neither you nor Britain get to define the Jewish Homeland.
And how does one *re-constitute* a nation without sovereignty?

Notice affront -  I will likely apply your argument to Arabs.


----------



## rylah (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Everywhere.
> The population of Palestine in 1920 was less than 5% Jewish.
> So obviously the vast majority of the population was Moslem Arab, and that is who they are always referring to.
> 
> ...



I don't see a single reference to that Arab supremacist gibberish,
and yet you say_ "it's everywhere"_...is that all you can big mouth?

Can't find any international law mentioning
Arab national rights or independence?

That's your clue.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 7, 2021)

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC:  Legal Authority
⁜→ Rigby5, _et al_,

This are another series of problems with the pro-Arab Palestinians.



Rigby5 said:


> wrong.
> The Balfour Declaration was never written into international law and never could be.
> International law over Palestine was established by the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, and no one has the authority to change that.
> The League of Nations too ZERO action over Palestine, and was never accepted  by Congress even.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*
.
Actually, there does not have to be any laws on the books pertaining to these anti-Israeli claims.


			
				Section I • Territorial Clauses → Article 16 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.​*SOURCE*:  *Treaty of Lausanne*​




The Arab Palestinians were not a party to, or a promisee, in the Balfour (1917), Armistice (1918), the  San Remo Decisions (1920), the Treaty of Sevres (1920), the Palestine Order in Council (1922), the Mandate for Palestine (1922), or the Treaty of Lausanne (1923).  All these items are agreements with the parties to the agreements being the Allied Powers, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, or between the Allied Powers.  The Arab Palestinians were part of the enemy inhabitants place under the control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) between the Surrender and Armistice at Madros → and the creation of the Civil Administration immediately after the San Remo Conference (1920).

The only thing that you were close to getting right was that the Israelis did NOT get relevant legal documents were from the negotiations by the WWI participants or any binding agreements or promises.   The Allied Powers decided amongst themselves what actions should be taken.

And the creations of the State of Israel (1948) was by the  coordinated action of the Jewish Agency in concert with the National Council for the Jewish State which decided to exercise their Right to Self-Determination and applied for recognition through the UN Palestine Commission.  But let there be no mistake.  The State of Israel was an act of Self-Determination.  It was not given them.  It was a lawful acquisition without objection from the UN.

No amount of criticism of the Allied Powers, the Mandate factors, the Treaties or the associated conventions can rescind the Right of Self-Determination.  The State of Israel is THE State of Israel. and the people of Israel make their own decisions.  If the Arab Palestinians want to change the current outcome, they need to operate under the "*Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States"* - and the *"Settlement by Peaceful Means of Disputes between States"*; history not withstanding.   







_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

rylah said:


> Simple truth, neither you nor Britain get to define the Jewish Homeland.
> And how does one *re-constitute* a nation without sovereignty?
> 
> Notice affront -  I will likely apply your argument to Arabs.



Wrong.
A homeland has NEVER implied sovereignty.
Like the tribal homelands the racists white Afrikaners created in South Africa.
Never has "homeland" ever implied sovereignty.
No document ever mentions a Jewish "nation".
All anyone references is a Jewish "homeland".

{...
The British government, including Churchill, made it clear that the Declaration did not intend for the whole of Palestine to be converted into a Jewish National Home, "but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine."[xxii][xxiii] Emir Faisal, King of Syria and Iraq, made a formal written agreement with Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, which was drafted by T.E. Lawrence, whereby they would try to establish a peaceful relationship between Arabs and Jews in Palestine.
...}

Not a single document ever mentions a Jewish state or nation.
That is because that would be illegal, and none was ever intended or supported by anyone but Zionists and Truman.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

rylah said:


> I don't see a single reference to that Arab supremacist gibberish,
> and yet you say_ "it's everywhere"_...is that all you can big mouth?
> 
> Can't find any international law mentioning
> ...



I already gave you a reference, the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922.
Since the population of Palestine was less than 5% Jewish at the time of the British Mandate for Palestine, and that it was to repay the Arabs for defeating the Ottoman Empire, there was no reason to assume the mandate was for anyone but the Moslem Arabs.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 7, 2021)

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC: Legal Authority
⁜→ Rigby5, _et al_,

Not that it make any difference, your argument is still faulty.



Rigby5 said:


> Not a single document ever mentions a Jewish state or nation.
> That is because that would be illegal, and none was ever intended or supported by anyone but Zionists and Truman.


*(RECOMMENDED CORRECTION)*

*A/RES/181(II)   Question of Palestine   29 November 1947*

*PART II
Boundaries*
B.  The Jewish State​The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

*( Ω )*

This (A/RES/181 II) is a non-binding agreement between the Membership; a recommendation adopted by the UN.  However, it is not what the Israelis used as an authority (_it Was merely a guide_).  (*See Posting #696*)






_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## rylah (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> A homeland has NEVER implied sovereignty.
> Like the tribal homelands the racists white Afrikaners created in South Africa.
> Never has "homeland" ever implied sovereignty.
> ...



A national reconstitution does.
Every binding document you reference confirms that,
and even Churchill's very attempt to reject it in the illegal White Paper.

In the meantime, still no quote mentioning anything about "Arab national rights"?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Balfour Declaration
> SUBTOPIC: Legal Authority
> ⁜→ Rigby5, _et al_,
> 
> ...



That is the 1947 UN action which illegally created the Jewish state of Israel.
We were discussing the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres, which created the British Mandate for Palestine, which repudiated any Jewish state or national sovereignty.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

rylah said:


> A national reconstitution specifically does..
> Of the binding documents your reference, all mention that.
> 
> In the meantime I don't see your quote mentioning anything about "Arab national rights".



WRONG!

Here is the Balfour Declaration, and it does NOT mention anything about a reconstituted nation at all.
In fact, not one single document ever talks about a Jewish nation or state until 1947.

{...
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,



> I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet
> 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.
> I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.


Yours,

Arthur James Balfour
...}

A national home NOT a Jewish nation.


----------



## rylah (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I already gave you a reference, the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922.
> Since the population of Palestine was less than 5% Jewish at the time of the British Mandate for Palestine, and that it was to repay the Arabs for defeating the Ottoman Empire, there was no reason to assume the mandate was for anyone but the Moslem Arabs.


Jews could be even less than that, what matters is international law.
While you cannot explain whether the White paper is even legal...
and neither of what you say is mentioned anywhere.

So what does that mean beside a big mouth?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

rylah said:


> But you cannot explain whether the White paper is even legal...
> and neither of what you say is mentioned anywhere.
> 
> So what does that give you beside a big mouth?



Wrong.
The Churchill Whitepaper of 1922, was the official British government release.
It is not only legal, but the law.

{...
The *Churchill White Paper* of 3 June 1922 (sometimes referred to as "British Policy in Palestine") was drafted at the request of Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, partly in response to the 1921 Jaffa Riots. The official name of the document was *Palestine: Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organisation*. The white paper was made up of nine documents and "Churchill's memorandum" was an enclosure to document number 5.[1] While maintaining Britain's commitment to the Balfour Declaration and its promise of a Jewish national home in Palestine, the paper emphasized that the establishment of a national home would not impose a Jewish nationality on the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. To reduce tensions between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine the paper called for a limitation of Jewish immigration to the economic capacity of the country to absorb new arrivals. This limitation was considered a great setback to many in the Zionist movement, though it acknowledged that the Jews should be able to increase their numbers through immigration rather than sufferance.
...
On 23 October 1918 following the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration was established over Levantine provinces of the former Ottoman Empire. Earlier, on 1 October 1918, General Allenby had been authorized to permit the hoisting of the Arab flag at Damascus.[2] An Arab government was announced on 5 October 1918 and gained _de facto_ independence after the withdrawal of the British forces on 26 November 1919.
...
 As one author put it, quoting a 6 June 1920 report to the Foreign Office, "..what struck me most of all was that nobody seemed to know what the Zionist policy of His Majesty’s Government meant."[24] Churchill quoted Samuel in the first full parliamentary debate of 14 June 1921 on Palestine[25] and wherein he defended the policy and the mandates arguing that it had all been agreed prior, it was important for Britain to keep its word and that provided immigration were properly regulated then that would benefit the economy.[26]

It was Herbert Samuel who insisted, on returning to London in May, on a "definitive" interpretation of the Declaration. Although supporting the principle, the policy restricted the interpretation of a "national home," geographically excluding the territory east of the Jordan River; politically, by defining it in terms of "development of the existing community"; and numerically, limiting future immigration to "the economic capacity of the country".[27]

The "British Policy in Palestine" (enclosure in document #5 of the white paper) was accepted by the Zionist Organization (document #7 of the white paper) and rejected by the Palestinians (document #6 of the white paper)[28] Shortly thereafter, the House of Lords rejected a Palestine Mandate that incorporated the Balfour Declaration by 60 votes to 25.[29][30] The vote was subsequently overruled by a vote of 292 to 35 in the House of Commons.[29]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_White_Paper#cite_note-33_

The white paper, formalized as a Palestine Order in Council in August,[33] reaffirmed the British commitment to a national home, promised that Palestine would not become a Jewish State and that Arabs would not be subordinated to Jews. Fieldhouse further says that the white paper "interpreted and subtly modified the harshness of the mandate." It pointed out that the Balfour Declaration did "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" and affirming the right to Jewish immigration but subject to the concept of "economic absorptive capacity".[34]
...}








						Churchill White Paper - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




What I said was mentioned everywhere.
Which is that the British were sympathetic to the creation of a national Jewish homeland inside of an Arab Palestine._


----------



## rylah (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> WRONG!
> 
> Here is the Balfour Declaration, and it does NOT mention anything about a reconstituted nation at all.
> In fact, not one single document ever talks about a Jewish nation or state until 1947.
> ...





Rigby5 said:


> .A national home NOT a Jewish nation.



Reading 101 

Who's *national* home?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

As far as legality, there is zero basis for a Jewish state.
In 1920, the population of Palestine was less than 5% Jewish, it was the Arab Palestinians who had just fought and beat the Ottoman Empire, and the British had no authority to promise Jews anything, since they did not in any way own Palestine.


----------



## rylah (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The Churchill Whitepaper of 1922, was the official British government release.
> It is not only legal, but the law.
> 
> ...





Rigby5 said:


> The Churchill Whitepaper of 1922, was the official British government release.
> It is not only legal, but the law.



Only that doesn't make it a law,
let alone international.

Try again.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

rylah said:


> Reading 101
> 
> Who's *national* home?



A "national home" means a home land that is inside of one nation, and not spread out over many nations.
In no way had a national home ever means sovereignty.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

rylah said:


> Only that doesn't make it a law,
> let alone international.
> 
> Try again.



Wrong again.
Sir Winston Churchill was not giving his personal opinion, but instead this was the official government ruling he was having drafted.
It was the official interpretation of law.

{...  was drafted at the request of Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, ...}

This was the government release by the bureaucrat in charge.
That IS law.

What makes it international was that the British had been given authority over Palestine, and the French were to administer over Syria,
That is where the Treaties I listed come in.
And they all only mention a homeland for Jews inside of a sovereign Arab Palestine.
It can be no other way, as by then the democratic principle of majority rule were internationally recognized and over 95% of the population of Palestine were Moslem Arabs.


----------



## rylah (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> A "national home" means a home land that is inside of one nation, and not spread out over many nations.
> In no way had a national home ever means sovereignty.



Yet that's how the declaration was finalized into law.
How do you *re-constitute* a nation?


----------



## rylah (Nov 7, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong again.
> Sir Winston Churchill was not giving his personal opinion, but instead this was the official government ruling he was having drafted.
> It was the official interpretation of law.
> 
> ...



But what legal standing such a ruling have
when it contradicts international law?

Exactly nada, as all the rest of your
Arab supremacist gibberish.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

rylah said:


> Yet that's how the declaration was finalized into law.
> How do you *re-constitute* a nation?



No one ever agreed to or wanted to "re-constitute a nation".
First of all, Jews never lived in one nation, but there was Judea, Samaria, and Israel.
But those disappeared around 650 BC, and never to be seen again.
And you can not over rule the current natives, who are Arab Molsems.
That is the whole basis for any government these days, a democratic republic based on inherent native rights.
To attempt to "re-constitute" some mythical or historic country would be inherently illegal and immoral because it would violate the current rights of the current population, who obviously have priority.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 7, 2021)

rylah said:


> But what legal standing such a ruling have
> when it contradicts international law?
> 
> Exactly nada, as all the rest of your
> Arab supremacist gibberish.



Wrong.
International law favors the native Palestinians.
There is no international law even remotely justifying the creation of Israel.

England had no authority to create a Jewish nation, even if they wanted to.
It would violate international laws.
So the Churchill Whitepaper just reiterated international law, which was that the native Palestinian Arabs had an inherent right to self rule.
Recent illegal immigrant Jews did not.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2021)

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Balfour Declaration
> SUBTOPIC: Legal Authority
> ⁜→ Rigby5, _et al_,
> 
> ...


Ahhh, the resolution that was never implemented.

But Israel mentioned it in its Declaration of Independence to pretend to have some legitimacy.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> International law favors the native Palestinians.
> There is no international law even remotely justifying the creation of Israel.
> 
> ...


Indeed, the white paper did not change anything, It merely clarified.

The "national home" was for Jews who immigrated to Palestine to obtain Palestinian citizenship along with the native Palestinians.


----------



## rylah (Nov 8, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No one ever agreed to or wanted to "re-constitute a nation".



Then how was San Remo signed into law,
not by international agreement?



Rigby5 said:


> First of all, Jews never lived in one nation, but there was Judea, Samaria, and Israel.



If you want to go that way,
Arabs don't live in one nation - then what?



Rigby5 said:


> But those disappeared around 650 BC, and never to be seen again.



Jews disappeared by having a continuous presence in the land for more that 3500 years,
only to be confirmed their rights in international law - and never to be seen again?

Then probably your allah is not that akhbar after all...



Rigby5 said:


> And you can not over rule the current natives, who are Arab Molsems.
> That is the whole basis for any government these days, a democratic republic based on inherent native rights.
> To attempt to "re-constitute" some mythical or historic country would be inherently illegal and immoral because it would violate the current rights of the current population, who obviously have priority.



If democracy is based on inherent native rights,
then Arab Moslems have no title to Palestine and Africa.


----------



## rylah (Nov 8, 2021)

P F Tinmore said:


> Ahhh, the resolution that was never implemented.
> 
> But Israel mentioned it in its Declaration of Independence to pretend to have some legitimacy.



What was mentioned is reaffirmation of Jewish national rights,
and the legitimacy of international law.

Of course Arab supremacists
can't grasp the concept.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 8, 2021)

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC: Legal Authority
⁜→ Rigby5, _et al_,

There has been much said about the 1922 Churchill White Paper.  But as in any government throughout history, there are various political positions and interpretations on any subject under discussion.  This is no less true with the British Government.  First one regime is in power with their position in strength, then later another regime comes into power and promotes the view they find most advantageous.


			
				[/FONT]The Political History of Palestine under British Administration[FONT=arial]][/FONT]
[ATTACH type="full said:
			
		

> 561682[/ATTACH]
> *SOURCE*:  A/AC.14/8. 2 October 1947



I think a very telling passagre here is:  

"If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill (then Colonial Secretary) Has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British government to the Jewish people."



Rigby5 said:


> I already gave you a reference, the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922.
> Since the population of Palestine was less than 5% Jewish at the time of the British Mandate for Palestine, and that it was to repay the Arabs for defeating the Ottoman Empire, there was no reason to assume the mandate was for anyone but the Moslem Arabs.


*(COMMENT)*
.
Attempting to look backwards into the distant past, by conflicting political views, over any significant period in which very controversial decisions and policies were made → we are bound to find multiple opinions, not all (necessarily) in agreement with all the other views.

You cannot engage in pedantic and dogmatic fault-finding with how governments, of that era a century ago, implemented their policies or wrote policy without appreciating the banter between political entities.

This is not a football game in which you can halt the game, call up the instant replay, and roll back the clock or replay the down.  World opinion cannot simply declare the most successful government in the region "illegal" and replace it with the most corrupt of the regional governments.  And to quibble over the meaning of a very few politically worded phrases of yesteryear, and to try and redefine those key passages of modern definitions or new laws and covenants is nothing more than to totally disregard the political pressures of the time.  You simply cannot apply 21st Century logic to issue faced in the 20th Century.

You have to address the situation as it exists today.  You have to look forward in time and develop solutions that will stand the test of time.  And you have to introduce morals, values, and principles that with not ultimately result in the outbreak of hostilities in the region.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2021)

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Balfour Declaration
> SUBTOPIC: Legal Authority
> ⁜→ Rigby5, _et al_,
> 
> ...


The 1939 White Paper more or less reiterated the paper of 1922.



> The White Paper of 1939 introduced three measures: *immigration quotas for Jews arriving in Palestine*, restrictions on settlement and land sales to Jews, and constitutional measures that would lead to a single state under Arab majority rule, with provisions to protect the rights of the Jewish minority.



If Britain was to create a Jewish state, they had three decades to do it. Why didn't they get it done? They left the place in shambles.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2021)

P F Tinmore said:


> The 1939 White Paper more or less reiterated the paper of 1922.
> 
> 
> 
> If Britain was to create a Jewish state, they had three decades to do it. Why didn't they get it done? They left the place in shambles.


The British left nothing in shambles. You're looking for excuses why the Arabs-Moslems could not achieve the successes at building a working civil government and a world-class economy as the Israelis did.

You want excuses for your own failures.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2021)

Hollie said:


> The British left nothing in shambles. You're looking for excuses why the Arabs-Moslems could not achieve the successes at building a working civil government and a world-class economy as the Israelis did.
> 
> You want excuses for your own failures.


Palestine was already a functioning country (class A mandate) with local governments, international trade, etc..  The only things needed were some national institutions. The Mandate's job was to help them do that. Britain could have been in and out of there in 10 years.

Instead they spent 30 years fucking the place up.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2021)

RoccoR said:


> and Mr. Churchill (then* Colonial Secretary)*


Indeed!


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 8, 2021)

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC: Intent
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,

From a particular perspective, the intent that you subscribe to is one in which many considered the true position.  But the Jewish Community did not entirely see it that way.



P F Tinmore said:


> The 1939 White Paper more or less reiterated the paper of 1922.


*(COMMENT)*
.
While it might be accurate to say that the British position in 1939 and the follow-on review by the Royal Commission was to sum up and say:

*( ∑ )* The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share in government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.​ 
And while that looked good on paper as an order political concept and solution, neither of the two communities (_Arab and Jewish_) in Palestine were forming an ever-widening gap on any agreement and the individual position was considered by the British Government to be "irreconcilable."
.


P F Tinmore said:


> If Britain was to create a Jewish state, they had three decades to do it. Why didn't they get it done? They left the place in shambles.


*(COMMENT)*
.
Many, in all three political camps, being the British Government, the Arab Higher Committee, and the Jewish Agency, forecasted as much as an expected outcome (_the irreconcilable differences_) almost from the beginning.  And the British did not want to impose a solution that would, in the long run, place one of the two sides as the dominant population.  Having reached the last point of impasse, the "conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgment of the United Nations (UN)."

The UN favored King Solomon's solution to cut the baby in half; the partition plan.  But even that has proven to be less than successful, in that there was the Arab League intervention.

If there was a shambles left in the wake of the British termination, it was a shamble that was ignited by the differences between the Jewish and Arab contingents.

At the opening of Hostilities initiated by the invasion by Arab League forces, neither of the two communities (_Arab and Jewish_) were willing to bend the knee to the other for fear that the superior of the two would expel the other (_which was a real possibility_). 

And it must be remembered that at the conclusion of WWII, the British government was no longer in a financial position to indefinitely sustain a viable presence in the territory.  
.





_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2021)

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was already a functioning country (class A mandate) with local governments, international trade, etc..  The only things needed were some national institutions. The Mandate's job was to help them do that. Britain could have been in and out of there in 10 years.
> 
> Instead they spent 30 years fucking the place up.



Inventing a version of history that placates an emotional requirement to present a fictitious "country of Pal'istan" is delusional. There was no "country of Pal'istan". 

As expected, you could offer nothing to explain the failure of the Arabs-Moslems posing as "Pal'istanians" to form a working government and at least pose as a functioning society.

Still nothing to support your claim about the Treaty of Lausanne inventing the "country of Pal'istan" or those invented "new states"?

Indeed.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2021)

RoccoR said:


> If there was a shambles left in the wake of the British termination, it was a shamble that was ignited by the differences between the Jewish and Arab contingents.


Indeed, the Palestinians rejected the Zionist colonial project.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 8, 2021)

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC: Intent
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,



RoccoR said:


> If there was a shambles left in the wake of the British termination, it was a shamble that was ignited by the differences between the Jewish and Arab contingents.





P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, the Palestinians rejected the Zionist colonial project.


*(COMMENT)*
.
Yeh, you play that "colonial Project" theme quite frequently.

But you do know that your statement is a boldfaced attempt at a deliberate deception of the facts.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2021)

RoccoR said:


> The UN favored King Solomon's solution to cut the baby in half; the partition plan. But even that has proven to be less than successful, in that there was the Arab League intervention.


The UN had no authority to divide Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2021)

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Balfour Declaration
> SUBTOPIC: Intent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> ...


Zionism was/is a settler colonial project. They are still building more settlements/colonies as we speak,


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 8, 2021)

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC: Intent
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,



P F Tinmore said:


> Zionism was/is a settler colonial project. They are still building more settlements/colonies as we speak,


*(COMMENT)*
.
The Settlements are being built in Area "C" under the agreement.  The Palestinians agreed to Article IV of Annex III (Full Civil and Security Juristidcation).

The Arab Palestinians have not taken the issue up at either the Dispute Resolutions Table or the Permanent Status of Negotiations.  So it looks to me that the Arab Palestinians are allowing the Settlements absent an objection. 
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 8, 2021)

RoccoR said:


> RE: The Balfour Declaration
> SUBTOPIC: Intent
> ⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,
> 
> ...


You really do not understand this project. It is much older than Oslo.


----------



## rylah (Nov 8, 2021)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, the Palestinians rejected the Zionist colonial project.



Actually they initiated Zionism,
and voted in the first Israeli elections.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 8, 2021)

P F Tinmore said:


> The UN had no authority to divide Palestine.


The loosely defined geographic area called Palestine was never going  to be your imagined islamic mini-caliphate. Ultimately, the UN vte to divide any land area was superceded on May 14, 1948. What an affront it must be to your invented version of history to confront reality.


----------



## rylah (Nov 8, 2021)

P F Tinmore said:


> Zionism was/is a settler colonial project. They are still building more settlements/colonies as we speak,



Actually it's the most successful
and oldest liberation movement in history.

More settlements is great, the Israeli population is rapidly growing, the East Bank mostly undeveloped.
If you think there should be a list of places Jews are not allowed to build - provide it for review.

Look around the Levant - the land knows her true children,
and won't sustain anyone without their presence.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Jul 24, 2022)

Today, July 24, 2022, marks 100 years since the League of Nations adopted the “Mandate for Palestine.” The *sole purpose* of the mandate was to empower Great Britain to create a Jewish State in the *entire area* from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, from Lebanon in the north to the Red Sea in the south.  

As the preamble of the Mandate clearly stated: 

"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;” [emphasis added] 

While referring to contemporary decisions that had been made by the Allied Powers during and after World War I, the preamble added that the establishment of the Jewish State was not an arbitrary act of the international community to allocate a random piece of land for creating a homeland for the Jewish people. Rather, the preamble emphasized that the goal was a reflection of the historic connection of the Jewish people to that specific piece of land and the recreation of a national homeland that had once existed:  

“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." 

For the PA, the Balfour Declaration, referred to in the preamble as the “declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty” is the root of all evil.  

Issued on November 2, 1917, the Balfour Declaration stated that “His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” 

At the time, according to Palestinian historian Abd Al-Ghani Salameh, “there was nothing called a Palestinian people”:   



> "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 [the Palestinians] were liberated from the Turkish rule and immediately moved to colonial rule, without forming a Palestinian people's political identity."
> [Official PA TV, Nov. 1, 2017]


Nonetheless, as Palestinian Media Watch has already reported, soon after the centennial to mark the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, the Palestinians decided to sue Great Britain, demanding that it take responsibility for issuing the Balfour Declaration that “destroyed the life of an entire Palestinian people” and for alleged “crimes” of British soldiers against the Palestinian people during the Mandate period. The case (Palestinian Journalists Syndicate v. The British Government (2021)) was filed in the PA court in Nablus. Not surprisingly, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs.  

Building on their success in the PA court, the Palestinians are now taking the issue to the British courts:  



> “The Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate held a meeting yesterday [May 22, 2022] with the legal team supervising the* submission of a lawsuit against the British government* for its responsibility for the consequences of issuing ‘the Balfour Declaration’.
> Lawyer Ben Emmerson briefed the syndicate on the *legal proceedings that his team has been supervising for more than a year*, which deal with submitting a lawsuit at a British court against the British government so that it will apologize for ‘the Balfour Declaration.’”
> [Official PA daily _Al-Hayat Al-Jadida_, May 23, 2022]


The Chairperson of the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate (the Plaintiffs) Nasser Abu Bakr added:  



> “The legal team explained in detail that it is important to forcibly extract a ruling condemning ‘the Balfour Declaration’ from a British court… The goal of this effort is to hold Britain responsible for our people’s tragedy, out of an assumption that all the decisions that were based on the Balfour Declaration starting with the establishment of the occupation state and uprooting of the Palestinian people - are invalid and constitute a crime that has continued to this very day.”
> [Official PA daily _Al-Hayat Al-Jadida_, May 23, 2022]


From a legal point of view, while diplomatically important, the Balfour Declaration was nothing more than a statement of British policy.  

In the aftermath of World War I, the allied powers met to discuss the future of the territories that had been held by the Ottoman Empire for 400 years. As regards “Palestine”, the allies resolved: 



> “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.*” [April 25, 1920]


The decisions made in San Remo in April 1920 by the Allied Powers then formed the basis for the preparation of a number of Mandates. Indeed, 2 years later, alongside the Mandate for Palestine, the League of Nations also adopted the Mandate for Syria and the Mandate for Lebanon. Together with the Mandate for Palestine, *it was these instruments that provided the international legitimacy to create Israel *(the Jewish State),* Jordan, Lebanon and Syria*.    

Since it is the League of Nations, since replaced by the United Nations, that is truly responsible for creating Israel, the question that must be asked, is: Are the Palestinians going to sue the League of Nations/the UN?  

Whatever the Palestinians decide to do, the truth remains that the 24th of July 1922 was probably one of the most important dates in the history of the Jewish people. On this day, the international community openly recognized the connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and decided to end 2,000 years of Jewish exile. On this day, the international community gave legitimacy to reconstitute the Jewish national homeland.  








						Are the Palestinians going to take the League of Nations or the UN to court? | PMW Analysis
					

Are the Palestinians going to take the League of Nations or the UN to court?




					palwatch.org


----------



## Kondor3 (Jul 24, 2022)

The old League of Nations proposal for the partition of the British protectorate of Palestine has been largely fulfilled.

It splits Palestine into separate Jewish and an Arab-Muslim sections...

The Arab-Muslim section today is east of the Jordan River and is called Jordan...

the Jews are still chasing loser hangers-on Arab-Muslims from what little is left of the West Bank and Gaza...

Once the remaining handful of fragments of the West Bank are assimilated will come the turn of Gaza...

The Jews waited the better part of two thousand years to return home... they understand multi-generational planning...

Another generation or two required to complete the clearing of Eretz Yisrael will not discourage the Jews in the slightest...





The sooner the Jews complete the job of clearing-out the West Bank and Gaza, the sooner the region can move towards lasting peace.






...and, by the look of things, the Jews don't have that much more "clearing" to do...

Go Team Israel !


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2022)

RoccoR said:


> If there was a shambles left in the wake of the British termination, it was a shamble that was ignited by the differences between the Jewish and Arab contingents.


Indeed, the natives generally don't get along with colonial settlers. The British didn't understand the problem.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2022)

rylah said:


> Actually they initiated Zionism,
> and voted in the first Israeli elections.


Minus the 750,000 who were kicked off the voter rolls.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2022)

RoccoR said:


> The Settlements are being built in Area "C" under the agreement. The Palestinians agreed to Article IV of Annex III (Full Civil and Security Juristidcation).


The settlements are illegal.  No agreement can legalize them.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2022)

Sixties Fan said:


> The decisions made in San Remo in April 1920 by the Allied Powers then formed the basis for the preparation of a number of Mandates. Indeed,


San Remo was not a land treaty.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Jul 24, 2022)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, the natives generally don't get along with colonial settlers. The British didn't understand the problem.


Correct.  The Native Jews were always mistreated by many of the Arab Muslim colonialists.

The British did not only not understand it.  They made it worse for the Jewish indigenous people of the land by giving away 78% to the Hashemite Arab colonialists.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Jul 24, 2022)

P F Tinmore said:


> The settlements are illegal.  No agreement can legalize them.


Since you are not a lawyer of any kind, and understands Zero of anything which has occurred for the past 100 years........


Yawn.....


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2022)

Kondor3 said:


> Another generation or two required to complete the clearing of Eretz Yisrael will not discourage the Jews in the slightest...


Not to mention 12 million Palestinians who will continue to push for the right to return. Israel has a long slog ahead and its military won't mean jack shit.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Jul 24, 2022)

P F Tinmore said:


> Not to mention 12 million Palestinians who will continue to push for the right to return. Israel has a long slog ahead and its military won't mean jack shit.


12 Million "Palestinians" do not have any right to return to the  Israel.  They may move to Gaza or TransJordan which are all part of the Mandate for Palestine and make a nice home there.

But Israel, they will never set foot as conquerors of the land again.

12 Million Arabs can return to Arabia, which is the only place on the planet they have any right to return to as being indigenous of that Peninsula .

Not in your lifetime will Israel will allow Muslims dictate what the rights of the Jewish People are.  Nor in the next 1000 years.   Jews had enough of Muslim violence against them.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2022)

Sixties Fan said:


> 12 Million "Palestinians" do not have any right to return to the  Israel.  They may move to Gaza or TransJordan which are all part of the Mandate for Palestine and make a nice home there.
> 
> But Israel, they will never set foot as conquerors of the land again.
> 
> ...


Israel is a castle built on sand.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Jul 24, 2022)

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel is a castle built on sand.


Thanks for the laugh.   It is going to last for the rest of the day, maybe even longer.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jul 24, 2022)

P F Tinmore said:


> Not to mention 12 million Palestinians who will continue to push for the right to return. Israel has a long slog ahead and its military won't mean jack shit.


Not to worry, Hassain... I'm sure the Jordanians will find a place for you, once you move east of the Jordan...


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2022)

P F Tinmore said:


> Not to mention 12 million Palestinians who will continue to push for the right to return. Israel has a long slog ahead and its military won't mean jack shit.


Not to mention Arabs foreigners have no ''right of return''.

Maybe you want to lead the charge for those 12 million... by barking out orders from your basement?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 24, 2022)

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel is a castle built on sand.


You stole that slogan from the prayer leader at your madrassah, right?


----------



## rylah (Jul 24, 2022)

P F Tinmore said:


> Minus the 750,000 who were kicked off the voter rolls.



The 750,00 who tried to establish a colony
under the rule of thee prince of Mecca?


----------



## rylah (Jul 24, 2022)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, the natives generally don't get along with colonial settlers. The British didn't understand the problem.



Could the British understand that if even the smallest nation,
manages to prevent exclusive Arab hegemony over the
entire Middle East  - then Arab colonials already lost?


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 24, 2022)

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC:  What it means...
⁜→ P F Tinmore, _et al_,

I think we need to cleanup some of this bogus implications you have spread.
.


P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, the natives generally don't get along with colonial settlers. The British didn't understand the problem.


.*(COMMENT)*

First, the natives of the day natives of the 1920s don't exist any more.

Second, there were NO (repeat NO) "colonial settlers."   You make this allegation and yet, cannot identify the colonial power funding the settlements.



P F Tinmore said:


> Minus the 750,000 who were kicked off the voter rolls.


.*(COMMENT)*

These displaced persons are significantly reduced in numbers.  There could not be very many left.  Of the original ≈ 750K displaced persons, only about 5k to 6k remaining.

​
​


.


P F Tinmore said:


> San Remo was not a land treaty.


.*(COMMENT)*

San Remo was an agreement by the powers that be at the time.  You might think that agreements and names must meet your lexicon, but that is not true.  When the Allied Powers come together and set a path, they can effectively make any determination they want.  In the Case of the 1920 San Remo Convention, the Supreme Council (among other things) set the path for the framework concerning the Mandate for Palestine
.


P F Tinmore said:


> Not to mention 12 million Palestinians who will continue to push for the right to return. Israel has a long slog ahead and its military won't mean jack shit.


.*(COMMENT)*

There are not 12 million Arab Palestinians that could possibly hold the definition of Arab Palestinian Refugee.  The definition is set by the 
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees ---  NOT the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions* (CERI)* for refugees.

I know that Arab Palestinians believe that the CERI eligibility criteria  which allows services to be rendered to descendants of  the original 750,000 displaced, but that is simply not true.  Refugee populations descend, not grow.
.




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 24, 2022)

RoccoR said:


> First, the natives of the day natives of the 1920s don't exist any more.


So, the status of "native" can expire?

Interesting.

Link?


----------



## Sixties Fan (Jul 24, 2022)

P F Tinmore said:


> So, the status of "native" can expire?
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Link?


Rocco misspoke.  Being born in a place does not make one native/indigenous of the place.

Arabs, Palestinians or not, are not natives, or indigenous of Palestine, North African, the Middle East.  Or Europe and the Americas.

Thousands of Jews spent 2500 years in Mesopotamia.  It does not make them indigenous/natives of Mesopotamia/Iraq.

Thousands of Jews have lived in Rome since Caesar and later on after the 2nd Temple destruction.  They do not consider themselves natives/indigenous of the land, nor have they ever claimed to be for one reason or another. They know that they are indigenous of the Land of Israel. 


Arabs do not get to become "natives" of everywhere they moved to or invaded.  

Move on.


----------



## Sixties Fan (Nov 1, 2022)

9 protesters outside Jerusalem UK consulate against Balfour Declaration. 10 articles about them.​
Today, a group of Palestinians protested outside the British Consulate in Jerusalem to mark the 105th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.

They attempted to present a lengthy letter of protest, demanding an apology and compensation from the British. The consulate refused to accept the letter so they placed it on the grate of the front door.

I count nine protesters.




Sama News, SND news, Al Siasi, Maan, AlQuds, Roya News, Wattan, NABD, Al Watan Voice  and Safa are all covering the story. 

That means more Palestinian news sites wrote about the protest than the number of protesters to begin with.

And the Israel haters do this often. While they do sometime get big crowds to their demonstrations, they cover even the tiniest protests as big news, to give the impression of far more political power than they really have.

After all, perception is as important as reality, and the anti-Israel side is excellent at propaganda techniques.











						9 protesters outside Jerusalem UK consulate against Balfour Declaration. 10 articles about them.
					

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.




					elderofziyon.blogspot.com


----------

