# Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?



## P F Tinmore (Apr 15, 2015)

Of course they do. Everybody does.

There were always indications within international law that grant an individual or a group the right to self-defense. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Right's preamble (adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948), reads: "Whereas it is essential if man is not compelled as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."

However, not until the General Assembly 20th session in 1965 where it was recognized, for the first time, "the legitimacy of struggle by the people under colonial rules to exercise their rights to self-determination and independent." More, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."

The specified decision has always applied to the Palestinian people and their struggle for freedom. But again, intentional misinterpretation of that law compelled the passing of Resolution 3236, passed by the General Assembly in its 29th session in 1974. The resolution recognized that the collective rights of the Palestinian people were fully and properly recognized. The resolution recognized the Palestinian people's right for self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter (which, in retrospect gives them the same right of self-defense granted to sovereign states). In addition, it granted them the right of national independence, sovereignty and right of return to their homes. The resolution had further replaced the mere reference to Palestinians as "refugees" or "the refugee problem", and made them a "principal party in the establishment of a just and durable peace in the Middle East."

Those who still found loopholes in international law to deny the Palestinian people the right to defend themselves had to deal with yet another resolution. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of 1949, (Act 1 C4), passed in 1977, declared that armed struggle can be used, as a last resort, as a method of exercising the right of self-determination.

Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves ​


----------



## teddyearp (Apr 15, 2015)

Hmm, is Israel launching rockets at them?  Is Israel sending suicide bombers into "Palestine" to blow up pizza shops, buses and such?  Are Israelis going into mosques and shooting down people?  Are Israelis driving cars into bus and trains stops in "Palestine"?  Are Israelis going into supermarkets and buses in "Palestine" and stabbing people?

Please tell me exactly what they need to defend themselves from besides themselves.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course they do. Everybody does.
> 
> There were always indications within international law that grant an individual or a group the right to self-defense. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Right's preamble (adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948), reads: "Whereas it is essential if man is not compelled as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."
> 
> ...


 
Shooting rockets into Israel is not "defending themselves" you ass clown, GTFOH with that bs.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 15, 2015)

Alot of the attacks the Palestinians do are offensive in nature not defensive bozo.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Apr 15, 2015)

Only an unevolved subhuman would think intentional murder was defending anything.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course they do. Everybody does.
> 
> There were always indications within international law that grant an individual or a group the right to self-defense. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Right's preamble (adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948), reads: "Whereas it is essential if man is not compelled as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."
> 
> ...





 Then conversely Israel also has the self same rights and can do exactly the same things as the arab musim Palestinians are doing. And you and the rest of the islamomorons can not utter one single syllable in protest or condemnation when Israel opens fire on gaza and fattens every building there.

 Or you an stop your stupidity and accept that firing illegal rockets at Israeli civilians is not self defence, mining under Israeli schools and priming the mine with H.E. is not self defence. Murdering innocent unarmed civilian is not self defence, and planting bombs on school buses is not self defence.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 15, 2015)

Nobody has the right to murder.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Hmm, is Israel launching rockets at them?  Is Israel sending suicide bombers into "Palestine" to blow up pizza shops, buses and such?  Are Israelis going into mosques and shooting down people?  Are Israelis driving cars into bus and trains stops in "Palestine"?  Are Israelis going into supermarkets and buses in "Palestine" and stabbing people?
> 
> Please tell me exactly what they need to defend themselves from besides themselves.



Israelis take Palestinian land and settle on it, bulldoze or blow up Palestinian homes, destroy Palestinian crops and  kill thousands of Palestinian women and children with stand-off weapons.  Of course the Palestinians have to defend themselves.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, is Israel launching rockets at them?  Is Israel sending suicide bombers into "Palestine" to blow up pizza shops, buses and such?  Are Israelis going into mosques and shooting down people?  Are Israelis driving cars into bus and trains stops in "Palestine"?  Are Israelis going into supermarkets and buses in "Palestine" and stabbing people?
> ...






 And so do the Israeli's, the problem is Israel is 100 years advanced on he arab muslims in warfare so will aleways come out on top. The stupidity of arab muslms thinking that their god will protect them is laughable, and they still lay down their lives for nothing. What have they achieved with their terrorist "defence" since 1929 apart from more dead and more homeless arab muslims.


 By the way the land is Jewish under INTERNATIONAL LAW and you cant alter that.


----------



## teddyearp (Apr 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Israelis take Palestinian land and settle on it, bulldoze or blow up Palestinian homes, destroy Palestinian crops and  kill thousands of Palestinian women and children with stand-off weapons.  Of course the Palestinians have to defend themselves.



How could they do such a thing?  There never was a nation of Palestine!  And every single time a 'nation' was offered to them on a silver platter, they knocked it out of the hands of the giver on to the ground and went to war instead.  Losing every single time.

Every.  Single.  Time.  All.  Ways. Never. A. Win.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Israelis take Palestinian land and settle on it, bulldoze or blow up Palestinian homes, destroy Palestinian crops and  kill thousands of Palestinian women and children with stand-off weapons.  Of course the Palestinians have to defend themselves.
> ...



It's not a football match.  It is a war of attrition and the Palestinians are not going anywhere.  Notwithstanding the hordes of Jewish migrants that came from Russia, the non-Jews are a majority, and growing, in the areas Israel controls.  Strategically it does not bode well for Israel, notwithstanding its tremendous advantage in armament.  A secular democratic state with equality for all the people, with a constitution that protects minorities is what Israel should be striving for.  It's in the Jew's longterm interest.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, in general --- everyone has the immediate right of self-defense.



P F Tinmore said:


> There were always indications within international law that grant an individual or a group the right to self-defense. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Right's preamble (adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948), reads: "Whereas it is essential if man is not compelled as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, Clause 3 of the Preamble to General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948, does say this.  But having said that, do not misinterpret it as some sort of "right."  It is not!  It is a type of criminal defense.  Remember, GA/RES/ 217A (III) --- Declaration of Human Rights --- is a non-binding resolution expressing the "sense of the General Assembly."  It does not supersede Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV _(International Human Rights Law)_ which holds people performing actions solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, criminally accountable and subject to criminal penalties.  It is not a right to use force against the Occupying Power.



P F Tinmore said:


> However, not until the General Assembly 20th session in 1965 where it was recognized, for the first time, "the legitimacy of struggle by the people under colonial rules to exercise their rights to self-determination and independent." More, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."


*(COMMENT)*

*Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples*
*Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960*

*Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination*
*Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 49/148 A/RES/49/148  23 December 1994*

*A/RES/2105(XX) Plenary 23 A/PV.1405 20 Dec. 1965  Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples *
*74-6-27 A/L.476/Rev.1, Rev.1Cor.1 and Rev.1/Add.1 *

The key word here is:  "Invited" --- "More, the assembly invited "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories."

This is one of the trickiest concepts ever in terms of International Politics and Diplomacy.  It is not expected, in our lifetimes anyway, that any of the world powers are going to let this become international law.  In terms of contemporary history, the case of Taiwan, wherein China threaten to go to war if the UN allowed and recognized Taiwan's independence from China.  And of course there is the case of the Kurdish population and the want for an independent Kurdistan.   More recently and through military intervention, the case of the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory of Crimea being annexed by the Russian Federation in March 2014.

While it is lofty to say --- that all peoples have the right of self-defense and the right of self-determination, in reality the price of such an ideal can be too much to endure. 



P F Tinmore said:


> The specified decision has always applied to the Palestinian people and their struggle for freedom. But again, intentional misinterpretation of that law compelled the passing of Resolution 3236, passed by the General Assembly in its 29th session in 1974. The resolution recognized that the collective rights of the Palestinian people were fully and properly recognized. The resolution recognized the Palestinian people's right for self-determination in accordance with the United Nations Charter (which, in retrospect gives them the same right of self-defense granted to sovereign states). In addition, it granted them the right of national independence, sovereignty and right of return to their homes. The resolution had further replaced the mere reference to Palestinians as "refugees" or "the refugee problem", and made them a "principal party in the establishment of a just and durable peace in the Middle East."


*(COMMENT)*

The adoption of General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) --- A Question of Palestine, is problematic.  It is a non-binding Resolution that makes demands that cannot be reasonably attained. 

_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;​It stipulates that the Palestinians have these non-retractable rights, yet does not say:

Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination IAW the Charter, but does not say to what territory that pertains.
It says that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination, but does not specify the conflict resolution between what the Palestinians demand (Palestine from the river to the sea) and what is under Israeli sovereignty.
It indicates that the Palestinians have a right to overrun the Jewish National Home in the return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced.  But does not indicate the solution to the Israeli Rights to sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of the Jewish National Home.
Basically, it is unworkable.  Given the history of the Jewish People, Israel is never going to put their fate in the hands of anti-semitic Jihadist and Fedayeen.



P F Tinmore said:


> Those who still found loopholes in international law to deny the Palestinian people the right to defend themselves had to deal with yet another resolution. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of 1949, (Act 1 C4), passed in 1977, declared that armed struggle can be used, as a last resort, as a method of exercising the right of self-determination.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, I encourage everyone to read the Clause for themselves.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
General principles and scope of application
Article 1 [ Link ] -- General principles and scope of application
1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for this Protocol in all circumstances.
2. In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.
3. This Protocol, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims, shall apply in the situations referred to in Article 2 [ Link ] common to those Conventions.
4. The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.​First, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States is in fact General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), a non-binding resolution.  But even if it were binding, the Declaration of Principles does not, in any fashion, support the use of force or armed struggle.  It restates that _(not all inclusive)_:

_Convinced_ that the strict observance by States of the obligation not to intervene in the affairs of any other State is an essential condition to ensure that nations live together in peace with one another, since the practice of any form of intervention not only violates the spirit and letter of the Charter, but also leads to the creation of situations which threaten international peace and security,

_Recalling_ the duty of States to refrain in their international relations from military, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State,

_Considering_ it essential that all States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,

_Considering_ it equally essential that all States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter,​
But it is also important to note what key factor are essential:


Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

There is nothing in the ICRC Geneva Conventions that even remotely suggests that the Palestinians are authorized some use of force to resolve disputes.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## JFish123 (Apr 15, 2015)

Of course Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against there Hamas terrorist government that's screws them and blames it on Israel 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## teddyearp (Apr 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> It's not a football match.  It is a war of attrition and the Palestinians are not going anywhere.  Notwithstanding the hordes of Jewish migrants that came from Russia, the non-Jews are a majority, and growing, in the areas Israel controls.  Strategically it does not bode well for Israel, notwithstanding its tremendous advantage in armament.  A secular democratic state with equality for all the people, with a constitution that protects minorities is what Israel should be striving for.  It's in the Jew's longterm interest.



Smoke another one Monte.  The Jews are not going anywhere. And your statement that the non-Jews are a majority? And growing? Where?  Take another bong hit dip shit.


----------



## teddyearp (Apr 15, 2015)

JFish123 said:


> Of course Palestinians have the right to defend themselves against there Hamas terrorist government that's screws them and blames it on Israel



Quoted for truth, and welcome to the board!


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, in general --- everyone has the immediate right of self-defense.
> 
> ...



As usual, you do not do enough research.  

United Nations
*A/RES/37/43*

*

General Assembly*
Distr. GENERAL  

3 December 1982



"2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation *by all available means,
including armed struggle;

A RES 37 43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights*


----------



## toastman (Apr 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



As usual, you do a terrible job in refuting Rocco's post.


----------



## teddyearp (Apr 15, 2015)

toastman said:


> As usual, you do a terrible job in refuting Rocco's post.



But he sure does a great job of spamming the board once he latches onto some 'document'


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Do just blabber for the sake of blabbering?  Rocco's post was indisputably refuted. LOL


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, in general --- everyone has the immediate right of self-defense.
> 
> ...


Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination IAW the Charter, but does not say to what territory that pertains.​
Why would you not use their international borders?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, you do a terrible job in refuting Rocco's post.
> ...



Oh dear, facts like UN Resolutions are just "some documents".  You are certainly entertaining.  A clown so to speak.


----------



## teddyearp (Apr 15, 2015)

Nothing wrong with UN documents. Everything wrong with the way you cherry pick through them to suit your 'narrative'.

*Mod Edit - keep off site drama off.*


----------



## toastman (Apr 15, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, you do a terrible job in refuting Rocco's post.
> ...


That's for sure !


----------



## toastman (Apr 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Well you can tell you can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Unfortunately, reality & what you tell yourself are two different things.


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 15, 2015)

The Pals absolutely have the right to defend themselves and I think we should send them the weapons to do it with.  Since last Aug. 26, Israel has violated the ceasefire agreement over 400 times; whereas the Pals, only fired back 4-5 rockets.  Lets make no mistake, the problem isn't the rockets, it's Israeli aggression.

And lastly, a word to all you Israeli kiss-asses, an occupational force cannot claim self defense.


----------



## toastman (Apr 15, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> The Pals absolutely have the right to defend themselves and I think we should send them the weapons to do it with.  Since last Aug. 26, Israel has violated the ceasefire agreement over 400 times; whereas the Pals, only fired back 4-5 rockets.  Lets make no mistake, the problem isn't the rockets, it's Israeli aggression.
> 
> And lastly, a word to all you Israeli kiss-asses, an occupational force cannot claim self defense.



Can you give me a few specific examples of Palestinians having 'defended' themselves ?


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Do just blabber for the sake of blabbering?  Rocco's post was indisputably refuted. LOL


*RoccoR* does love those data dumps!


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 15, 2015)

toastman said:


> Can you give me a few specific examples of Palestinians having 'defended' themselves ?


I just got done saying they fired back 4-5 rockets.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Nothing wrong with UN documents. Everything wrong with the way you cherry pick through them to suit your 'narrative'.
> 
> And only a chicken shit full of shit person with plenty to hide uses a different user name on the several different forums sites they post/frequent. Not that I agree all the time with Phoenall's posting style, but just saying.


 
No cherry picking at all.  Just pointing out the objective facts from UN official reports.  I have nothing to hide at all.  I don't post on any other political site.


----------



## theliq (Apr 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, in general --- everyone has the immediate right of self-defense.
> 
> ...


NON OF THIS WAS RATIFIED BY THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO MAKE IT LAW...ISRAEL IS AN ILLEGAL STATE..fact,


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



Garbage.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



Nope. The British, the League of Nations, and the Allies designated the land to be the future Jewish national home, after 700 years of Ottoman rule.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Can you give me a few specific examples of Palestinians having 'defended' themselves ?
> ...


Yeah, those poor innocent Palis, they only fired like four to five thousand rockets at Israeli cities.

If Israelis weren't the most patient, decent people you could find, there wouldn't be a single so called Palestinian left standing alive, considering the Palestinian barbarity and depravity they encounter on a daily basis.


----------



## theliq (Apr 16, 2015)

Roudy said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Designated IS NOT ratified<Roudy> the Palestinians were also designated.......Israel is an Illegal entity...........Who today would vote for an Israeli State on Palestinian Land>>>>>>>would be interesting to see.steve


----------



## theliq (Apr 16, 2015)

theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


----------



## theliq (Apr 16, 2015)

theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


DESIGNATED MEANS NOTHING IN LAW


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...



Eh stick it up your Mohammad. If Israel is "illegal" then so are the dozen or more Arab Muslim shitholes carved out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire after 700 years of Ottoman Rule: Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Oman, UAE, Yemen, etc. etc.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

theliq said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



What are you blabbering.  There was a UN vote in 1948.  Stop smoking crack.


----------



## theliq (Apr 16, 2015)

Roudy said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...


WHY YOU WOULD CALL ME Mohammed I know not.....I was merely stating fact.........Israel was never RATIFIED by the UN Security Council and thereby making it Unlawful.steve


----------



## theliq (Apr 16, 2015)

theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


Get with the programme Roudy.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Are you advocating and inciting RACIAL VIOLENCE and RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE then Abdul, or are you just telling your RACIST LIES again.

 Read the Jewish declaration of independence as that is already in there.


----------



## teddyearp (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> I don't have anything to hide. I don't post on any other political site.



Really?  You do not?  Well, that not what you allude to here:

It Gets Even More Remarkable Page 39 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



> Let me go over to SinkorSwim and let them know that you are doing the same crap here. By the way, I have a different name there.



Kind of shakes down everything else about you, IMHO.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 16, 2015)

theliq, et al,

Exactly how is an illegal entity defined?  Who determines what is an illegal entity?



theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Just where did you get your facts?

Where does it say that the UN Security Council has to ratify anything pertaining to the right of self-determination?

Define when and where the State of Israel was declared on some sovereign territory under a Palestinian Regime?  

Just when did the UN Security Council, which recommended Israel to the UN for membership, withdraw that recommendation?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have anything to hide. I don't post on any other political site.
> ...



*Mod Edit - keep off site drama off this site.  No discussing other messageboards.*


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...




"A secular democratic state with equality for all the people, with a constitution that protects minorities is what Israel should be striving for.  It's in the Jew's longterm interest"

How is that advocating anything but peace?  You are a demented, violent, pathological liar and  a ZioNazi racist.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...






 Doesn't need to be ratified by the UNSC does it as the majority of nations accepted it as a full member. You forget that Israel was created back in 1923 by the LoN that placed it in INTERNATIONAL LAW, thus making it LEGAL.
 If it was today the UN would be forced to grant Israel all the land and tell the Palestinians to either accept the terms or find another country to take them


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...





 So the same applies to Israel when they struggle for territorial integrity, which means that killing 2000 muslims last summer was part of that struggle and so legitimate.    Destroys your POV that Israel is a coloniser and murderer if you apply your criteria equally to aal sides.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...






 And not forgetting putting legalalities behind Israel's every action, because the same things apply to Israel as applies to the arab muslims.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Because they do not appertain to the nation of Palestine, just the Mandate for Palestine. So those borders ended when the Mandate did.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...






 Facts like UN resolutions are not legally binding and are only recommendations seem to make no difference to your train of thought do they.   When did the UN last pass a LAW ?


----------



## toastman (Apr 16, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Can you give me a few specific examples of Palestinians having 'defended' themselves ?
> ...



So firing rockets indiscriminately is 'self defence' ??

You can't be serious ??


----------



## toastman (Apr 16, 2015)

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



You as usual have no clue what you're talking about. Israel declared independence the same way the 'Palestinians' did in 1988 you idiot.

How the hell can a sovereign state be illegal ??


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> The Pals absolutely have the right to defend themselves and I think we should send them the weapons to do it with.  Since last Aug. 26, Israel has violated the ceasefire agreement over 400 times; whereas the Pals, only fired back 4-5 rockets.  Lets make no mistake, the problem isn't the rockets, it's Israeli aggression.
> 
> And lastly, a word to all you Israeli kiss-asses, an occupational force cannot claim self defense.






 Since when ?     If they aren't then they sure as hell cant be stopped from making sure the occupied are severely restrained


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Can you give me a few specific examples of Palestinians having 'defended' themselves ?
> ...






 So which of the children those rockets were aimed at were occupying gaza, when hamas leaders have stated in public that gaza has not been occupied since 2005.   So just give examples of when hamas has defended itself from a occupation that does not exist


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing wrong with UN documents. Everything wrong with the way you cherry pick through them to suit your 'narrative'.
> ...






 LIAR


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 DID NOT NEED TO BE AS IT ENTERED INTO INERNATIONAL LAW IN 1923


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...


The UN cannot pass law. It is not a legislative body.

The UN does mention already existing law that is binding even if the resolution, in itself, is not.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


*Not!*

Where is "Israel" or "Jewish state" mentioned?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...






*Mod Edit - keep off site drama off.  No discussing other messageboards.*


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

theliq said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...







 International law means everything and Israel exists in International as the Homeland of the Jews in Palestine.


 Now when did the UNSC ratify Australia ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...





 Thank you so this means that palestine never existed as a nation and never will......................


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



A blockade is an act of war (see Crimes of War Blockade as an Act of War  Breaking a blockade is a right of the blockaded party and is a defensive measure.  A party to a conflict can only use the weapons that the party has access to. I am sure the Palestinians would accept precision weapons with which they could target their attackers (the IDF) precisely.

On the other hand blowing up schools and apartment buildings killing thousands of unarmed civilians, mostly women and children is self-defense?


----------



## toastman (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...


Nice deflection


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...






The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate



*The Council of the League of Nations:*
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of* the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,* it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the *historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country*; and




*ART. 2.*
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure *the establishment of the Jewish national home*, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion


*ART. 4.*
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect *the establishment of the Jewish national home *and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...






 You admitted that this was self defence the same as that employed by the Palestinians as it would be racist in the extreme to say Israel was not covered by those rules. So the BDS movement is an act of war just the same, so Israel is perfectly within its rights to fire on gaza.


Those are the criteria you are applying aren't you Abdul .......................


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

This is another "non-binding" resolution which does not have the force of law.

It is not unlike similar anniversary resolutions marking the the date in which A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947 was adopted:

A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978 *Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights*

A/RES/3246 (XXIX) 29 November 1974 *Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights*

A/RES/2649 30 November 1970 *The importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights*
They all have very similar language.  They are all pre-1988 Resolutions when the PLO, the sole representative of the Palestinian People, made their declaration, stating in part:

By virtue of the natural, historical and legal right of the Palestinian Arab people to its homeland, Palestine, and of the sacrifices of its succeeding generations in defence of the freedom and independence of that homeland,
Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
All four of these General Assembly Resolutions, declaring that the ends justifies the means, were overtaken by events.  None of them are any form of law and none of them supersede International Humanitarian Law (IHL) or Customary Law (ICL).



montelatici said:


> As usual, you do not do enough research.
> 
> United Nations
> *A/RES/37/43*
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

As far as my research goes, I have, in the last 5 years, cited these moronic resolutions, more times than I can count.  They are often used by the barbaric Jihadist and Fedayeen to justify their continued hostile activities in support of the Islamic Resistance Movement Covenant, the Palestinian National Charter, and the more current Policy Paper by Khaled Meshal. 

Without regard to what you believe these non-binding resolutions say, none of them:

Continue to strengthen and make best possible use of the capacities of the United Nations in areas such as conflict prevention, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement, rule of law, peacekeeping and peace-building , in order to contribute to the successful prevention and peaceful resolution of prolonged unresolved conflicts.
Promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures by establishing and encouraging, as appropriate, education and public awareness programs involving all sectors of society.
Give support to organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or Jihadist and Fedayeen training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against Israel or their citizens.
Under IHL and ICL, ANY Palestinian involved in activities solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, or in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more Israelis, is criminally liable to internment, imprisonment, or even a death sentence.

Nothing in these Anniversary Resolutions grants war powers to the Palestinians.  Nothing can justify terrorism or open attacks on Israeli civilians — ever.  No Palestinian grievance, no Palestinian goal, and no Palestinian cause can used as an excuse asymmetric Jihadist and Fedayeen acts.   Palestinian hostilities grow and gradually become more violent where they induce conflicts and human life is not protected and impunity prevails.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## teddyearp (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


So basically, you lied and now you're trying to make excuses for it.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is not exactly correct.  A UN Security Council Resolution can have the force of law; depending on the language.  It cannot be ambiguous.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

But you are absolutely right in another sense.  And this goes back to the point that the Palestinians cannot use General Assembly Resolutions as an authority to further justify hostile actions; especially those that are in violation of International Humanitarian and Customary Law.   The Palestinian has absolutely NO authority or right to either attack civilians or assault the Occupation Authority. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
Do you have any documents that say different?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Still nothing about "Israel" or a "Jewish state," huh?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are losing it.



P F Tinmore said:


> The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.
> 
> Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​
> Do you have any documents that say different?


*(COMMENT)*

The Government of  Palestine was the Mandatory, with fully legislative powers.

The Nationality Law was part of the Order in Council and the citizenship was to the Government of Palestine with the Mandatory acting in that capacity.

Nowhere does any documentation show that the Arab Palestinians had any governmental Powers of any sort.  In fact the records show the opposite, with the Arabs declining every opportunity towards self-rule or government participation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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





The UN knew it had no right legally nor the authority to partition Palestine.  Its own legal subcommittee established to examine the legality to do so and authority to do so concluded as much.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, this is not exactly correct.  A UN Security Council Resolution can have the force of law; depending on the language.  It cannot be ambiguous.
> 
> ...


Attacks on occupiers are not violations of international law.

They may be seen as violations of domestic laws and can be addressed by police not military action.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are losing it.
> 
> ...


I agree. The Mandate was a temporarily assigned trustee. As such it had the authority to act on the Palestinian's behalf.

The Palestinians *never *declined self rule.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...



I didn't call you Mohammad, I said stick it up your Mohammad, Abdul. Israel was declared a state by the UN as all the other Arab Muslim shitholes formed out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire. Except in the case of Isrsel, five Arab countries attacked it the day it was declared a state.


----------



## toastman (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


Palestinians mainly attack Israel which is not occupied territory. Your logic fails


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

To 


Roudy said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



In an attempt to prevent Israel from evicting non-Jews and stealing even more land.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



According to Tinmore the Hamas terrorist spokesperson, ALL OF ISRAEL IS OCCUPIED and needs to be destroyed in favor of the Islamic Caliphate of Palestine.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



It is difficult to lose a debate when the facts are all on one's side.  The difficult part is accessing the source documentation, once one has access to the source documentation it is a matter of cutting and pasting, letting the text make one's point.  Relying on propaganda to make a point is only possible when one is debating with individuals that lack research skills.  Clearly, I don't have that problem.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> To
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> ...



Hogwash.  The Arabs attacked because they wanted to destroy the Jewish state and divide the proceeds amongst themselves.  It was never about this mythical Palestine or Palestinian people.  The Arabs who attacked Israel denied the existence of a Palestine themselves, they considered it a Jewish conspiracy. In fact, after the attack, when Jordan and Egypt coccupied the West Bank and Gaza for twenty years, there wasn't a peep from ANYBODY about the formation of a Palestinian state. All the while the Jordanians desecrated Jewish and Christian holy sites.  

Do you enjoy being a pathological liar for Islamofacism?


----------



## thanatos144 (Apr 16, 2015)

Months later the same Jew haters spewing the same shit........


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



You clearly have a problem because you keep posting the same two or three documents which as I proved you edited the parts which disprove your claims.   

The mentally ill hired false propogandist troll for PaliNazis calling others propagandists. Ha ha ha. Now that's a doozy. Do you ever work, you fuckin' bum?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Nothing is edited at all.  You proved nothing You just can't take the truth.  There are not just 2 or 3 documents, there are 100s of archived official documents that support every claim I make.  That's why it's so easy to demonstrate that everything you claim is a lie and propaganda.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



You've claimed that Jews have killed and are killing Christians both in and out of the Israel. That is a total falsehood and a lame attempt by a Jew hating propogandist to instigate medieval antisemtism against Jews.  Non of your documents prove this, or any of your claims that the jews stole Palestine from the Palestinians.

You are a mentally ill Jew hater and probably a paid shill.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 Yes the Mandate for Palestine that at no time mentions a Palestinian nation. It does mention a Nationallity law to ive the inhabitants the protecting powers nationality. In this case they became British mandate Palestinians, that was all that was given.   You really must stop reading the crap that muslim writes about his interpretation of treaties and laws.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You saying this does not make it true.  You are spreading disinformation to justify Palestinian criminal misconduct and barbarism.



P F Tinmore said:


> Attacks on occupiers are not violations of international law.
> 
> They may be seen as violations of domestic laws and can be addressed by police not military action.


*(COMMENT)*

Read it carefully.  It is International Humanitarian Law:

*Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.*
*Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty*


*ARTICLE 68 [ Link ] *

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

In this case, the "Occupying Power" means Israel.  The "Protected Persons" are the Arab Palestinians.  So, in fact what it says is:

*Arab Palestinians* who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm Israel, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the Israeli forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the Israeli forces or administration or the installations used by them, *shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed.* Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [Link] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by Israel in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a Arab Palestinian only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of Israel or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began (Jordanian Law).
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a Arab Palestinian unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of Israel, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a Arab Palestinian who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.​
It is totally inappropriate for advocates of Arab Palestinian Lawlessness to suggest to their followers that offense which are solely intended to harm Israel, and cases of espionage, or serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of Israel, or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, authorized under law and not subject to criminal punishment.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Semantics again when you an see that the Mandate for Palestine set in stone the land for the Jewish national home.  You can call it anything you want it sill means the same thing as Israel or Jewish state.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...







 Because INTRENATIONAL LAW of 1923 had already given the land to the Jews for their national home on 22% of Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






 And if the occupied land is under martial law then the military are the police.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...





 Only the British mandate. and the arab muslims refused to share power.  Also the Mandate had already designated rans Jordan for the arab muslims but they were greedy and wanted everything. So the declined to enter into talks to negotiate a settlement. They resorted to violence and were beaten back by inferior forces .


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

What dope are you smoking?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Partition Plan offered self-rule over an Arab State.  It was rejected by the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 I am afraid I cant confim that at all as I do not have the power to an anyone from that board. 
 I can confirm that you made a post to the board on April 14 2015. as the logs for the board show. And that breva is listed as a member using your aol email address. I will not LIE to cover for you when you have LIED on here.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



The Mandate did nothing of the sort.  Trans-Jordania was a separate territory with a separate and different population and was reported on separately in the annual Interim Reports of the Mandatory.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> What dope are you smoking?
> 
> ...


"An Arab state." Not Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate



*ART. 25.*
In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations,* to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of **Articles 15**, **16** and **18**.*




 You were saying Abdul ?    Here it is in the Mandate for Palestine in black and white


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...




Like I said.  The liar edits out parts of documents that demolish his claims.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...




No, the text is simple cut and paste from source documents. You can stamp your feet and whine all you want.  It doesn't change the facts.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...





P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



Endless excuses.   Look, the Palestinians can either peacably leave, or attack Israel and die.  Those are their only two options. Israel isn't going away, and they are not going to toss themselves into the sea and die for you.

So.... you can leave.... and live.... or attack Israel and die.   I no longer care which of those you choose.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...






 The owner has read his/her input on this board and decided that they were not the type of people wanted, so withheld their membership.    Seems that monte has been banned from other boards for spamming as well


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

Palestinians aren't going anywhere. They already represent a majority of the people under Israeli control and their majority is increasing.  When Netanyahu confirmed that Israel was not interested in negotiating for the establishment of  a Palestinian state, there are only a few options:

1. The creation of a secular democratic state where all people (of all religions) are enfranchised.
2. Continued Apartheid
3.Ethnic cleansing
4 Genocide of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine

I doubt even the U.S. would go along with the latter 2 options.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> To
> 
> 
> Roudy said:
> ...







 And you have failed to prove this claim how many times now. The Jews were not stealing land as International law shows, and only evicted illegal immigrants that were attacking the Jews.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



The facts have won all the debates.  It doesn't take much effort when the facts are on your side.  As they say, doth protest too much.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...





 And accepting that when the same document destroys the POV moving on and sending the link to the recycle bin.  Not to keep SPAMMING the board with the same irrelevant islamomoronic crap.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Yet you seem to think it does when the same source disproves what you are implying. This is called SPAMMING something you do a lot of.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Palestinians aren't going anywhere. They already represent a majority of the people under Israeli control and their majority is increasing.  When Netanyahu confirmed that Israel was not interested in negotiating for the establishment of  a Palestinian state, there are only a few options:
> 
> 1. The creation of a secular democratic state where all people (of all religions) are enfranchised.
> 2. Continued Apartheid
> ...





 You missed 5    STATUS QUO


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Palestinians aren't going anywhere. They already represent a majority of the people under Israeli control and their majority is increasing.  When Netanyahu confirmed that Israel was not interested in negotiating for the establishment of  a Palestinian state, there are only a few options:
> ...



That's no 2.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...





 No No2 is your RACIST LIE


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh --- you are parsing words.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Palestine is a Mandate Term for the territory to which the Mandate applied _(or formerly applied)_.  The perimeter of the territory was surveyed-out by the Allied Powers, as determined by the that area surrendered by the Ottoman Empire (1918) and relinquished by the Republic of Turkey (1920).

*Armistice of Mudros,* (30 October 1918), pact signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).

Under the terms of the armistice, the Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security. The Ottoman army was demobilized, and Turkish ports, railways, and other strategic points were made available for use by the Allies.

*ARTICLE 139* (10 August 1920) Treaty between the Principle Allied Powers and the High Contracting Parties with the Government and His Majesty the Sultan, Ottoman Empire

Turkey renounces formally all rights of suzerainty or jurisdiction of any kind over Moslems who are subject to the sovereignty or protectorate of any other State.

No power shall be exercised directly or indirectly by any Turkish authority whatever in any territory detached from Turkey or of which the existing status under the present Treaty is recognized by Turkey.​
In either case, the Arab Palestinian (_citizens of the Government of Palestine with the Mandatory acting as said government)_ where not the successors of any sovereign authority.  The Allied Powers "can" provisionally recognized the existence as independent nations _(it did not have to make provisional recognition) _--- subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.  The Treaty of Peace with Turkey _(AKA:  Treaty of Lausanne)_ --- signed at Lausanne, 24 July 1923, wherein the Republic of Turkey was the successor government to the Ottoman Government.  The Treaty of Lausanne does not independently address Palestine as a separate entity. Within the meaning of the Treaty, Palestine _(not identified)_ was a component of the Syria _(a split territory between Great Britain and France)_:

_From the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, the frontier of Turkey is laid down as follows:
_
_(I ) With Syria:  The frontier described in Article 8 of the Franco-Turkish Agreement of the 20th October, 1921
(2) With Iraq:_​ 
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



No, I have posted from dozens of documents.  This is a link to hundreds of documents.

UNISPAL DOCUMENTS COLLECTION


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2015)

*Lets get back on topic folks - save the insults for the Flame Zone.*

*And for those who seem to have forgotten - no discussing other messageboards and drama from those places needs to stay THERE.*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh --- you are parsing words.
> 
> ...


Holy smokescreen, Batman!

What does all that have to do with my post?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Not a smokescreen at all.



P F Tinmore said:


> Holy smokescreen, Batman!
> 
> What does all that have to do with my post?


*(COMMENT)*

Your answer --- "An Arab state." Not Palestine. --- suggests that you concurred that the "citizens of the Government of Palestine" turned down the opportunity for an independent and sovereign Arab State.  And it also suggests that you make a distinction between and "Arab State" and a "Palestine State."

As you can see, Palestine was not defined by, governed by, or sovereign to, any indigenous population.

The Arabs that identify themselves as Palestinians: 

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

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​
In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​(d) The text of this resolution was communicated by the Secretary-General on 9 January to the Government of the United Kingdom, as the Mandatory Power, to the Arab Higher Committee, and to the Jewish Agency for Palestine. The invitation extended by the resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:



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

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.​
In the time that the Arabs that identify themselves as Palestinians were afforded the opportunity to set-up quasi-government agencies, and work towards gradual autonomy, the Arab Palestinians rejected several opportunities to begin the process to stand alone.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Not a smokescreen at all.
> 
> ...


22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.​
Do you have anything that does not include the colonial scheme?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Not a smokescreen at all.
> 
> ...


And it also suggests that you make a distinction between and "Arab State" and a "Palestine State."​
Obviously you do not understand the distinction.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Palestinians aren't going anywhere. They already represent a majority of the people under Israeli control and their majority is increasing.  When Netanyahu confirmed that Israel was not interested in negotiating for the establishment of  a Palestinian state, there are only a few options:
> 
> 1. The creation of a secular democratic state where all people (of all religions) are enfranchised.
> 2. Continued Apartheid
> ...



While Palestine never was, Israel is here to stay and steaming ahead into the future.  Israel will never let the Arab Muslim savages of the Middle East commit ethnic cleansing and genocide on the Jews, Christians., and other ethnic minorities as they have done elsewhere.  You can take that to Bank Leumi.

The Nazi Mufti of Palestine stated in his own words in the 1930's that once the Muslims have control, the savages intended to first wipe out the Jews and then the Christians in "Palestine". 

Are you upset that his plans didn't come to fruition, scum?


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > To
> ...


His own UN documents show that there was no "stealing of land by Jews".  In fact, far from it.  Ha ha ha.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Palestinians aren't going anywhere. They already represent a majority of the people under Israeli control and their majority is increasing.  When Netanyahu confirmed that Israel was not interested in negotiating for the establishment of  a Palestinian state, there are only a few options:
> ...


There never was a Palestinian state, and inshallah never will be.  Does the world really need another Islamic terrorist shithole filled with intolerant savages and barbarians?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh --- you are parsing words.
> 
> ...



Rocco, Rocco.  The UN legal subcommittee which gave the legal opinion cleared all this up in a very hard to find document.


Roudy said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



The UN documents clearly state that the Christians and Muslims owned 85% of the land.  So, if it is now in the hands of Jews it is stolen.


----------



## pbel (Apr 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...


Only the land that was given during the mandate overwhelmingly enforced by the colonial governments, Nothing over that is RECOGNIZED by International Law to date.


----------



## toastman (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...




Here's how stupid your logic is.


montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



Just to show you how stupid your logic is:

You provide a document that shows the land being mostly owned by Arabs and Christians in the early 1900's. Then you bring up the fact that since Jews own most of the land now, it automatically means it's stolen. You're so ridiculous !

Do you even have a valid link to back up your claim ?


----------



## pbel (Apr 16, 2015)

Roudy said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Honestly Roudy, you should join a circus!


----------



## toastman (Apr 16, 2015)

BTW, you're using a UN document. The same U.N who's partition plan was used by both Israel and 'Palestine' to declare independence.
The same U.N that recognized Israel after they declared independence. The same U.N that gave Israel full membership one year after they declared independence. 
So if the land was stolen, why didn't they say so or do anything about it ?


----------



## pbel (Apr 16, 2015)

toastman said:


> BTW, you're using a UN document. The same U.N who's partition plan was used by both Israel and 'Palestine' to declare independence.
> The same U.N that recognized Israel after they declared independence. The same U.N that gave Israel full membership one year after they declared independence.
> So if the land was stolen, why didn't they say so or do anything about it ?


Because the Colonial powers of Britain, France and the like plus UN Control pushed through a vote down the Throats of the Arabs and control the oil fields, Israel was simply a projection of that power to this day as a strategic lackey.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

toastman said:


> BTW, you're using a UN document. The same U.N who's partition plan was used by both Israel and 'Palestine' to declare independence.
> The same U.N that recognized Israel after they declared independence. The same U.N that gave Israel full membership one year after they declared independence.
> So if the land was stolen, why didn't they say so or do anything about it ?



The UN legal subcommittee that addressed the issue said as much.


----------



## toastman (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, you're using a UN document. The same U.N who's partition plan was used by both Israel and 'Palestine' to declare independence.
> ...


They did not say that Israel stole land.


----------



## toastman (Apr 16, 2015)

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, you're using a UN document. The same U.N who's partition plan was used by both Israel and 'Palestine' to declare independence.
> ...


You'll use any bullshit excuse, won\t you Pbel ?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

They said that giving the land to the Europeans was not within the authority of the UN.  Read the source document I uploaded.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2015)

I have the whole document I will upload it if you like.  It is the legal review of the partition plan by the UN legal department.  The lawyers determined that partitioning Palestine without the agreement of the Palestinian people was not legal.  The UN (controlled by the European and American powers) ignored this determination for political reasons and basic racism.


----------



## toastman (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> They said that giving the land to the Europeans was not within the authority of the UN.  Read the source document I uploaded.


They didn't give the land to the Europeans. That would be a matter of real estate.

The Jewish Agency followed the steps preparatory to independence after showing the ability to self govern themselves.


----------



## toastman (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> I have the whole document I will upload it if you like.  It is the legal review of the partition plan by the UN legal department.  The lawyers determined that partitioning Palestine without the agreement of the Palestinian people was not legal.  The UN (controlled by the European and American powers) ignored this determination for political reasons and basic racism.


In 1988, the Palestinians DID agree to 181, by using it as a basis to declare independence.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > I have the whole document I will upload it if you like.  It is the legal review of the partition plan by the UN legal department.  The lawyers determined that partitioning Palestine without the agreement of the Palestinian people was not legal.  The UN (controlled by the European and American powers) ignored this determination for political reasons and basic racism.
> ...


Indeed, and it didn't mean jack shit.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



He has two documents that he keeps posting as an answer to everything, does that count?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> I have the whole document I will upload it if you like.  It is the legal review of the partition plan by the UN legal department.  The lawyers determined that partitioning Palestine without the agreement of the Palestinian people was not legal.  The UN (controlled by the European and American powers) ignored this determination for political reasons and basic racism.


The lawyers determined that partitioning Palestine without the agreement of the Palestinian people was not legal.​
Which shows who has legal control of Palestinian land. It is the right to territorial integrity as stated in other UN resolutions.


----------



## toastman (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Yes it does. It means 181 was implemented, which refute your lie that it wasn't.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

pbel said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



And join you?  No thanks, doing just fine.  So tell us, when did this Palestinian state exist that the Israelis are "stealing" or "occupying"?  And would you like for me to quote you the Hamas charter which calls for an Islamic Caliphate of Palestine on the corpse of the Jewish state?


----------



## pbel (Apr 16, 2015)

Roudy said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...


You're a double talker using irrelevant facts that Palestine never existed as a state as though people of Arab origin never lived there to have rights...Israel should share the land and let the Palestinians form their Nation free from ZioNazi oppression.

Yea, PT BARNUM is for you and your double-talk, albeit funny!


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> I have the whole document I will upload it if you like.  It is the legal review of the partition plan by the UN legal department.  The lawyers determined that partitioning Palestine without the agreement of the Palestinian people was not legal.  The UN (controlled by the European and American powers) ignored this determination for political reasons and basic racism.


Well of course the Muslims would never agree to any land being ruled by non Muslims, and that's not BASIC RACISM AND INTOLERANCE now is it?  Besides who cares if the Arabs would agree to it or not, it really wasn't up to them.  Again, land was ruled by Ottomans for 700 years, that wasn't "legal", but Arabs didn't say jack about it, then it was conquered and under the control of the British who gave all but less than 1% of the land to Arabs and Muslims.  This less than 1% aka Israel was land that has been the Jewish spiritual, religious, and cultural holy land for over 3000 years, more so than for any other religion.  So again, excuse us if we just don't give a shiite what a bunch of invading squatting Arabs have to say about land that wasn't under their control as to the destiny of the Jewish holy land.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

pbel said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > pbel said:
> ...


Yada yada yada.  The word occupation is another fraud just like the Palestinian people.  Since Palestinian state never existed, the Arabs are simply refugees from a war that resulted due to Arab aggression.  Since the Palestinians have shown over and over that they want to form this state that never existed on the corpse of the Jewish state, then perhaps they can form it in Jordan, where it was supposed to be formed in the first place?


----------



## Roudy (Apr 16, 2015)

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, you're using a UN document. The same U.N who's partition plan was used by both Israel and 'Palestine' to declare independence.
> ...


Because the Colonial powers of Britain, France and the like plus UN Control pushed through a vote down the Throats of the Arabs and control the oil fields, Israel was simply a projection of that power to this day as a strategic lackey.[/QUOTE]
Britain and France weren't "colonial powers" in this case, they defeated the Germans and the Ottoman Turks who defeated the Arabs and ruled over that region for 700 years.  They then gave 99% of the land the Ottomans controlled to the Arabs.  You're just using the catch phrase "colonial powers" to obfuscate what really happened which had NOTHING to do with European colonialism.  Actually the Arabs owe the Brits and the French a big THANK YOU for freeing them from Ottoman rule for 700 years.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > I have the whole document I will upload it if you like.  It is the legal review of the partition plan by the UN legal department.  The lawyers determined that partitioning Palestine without the agreement of the Palestinian people was not legal.  The UN (controlled by the European and American powers) ignored this determination for political reasons and basic racism.
> ...


The partition resolution of the General Assembly violates international law in another important respect. It contradicts the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. As Quincy Wright explains in his legal analysis of the Palestine problem, the General Assembly resolution “partitioning Palestine and establishing the state of Israel as demanded by Zionists is difficult to reconcile with this principle. Local hostilities between Zionist and Arab forces deprived the ‘peoples’ in the mandated territory of rights explicitly protected by the Mandate and Article 80 of the Charter without their consent.

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict​


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

^^^^^^
Exactly.  The Arabs refused to accept the existence of a Jewish state, a civil war erupted, the Jews won.  

Tissue?


----------



## Linkiloo (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


 Yep because it has worked so well in the Middle East.


----------



## pbel (Apr 17, 2015)

Roudy said:


> ^^^^^^
> Exactly.  The Arabs refused to accept the existence of a Jewish state, a civil war erupted, the Jews won.
> 
> Tissue?


Haven't seen a surrender yet, have you?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

Roudy said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



It is Orwellian to call the colonized the aggressors.  The colonists are always the aggressors vis-a-vis the colonized.  Just because the European colonizers of Palestine happen to be of the Jewish faith doesn't change the fact that they are and even self identified as colonizers.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > pbel said:
> ...


Bullshit. The land was occupied and ruled by the Ottoman invaders and colonizers for 700 years, after they defeated the Arab invaders and colonizers.  The British defeated the Ottomans and handed 99% of the land to the Arabs for them to form states and govern themselves.  Arabs should be kissing the Brits ass for that.  The 1% was given to Jews, on Jewish holy land where Jews have maintained a presence, despite many destructions and expulsions. Intolerant Arab savages don't want there to be a Jewish state?  TOUGH SHIITE!


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

No, you wrote a bunch of bullshit, Palestine was colonized by people from Europe.  The Zionists self-identified as colonists.  What part of colonization are you having difficulty understanding?


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

There wasn't a Palestinian state nor was the land ruled by the Arabs. The Jews were emigrating to their ancient holy land. Are Catholics emigrating to Vatican city from all over the world or colonizing?  Like I said the British and allies had decided it to be the Jewish homeland after defeating the a Ottomans, and Jews from all over the world were invited to join their brethren in land that has been holier to them than for all other religions. Also, a majority of Jews today in Israel are Jews who fled Muslim persecution and barbarism.

Besides all of this happened about a 90 years ago.  Israel is here to stay, and now a thriving democratic state, getting stronger and more prosperous every day. All your whining, lying and propaganda aren't going to change a thing. I understand as a dedicated, invested anti Semite, it is hard for you to digest this.  So keep posting your garbage if that makes you happy, you bum.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

pbel said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^^^
> ...



Groups of Arab nations attacked many times to destroy the Jewish state and it wasn't to create this mythical Palestine. They got their butts kicked by tiny Israel every time, even though the odds were highly in their favor. Keep up.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 17, 2015)

Linkiloo said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...



Yes. Until the West "intervened" because it didn't like the decisions made by the democraticaly elected government. Iran is a good example. 1953 Iranian coup d tat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Challenger (Apr 17, 2015)

Roudy said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...


The war's not over yet.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

Roudy said:


> There wasn't a Palestinian state nor was the land ruled by the Arabs. The Jews were emigrating to their ancient holy land. Are Catholics emigrating to Vatican city from all over the world or colonizing?  Like I said the British and allies had decided it to be the Jewish homeland after defeating the a Ottomans, and Jews from all over the world were invited to join their brethren in land that has been holier to them than for all other religions. Also, a majority of Jews today in Israel are Jews who fled Muslim persecution and barbarism.
> 
> Besides all of this happened about a 90 years ago.  Israel is here to stay, and now a thriving democratic state, getting stronger and more prosperous every day. All your whining, lying and propaganda aren't going to change a thing. I understand as a dedicated, invested anti Semite, it is hard for you to digest this.  So keep posting your garbage if that makes you happy, you bum.




What does all that bullshit you wrote have to do with the fact that Israel was a European colonial enterprise.  I am not an antisemite, in fact, people like you are the antisemites you are forcing an Algerian/Rhodesian solution for the long term where instead there could be a South African solution.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 17, 2015)

pbel said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^^^
> ...



Not sure that matters much.   Israel could easily crush them.  They are allowed to live, only because the Jews have mercy.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

Roudy said:


> ^^^^^^
> Exactly.  The Arabs refused to accept the existence of a Jewish state, a civil war erupted, the Jews won.
> 
> Tissue?



Of course they refused to accept being evicted and having a European colony established.  I don't think any people would support being colonized, do you?


----------



## Dante (Apr 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course they do. Everybody does.
> 
> ...
> 
> Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves ​


Not in the way the PLO and HAMAS has


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

Andylusion said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



So, the Christians and Muslims of Palestine are lucky to have the Jews oppress them because they could kill them instead.  Great logic bozo, what are you 10 years old?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

You know, it's great to have ZioNutters like this Andylusion around. Shows their mindset.


----------



## Dante (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^^^
> ...


Arabs are being colonized because the Jews settled in their ancient homeland which is what percentage of the Arab landmass?

you seriously need to get an education or -- get a refund for the one you have


----------



## Dante (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> You know, it's great to have ZioNutters like this Andylusion around. Shows their mindset.


you just might be one of the most clueless f()ks to join usmb


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

Roudy said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Well, since the Arabs possessed 85% of the land as stated in UN Resolution A/354 para 164.of 3 September 1947, the land has been stolen from them.  

"164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts
of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains
in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land...."

A 364 of 3 September 1947

This is further confirmed in A Survey of Palestine Vol. 2 page 566.



 

A Survey of Palestine Volume 2 Berman Jewish Policy Archive NYU Wagner


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

Dante said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > You know, it's great to have ZioNutters like this Andylusion around. Shows their mindset.
> ...



The lady doth protest too much, methinks.  LOL

And you know what, it will fly right over his head, he hasn't a clue.


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


 
That only works if the majority recognizes the minorities right to exist, the Palestinians don't. They want to exterminate the Jews and turn Israel into a third world Muslim shit hole.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^^^
> ...



Doesn't really matter does it?   Israel is there to stay, and they can either die, or leave.

By the way, tons of Palestinians have left.  I have met some here in Ohio.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

Of course a great number of Palestinians have left, they were ethnically cleansed by the Jews.  But,  those Christians and Muslims there now aren't going anywhere.  Christians and Muslims in the occupied territories and Israel are now more numerous than the Jews and the non-Jewish population growing faster than the Jewish population. The world will not stand by and allow Israel to murder millions of people (they do allow them to murder a few thousand civilians at a time but  millions would not be tolerated) so a growing non-Jewish majority is the future and minorities that attempt to rule majorities don't last long-term.


----------



## Dante (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Of course a great number of Palestinians have left, they were ethnically cleansed by the Jews...



delusion on a grand scale. that's why there are so many whiney Palestinians alive today

if only they'd started loving their own children more than they hate Jews (golda)


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

Dante said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Of course a great number of Palestinians have left, they were ethnically cleansed by the Jews...
> ...



You claim that Palestinians were not ethnically cleansed and you spout Zionist propaganda. Kind of like the Zionist version of the Holocaust deniers.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

This two page excerpt of a document _(of an unknown date and document symbol)_, really does no appear to have a bearing on the question. 



montelatici said:


> The UN documents clearly state that the Christians and Muslims owned 85% of the land.  So, if it is now in the hands of Jews it is stolen.


*(COMMENT)*

This document does not seem to be a UN legal opinion.  I have search the following with negative results.




 
I'm not saying it is not there, but it appears to be a UN Committee "Working Paper" or  -/AC. .../- Ad hoc committee _(there is no "AO" or "A0" sequence).  _Maybe you can help me out by giving by the Document Identification data.

From what I can gather and glean from this partial document, it does not mention the percentage of land ownership at all; not that it work make any difference.  Land ownership is not the issue as it plays no roll in the application of sovereign governance.  Theoretically, the land could be 100% Christians and Muslims owned and still be under the sovereignty of another non-Christians/Muslims power.  A practical example of this is Jordan.  Jordan is predominantly of Arab affiliation --- other than Hashemite Bedouin _(of the Hejaz)_.  Yet Jordan is a sovereign Hashemite Kingdom.

I don't believe it addresses the issue at all.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Hummm...  You won't like the answer.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination IAW the Charter, but does not say to what territory that pertains.​
> Why would you not use their international borders?


*(COMMENT)*

The UN Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 4 December 2012 --- *Resolution **67/19* --- Status of Palestine in the United Nations, is very specific:

1. _Reaffirms_ the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the *Palestinian territory occupied since 1967*;

2. _Decides_ to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;​
I am wondering why the Arab Palestinians did not reject this as it did all the other considerations offered of the last seven decades???

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 17, 2015)

Dante said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...


what percentage of the Arab landmass?​
100% of those who became refugee.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Hummm...  You won't like the answer.
> 
> ...


That is what Abbas asked for without consulting the people. Does Abbas have the authority to unilaterally change Palestine's borders without public approval?

The most consistent complaint of the PA/PLO is that they do not represent the people.

Now off of the smoke and back to the subject of Palestine's international borders.

The general principle of law "_ex injuria jus non oritur_" is relevant in this context. A claim to a territorial title which originates in an illegal act is invalid. *This relates to the Palestinian territories seized in 1948 as well as to those occupied in 1967.[23] Israel’s status in those territories is that of a “belligerent occupant.”*

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict​
This reiterates what I and many Palestinians have been saying for years. Israel has never legally acquired any territory.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This two page excerpt of a document _(of an unknown date and document symbol)_, really does no appear to have a bearing on the question.
> 
> ...



Here it is Rocco. You are confusing the legal opinion in
A/AC.14/32, which indeed does not discuss land ownership with the document below:



*UNITED
NATIONS
A*






*General Assembly*













 A/364
3 September 1947
*OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF 
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*


*SUPPLEMENT No. 11*



*UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE*



*REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*

*VOLUME 1*





*Lake Success
New York
1947

Para. 164
*
164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land.



A 364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Who is a refugee?  What is the definition?




P F Tinmore said:


> 100% of those who became refugee.


*(COMMENT)*

Any Palestinian that lives in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank (now considered the 1988 modern State of Palestine) is not a "refugee."

*Final Act of the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons*
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
CHAPTER I: General Provisions
Article 1 Definition of the Term “Refugee” 

A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who: 

(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization; Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfil the conditions of paragraph 2 of this section;
(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term “the country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national.​ 
B.(1) For the purposes of this Convention, the words “events occurring CHAPTER before 1 January 1951” in article 1, section A, shall be understood to mean either: 

(a) “events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951”; or 
(b) “events occurring in Europe or elsewhere before 1 January 1951”, and each Contracting State shall make a declaration at the time of signature, ratification or accession, specifying which of these meanings it applies for the purpose of its obligations under this Convention. ​(2) Any Contracting State which has adopted alternative 

(a) may at any time extend its obligations by adopting alternative 
(b) by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.​
C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if: 

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or 
(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily re-acquired it; or 
(3) *He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or *
(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or 
(5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A(1) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality; 
(6) Being a person who has no nationality he is, because of the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence;​
Any Arab Palestinian who lived in the West Bank between April 11, 1950 and July 31, 1988, acquired a new nationality --- unanimously approved by Parliament _(in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented)_ exercising the "right of self-determination" --- _(Citizenship in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)_, and enjoyed the protection of that new nationality _(Jordanian). _ Any Arab Palestinian who resided in the Gaza Strip and West Bank after 15 November 1988 has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality as a citizen of the State of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > There wasn't a Palestinian state nor was the land ruled by the Arabs. The Jews were emigrating to their ancient holy land. Are Catholics emigrating to Vatican city from all over the world or colonizing?  Like I said the British and allies had decided it to be the Jewish homeland after defeating the a Ottomans, and Jews from all over the world were invited to join their brethren in land that has been holier to them than for all other religions. Also, a majority of Jews today in Israel are Jews who fled Muslim persecution and barbarism.
> ...



Your comparisons and claims are unsubstantiated and idiotic.  Just because you claim something that doesn't mean it actually is.  

Funny you're the one bitching about "propaganda" yet you repeat Islamist / Nazi propaganda about Israel being an "apartheid state" like an IslamoNazi parrot.  

You already showed us that you are a pathetic Jew hater who subscribes to pre Vatican II medieval anti antisemitism.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > pbel said:
> ...



How's it going?  Ha ha ha.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^^^
> ...



The Arab Muslims are the colonizers and invaders of the entire Middle East.  They squatted on ancient Jewish lands. Time to face reality.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Of course a great number of Palestinians have left, they were ethnically cleansed by the Jews.  But,  those Christians and Muslims there now aren't going anywhere.  Christians and Muslims in the occupied territories and Israel are now more numerous than the Jews and the non-Jewish population growing faster than the Jewish population. The world will not stand by and allow Israel to murder millions of people (they do allow them to murder a few thousand civilians at a time but  millions would not be tolerated) so a growing non-Jewish majority is the future and minorities that attempt to rule majorities don't last long-term.


Blah blah blah.   "The world" is now busy trying to figure out what to do about Arab Muslim ethnic cleansing, terrorism, intolerance, barbarism and savagery.  What planet do you live on? 

Just because you're a Jew hater obsessed with Jooooos, doesn't mean everybody is.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

There is nothing wrong with my comparisons, they are absolutely a propos.  Your claiming they are not makes no difference.  I am not the only one that judges Israel to be an Apartheid state.  Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Tutu, the U.S. Secretary of State Kerry said as much but had to apologize.  Mandela and Tutu ought to know what Apartheid is like, don't you think.  Plus I  look at the definition of Apartheid and I can't see how anyone does not believe that Israel does not commit the acts that define Apartheid at the expense of the Palestinians. 

The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1973 states in Article 1 that Apartheid includes acts

"committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them." 

1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defines Racial discrimination as:


"any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or* national or ethnic origin* which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



No, the colonists are the Europeans that went from Europe and colonized Palestine.  They even said they were planning to colonize Palestine. Repeating your nonsense doesn't make it true.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Of course a great number of Palestinians have left, they were ethnically cleansed by the Jews.  But,  those Christians and Muslims there now aren't going anywhere.  Christians and Muslims in the occupied territories and Israel are now more numerous than the Jews and the non-Jewish population growing faster than the Jewish population. The world will not stand by and allow Israel to murder millions of people (they do allow them to murder a few thousand civilians at a time but  millions would not be tolerated) so a growing non-Jewish majority is the future and minorities that attempt to rule majorities don't last long-term.
> ...




I am not a Jew hater, but you are an Arab hater, that's clear.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, I read this report, which was one of the UNSCOP Reports on which the Partition Plan Recommendation A/RES/181(II)  was based upon.  But my chief observation still holds.

*EXCERPT from A/RES/181(II):* _Having received and examined_ the report of the Special Committee (document A/364) 1/ including a number of unanimous recommendations and a plan of partition with economic union approved by the majority of the Special Committee,



montelatici said:


> Here it is Rocco. You are confusing the legal opinion in
> A/AC.14/32, which indeed does not discuss land ownership with the document below:
> 
> *General Assembly  *A/364  3 September 1947
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Two points need to be added to complete your hypothesis:

First:

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in *the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which*, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​
AND

105. Nothing was said in the White Paper on the constitution of the independent State, beyond the general principle that* it must enable Arabs and Jews to share in government in such a way that the essential interests of each were safeguarded.* The colonial Secretary, when he subsequently appeared before the Permanent Mandates commission, indicated two possible means through which effect might be given to this principle in the future constitution. There might, he suggested, be a federal system with equal representation in the central institutions for an Arab province and a Jewish province. Or, if the State was constructed on a unitary and not a federal basis, the constitution might provide that, on matters of importance, no decision could be taken unless a majority of the Arab and a majority of the Jewish members of the legislature were in agreement.​
Second:

113. In February, 1940, the government promulgated land Transfers Regulations under which the country was divided into three zones. 

In the largest of these zones, all transfers of land to persons other than Palestinian Arabs were prohibited, except, where certain specific conditions obtain, with the permission of the High commissioner. 
In the second zone, Palestinian Arabs were forbidden to transfer their land except to another Palestinian Arab or with the specific approval of the High commissioner. 
No restrictions were placed upon the transfer of land in a third and smaller zone, including a considerable part of the coastal plain and all municipal areas. these Regulations gave effect to the land clauses of the 1939 White Paper. It is to be noted, however, that a similar Regulation had been drafted before that statement of policy was prepared with the object of replacing the earlier and defective legislation for the protection of cultivators.
In the final analysis, the goal of enabling both the Arabs and Jewish to share in the accomplishment of the essential interests where determined to be incompatible and impossible to achieve simultaneously.  The Arabs, who could not be trusted to protect the Jewish National Home, thus a single-state solution with an Arab majority in power was untrustworthy and likely to corrupt the preservation and protection of the Jewish Culture.  By the same token, the Jewish National Home, needed such autonomy and self-governance as to be able to defend itself against Arab invasion and takeover.  Ultimately this set of dilemmas resulted in the adoption of the 181(II) Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...



Why do you quote UN documents if you think the British and UN had no right to declare Israeli statehood in 1848?  

Taking ONE SENTENCE out of a 300 page document of a general report and correspondence is totally meaningless, DUFUS.  

Here's some of what you left out:

_Appraisal of the Arab case_

163. The Arabs of Palestine consider themselves as having a "natural" right to that country, although they have not been in possession of it as a sovereign nation.

166. The desire of the Arab people of Palestine to safeguard their national existence is a very natural desire. However, Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, is itself a relatively new phenomenon, which appeared only after the division of the "Arab rectangle" by the settlement of the First World War. 

167. With regard to the promises and pledges made to the Arabs as inducement for their support of the Allies in the First World War, it is to be noted that apparently there is no unequivocal agreement as to whether Palestine was included within the territory pledged to independence by the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. In this connexion, since the question of interpretation was raised Great Britain has consistently denied that Palestine was among the territories to which independence was pledged.

175. The Peel Commission, in referring to the matter, had noted in its report that "there was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to consider giving Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia was free. That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now".


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This two page excerpt of a document _(of an unknown date and document symbol)_, really does no appear to have a bearing on the question.
> 
> ...


Like I said he posts irrelevant documents, and makes up his own interpretations.

In other words he has nothing but false propaganda.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> There is nothing wrong with my comparisons, they are absolutely a propos.  Your claiming they are not makes no difference.  I am not the only one that judges Israel to be an Apartheid state.  Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Tutu, the U.S. Secretary of State Kerry said as much but had to apologize.  Mandela and Tutu ought to know what Apartheid is like, don't you think.  Plus I  look at the definition of Apartheid and I can't see how anyone does not believe that Israel does not commit the acts that define Apartheid at the expense of the Palestinians.
> 
> The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1973 states in Article 1 that Apartheid includes acts
> 
> ...


Your comparisons like your claims are bullshit.  Arab Muslims including those of the Palestinian variety, are the biggest and worst practitioners of apartheid today.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

Rocco, we can discuss the legality (whether it was within the power of the General Assembly to do so) and morality of establishing a European colony in Palestine at the expense of the Muslims and Christians living there separately.

I was only making it clear that the Arabs owned 85% of the land in Palestine at the time of partition.  This fact is stated in the report A/364, repeated in the Anglo-American Committee's Survey of Palestine and many other documents.  It may be of no consequence to you, as it doesn't affect sovereignty issues, but I am sure that it was of great consequence to the Christian and Muslims that lost their land to the European Jews.

There are some that post here that believe that somehow the European Jews purchased the land that is Israel.  That is clearly not the case.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Whether or not I agree with your position is unimportant.



P F Tinmore said:


> That is what Abbas asked for without consulting the people. Does Abbas have the authority to unilaterally change Palestine's borders without public approval?
> 
> The most consistent complaint of the PA/PLO is that they do not represent the people.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The 1948-1949 War of Independence, --- initiated on the day the Jewish Declared Independence on the basis of coordination with the UN, the UN Partition Plan, and the completing the UN Steps Preparatory to Independence, --- was to resolve that very dispute.  And based, in part, on the military outcome of that War, the UN determined that Israel should be recognized as a member state.  

As for the representation of the people; this was a decision made by the League of Arab States:


2. To affirm the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. This authority, once it is established, shall enjoy the support of the Arab states in all fields and at all levels;
The Palestinian must maintain the illusion that the State of Israel was established illegally; and that the resolutions representing the Partition Plan, representing a favorable Security Council recommendation, and the General Assembly approval (A/RES/181 --- S/RES/69 --- A/RES/273) where all wrong --- and only the Palestinians knew the legality of the outcome.  If the Palestinians lose the the question of legality --- it removes any justification for the rebelliousness, occupation belligerence, and terrorism that the Palestinians have become known for over the last seven decades.

1. _Acknowledges (A/RES/43/177) _the proclamation of the State of Palestine 

 by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988;

2. _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;

3. _Decides _that, effective as of 15 December 1988, the designation "Palestine" should be used in place of the designation "Palestine Liberation Organization" in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system, in conformity with relevant United Nations resolutions and practice;

4. _Requests _the Secretary-General to take the necessary action to implement the present resolution.​
It is absolutely unknown what the Palestinians think can resolve the issues they have and refuse to discuss peace terms over.  But, it is not reasonable to assume that Israel will relinquish the territory it maintains as sovereign today.  The Peace terms and border questions that cover the Gaza Strip and West Bank are explained in the respect peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan.  

If the UN did not have any authority in the recognition of Israel, then it has no authority in the recognition of the 1988 State of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, I understand.



montelatici said:


> Rocco, we can discuss the legality (whether it was within the power of the General Assembly to do so) and morality of establishing a European colony in Palestine at the expense of the Muslims and Christians living there separately.
> 
> I was only making it clear that the Arabs owned 85% of the land in Palestine at the time of partition.  This fact is stated in the report A/364, repeated in the Anglo-American Committee's Survey of Palestine and many other documents.  It may be of no consequence to you, as it doesn't affect sovereignty issues, but I am sure that it was of great consequence to the Christian and Muslims that lost their land to the European Jews.
> 
> There are some that post here that believe that somehow the European Jews purchased the land that is Israel.  That is clearly not the case.


*(COMMENT)*

Remember, you have to look at the A/364 UNSCOP Report in its entirety and not just a single aspect.  Again, the A/364 UNSCOP Report was an enclosure to the recommendation and then the Resolution on the Partition Plan.  That small piece of information was insufficient when it came to the total evaluation on the adoption of the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## pbel (Apr 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I read this report, which was one of the UNSCOP Reports on which the Partition Plan Recommendation A/RES/181(II)  was based upon.  But my chief observation still holds.
> 
> ...


The Partition Plan was the result of Colonialist/Imperial expression by the winners of WWll who fought for the control of the oilfields...They never had the right to impose except through political malfeasance and military power...
That wrong will never be right unless the Palestinians and Arabs agree to it. That's what the Arabs see...That's why Jihadists are thriving, they want Western influence and politics to be gone.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I understand.
> 
> ...



Rocco,

The subcommittee report that addressed the legality, authority etc. of the UN General Assembly to partition the land is another document prepared by a subcommittee created for that purpose. Title reproduced below.  It is not directly accessible it must be downloaded as a pdf.  It was reproduced probably via mimeogrpah so the quality is low but it is legible.

Distr.
UNRESTRICTED








 A/AC.14/32
11 November 1947

ORIGINAL: ENGLISH

 I only wanted to make the land ownership point in this case.


----------



## toastman (Apr 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



Why did Israel need to 'acquire' territory for ??


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 17, 2015)

pbel, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.



pbel said:


> The Partition Plan was the result of Colonialist/Imperial expression by the winners of WWll who fought for the control of the oilfields...They never had the right to impose except through political malfeasance and military power...


*(COMMENT)*

The disputed between the Arab Palestinians and the Israelis pre-dates the discovery of the gas and oil fields in the greater Levant by half a century.  The Allied Powers had no idea the field were in the region and did not have the technology to reach them 50 to 70 years ago even if they knew.  In 1948 though the 1990's --- it was not about the gas and oil.

The Tamar Gas Field was initially discovered in 1999, and the Leviathan Gas Field was initially discovered in 2010.  The Tamar Gas Field is located in Israel's exclusive economic zone, roughly 80 km (50 mi) west of Haifa in waters 1,700m (5,600 ft) deep.  The Levant Gas Field is not quite as deep --- centered on location ≈ 130 km (81 mi) west of Haifa in waters 1,500m (4,900 ft) deep in the Levantine basin.   In 3d Quarter of 2010, Lebanon submitted to the UN its official review and survey regarding the maritime border, with the conclusion that the Tamar and Leviathan gas fields to be outside Lebanese territory.  However, current surveys indicate that the gas and oil fields extend all the way across the basin to the west --- off the coast of Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel --- including some potential for the State of Palestine (Gaza Strip).



pbel said:


> That wrong will never be right unless the Palestinians and Arabs agree to it. That's what the Arabs see...That's why Jihadists are thriving, they want Western influence and politics to be gone.


*(COMMENT)*

The current political conditions between Israel and the associated regional Arab States (Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon) will be the first to license and profit from the discoveries.  The Syrians and Palestinians don't have the political stability to capitalize on the exploratory license and drilling rights.  The entire Leviathan Basin holds a mean approximation of 1.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil and a mean approximation of 122 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas.

In March 2012 the Tamar Gas Field partners signed a 15-year, $14 billion deal with the Israel Electric Corporation to supply it with 42 billion cubic meters of natural gas.  By March 2012, the consortium developing the Tamar Gas Fields had signed deals worth up to a total of $32 billion with six Israeli companies, committing up to 133 billion cubic meters.

As long as the Palestinians continue to prolong the peace process, the more they will loss in licensing and the greater the loss to the Palestinian development programs that will help it stand alone.

But again, the Israelis nor the Allied Powers or Mandatories, knew of the gas and oil fields.  I know it is popular to blame greed and profitability on the woes that befall the virtual Palestinian victims.  But it is not the case.  The economic loss to the Palestinians will by the fault of the Palestinian self-inflicted wound; also a right of self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Whether or not I agree with your position is unimportant.
> 
> ...


What part of all this is supposed to address my post?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> pbel, et al,
> 
> I'm not sure this is true.
> 
> ...



No Rocco, the economic loss that befell the Palestinian Christians and Muslims was as a result of the partition of Palestine by the UN.  It was not self-inflicted.  The "handful" of indigenous Palestinian Jews did not end up as victims.  Only the non-Jews ended up as victims and lost their land and homes.  Their loss was as a result of their religion, being Christian or Muslim.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> pbel, et al,
> 
> I'm not sure this is true.
> 
> ...



But you see, all of these historical facts don't really matter. The evil Jews must have had a way of knowing about those oil and gas fields, even before they were discovered.  

These guys operate in the whack a mole realm of antisemitic conspiracy theories. If one doesn't stick they jump to another, and another, and another. And so it goes.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > pbel, et al,
> ...



Your own document claims that the Jews were very beneficial to the economy of the region. Arab Muslims in the other hand decided to do their Nazi brethren Nazis did in nazi Germany, not too long before them, boycott Jewish goods. 

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 17, 2015)

montelatici, et al,

Yes, I appreciate the clarification and understand.

It does make that point.



montelatici said:


> Rocco,
> 
> The subcommittee report that addressed the legality, authority etc. of the UN General Assembly to partition the land is another document prepared by a subcommittee created for that purpose. Title reproduced below.  It is not directly accessible it must be downloaded as a pdf.  It was reproduced probably via mimeogrpah so the quality is low but it is legible.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Port to .pdf Report:  A/AC.14/32 11 November 1947 *AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION --- REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2  *[link to .pdf]

And it is a valid point, but not one that effects the:

Original intention of the Allied Powers at San Remo.
The Article 22 requirement to be able to stand alone.
The General Assembly evaluation on the UNSCOP Partition Plan Recommendation.
Of course, there is a lot in what was not said.  This particular report was an ALL Muslim report.

_Composition and terms of reference of Sub-Committee_

1. Sub-Committee 2 on Palestine was set up on 23 October 1947 following the decision of the Ad Hoc Committee of Palestine to establish two Sub-Committees. By virtue of the authority conferred on him by the Ad Hoc Committee, the Chairman nominated the following countries as members of Sub-Committee 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.​The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee were as follows:

1. “To draw up a detailed plan for the future government of Palestine in accordance with the basic principles expressed in the proposals submitted to the General Assembly by the delegations of Saudi Arabia and Iraq (documents A/317 and A/328, respectively) and the proposal submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee by the delegation of Syria (document A/AC.14/22); and

2. To incorporate this plan in the form of recommendations.”​And these insights were incorporated into the UNSCOP Recommendation.

Just to be fair, the main point that this UNSCOP Report tried to convey was that:

"It will be be seen that there is not a single sub-district in which the percentage of Jewish land ownership exceeds 39 per cent, and in nine out of the sixteen sub-districts, their percentage of ownership is less than 5 percent."  _(Bottom of Page 43)_​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

^^^^^


Another piece of Monte's propaganda just got blown to shreds, by Rocco.

Truth is, most of the estimates with regards to land and demographics were just that, estimates.  There was a lot of lobbying going on by the Arab Muslims who were constantly whining about the Jews, and the British went with a lot of their lies without even checking first.

In short the reports were unreliable and didn't and couldn't take into into account the huge numbers of illegal Arabs from neighboring countries.

The reason the reports were not contested was because the creation of a Jewish homeland was never about "demographics" or "land ownership" of the Arab invaders.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 17, 2015)

I don't think Rocco has disputed the percentage of ownership of land.  And, the fact that the records demonstrate that the increase of the Arab population was virtually all natural growth, makes your contention ridiculous propaganda. Just shut up.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 17, 2015)

We don't know how many Arabs had invaded, but number was significant.  By 1947 the Arab invaders had become land owners, duh.


----------



## pbel (Apr 17, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> pbel, et al,
> 
> I'm not sure this is true.
> 
> ...


As usual your words are lost in the forest: 
*US-Saudi mark 70 years of rocky alliance - Al-Monitor: the ...*
www.al-monitor.com/.../american-*saudi*-arabia-*alliance*-anni...

Cached
Al‑Monitor

Loading...

Feb 13, 2015 - Feb. 14 marks the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the _*US alliance*_ with the Kingdom of _*Saudi*_ Arabia. On Feb. 14, 1945, President Franklin ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 18, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Yes, I appreciate the clarification and understand.
> 
> ...


Of course this discussion is merely academic. No matter who owns it, it is still Palestinian Land.

Jews own land in the US and it is still US land.


----------



## toastman (Apr 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, et al,
> ...



Which specific land are you talking about ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 18, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


What does it matter?


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, et al,
> ...



Palestinian land?  For 700 years it was Ottoman land, then it became British land.  There was never a Palestinian people or a Palestinian state.  As the UN records show, "Palestinian" is a relatively new phenomenon.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 18, 2015)

Roudy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; *there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.*

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

So there was never a Palestinian state or people.  It's all a myth that never actually came to fruition.  At least we agree on something.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > pbel, et al,
> ...


And that's how they knew Isrsel was going to have gas fields 60 years later.


----------



## theliq (Apr 18, 2015)

Roudy said:


> So there was never a Palestinian state or people.  It's all a myth that never actually came to fruition.  At least we agree on something.


In 1327,King Robert the Bruce declared that he wanted to be buried in PALESTINE,there has always been a PALESTINE and THERE ALWAYS WILL BE Roudy,much of the pro Jewish lobby on here try to declare that only Jews were in the Holy Land...this often happens when a group overthrows the indigenous population and create their on country...same with the Americans against the Native Indians,Australians against the Aborigines,Turkey against the Armenians .It is a justification to the interlopers for their behaviour.............steve...Roudy you should accept my posts as they are factual in content......there is always a reason why people act and behave the way they do............but in reality it is Guilt fundamentally.....Australia said Sorry to the Aboriginals for way they were treated....... some years ago......We admitted our terrible treatment.

Israel,Turkey and all,are still going through this process BUT ARE STILL DENIERS


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 18, 2015)

theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > So there was never a Palestinian state or people.  It's all a myth that never actually came to fruition.  At least we agree on something.
> ...


And we have 750,000 refugees from "a land without people."

The Zionists have always been full of crap.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Now we are getting closer.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Of course this discussion is merely academic. No matter who owns it, it is still Palestinian Land.
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 18, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now we are getting closer.
> 
> ...


From what I can tell they got the "right" to sovereignty when they were released from Ottoman rule in 1924. Due to illegal external interference, they have never been able to exercise their rights.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Don't delude yourself.  That is not what is said at all.



P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

That is not a proper interpretation at all.  All people needed an identity and a country to assume responsibility for them.  The Nationality Law did that.  It placed the Mandatory as the responsible government over the territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied.  The Nationality was "Palestinian" (citizens of the territory to which the Mandate Applied).  This very same logic was used in the territories to which the Mandates of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq applied.

Don't read more into it than is said.  We are talking about sovereignty and independence.  And you will not find anything, prior to 1988, that indicates that the people indigenous to the territory to which the Mandate applied were ever sovereign or independent.  In fact, you find the exact opposite:



*"Palestine is today a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state*. Palestine is a territory administered under mandate by His Majesty (in respect of the United Kingdom), who is entirely responsible both for its internal administration and for its foreign affairs.

"After the 15th May, 1948, *Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing*. The authority responsible for its administration will, however, have changed.

That is the description.  Your interpretation is entirely incorrect.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Kondor3 (Apr 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


No, the Mandatory Power fashioned an artificial legal construct as a convenient place to hang their hats, in addressing regional issues.

An artificial legal construct that was never self-governing nor self-aware as a polity, and which was swept aside by the events of 1948-1949.

If you object to that sweeping aside, feel free to invent a Time Machine and go back and reconfigure the future.

It's over.

And all that old shit doesn't matter one good goddamn any longer.

None of it.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Don't delude yourself.  That is not what is said at all.
> 
> ...




I'm afraid that you failed to read one of the key terms of Resolution 181. 

"3. *Independent Arab *and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, *shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948.* The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below."

It does not require any interpretation.  Any other subsequent term(s), e.g. other requests of the U.N. within the Resolution do not "qualify" this first term.  Even if in subsequent paragraphs the Resolution required the payment of monies or any other requirement, para. 3 is the defining paragraph.

A RES 181 II of 29 November 1947


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 18, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Don't delude yourself.  That is not what is said at all.
> 
> ...


Don't read more into it than is said. We are talking about sovereignty and independence.​
Actually we are talking about the *right* to sovereignty and independence as subsequent UN resolutions have affirmed.

Palestine was born under foreign military occupation and that status remains to today. They have never had the opportunity to exercise their rights.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > So there was never a Palestinian state or people.  It's all a myth that never actually came to fruition.  At least we agree on something.
> ...



Come on Liq. Palestine was never a stste or sovereign entity. King Robert wanted to be buried there because it is considered Christian holy land.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Arab refugees from a war started by themselves.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2015)

How can people in the process of being colonized (by people from another continent) be accused of "starting a war".  The war started when the Europeans began settling Palestine with the intent to establish a state there.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



Savage Arabs rejected 181 and attacked Israel. 

Oh wait, they want a redo.  Too late Mahmoud.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2015)

The savages are those that invaded Palestine from Europe with the intent settle there and evict the local people.  The Europeans attacked the local people.  Those are just facts.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 18, 2015)

Roudy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...


The Zionists went from Europe to Palestine so that the Palestinians could start a war with them?

You are a hoot.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> How can people in the process of being colonized (by people from another continent) be accused of "starting a war".  The war started when the Europeans began settling Palestine with the intent to establish a state there.



Yada yada yada. The war started by your beloved Nazi mufti.  

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers

The Arabs made some very bad decisions, they thought the Jews would cave in to their usual savagery and thuggery. 

Land was under Ottoman rule for 700 years and then British control. It wasn't up to the Arabs who were mostly invaders themselves.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again, your notions are not quite accurate.  You are trying to applied contemporary understanding to 1924 position.  May I suggest that you look at the broader picture.  Nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne contradicts or alters the understanding in the Treaty of Sevres (1920).  If anything, the expanded concessions further benefit the Allied Powers.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


(COMMENT)

First, the Middle Eastern territory was NOT "released from Ottoman rule in 1924."  That is just when the replacement Treaty (written by the Allied Powers) was with Turkey (the successor government to the Ottoman Empire.  As I've said many time before, the Ottoman relinquished their control in the Armistice of 1918.

The Armistice of Mudros, which was concluded on October 30, 1918, ended the hostilities in the Middle Eastern theatre of war between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies. It was signed by Rauf Bey, the Ottoman Minister of Marine, and the British Admiral Somerset Arthur Gough-Calthorpe, on board Agamemnon in Mudros harbor on the Aegean island of Lemnos. The armistice was followed with occupation of Istanbul, the subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, and the Treaty of Sèvres, although the latter was never ratified due to the Turkish victory at the War of Liberation.

"Under the terms of the armistice, the *Ottomans surrendered their remaining garrisons in Hejaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica*; the Allies were to occupy the Straits of the Dardanelles and the Bosporus, Batum (now in southwest Georgia), and the Taurus tunnel system; and the Allies won the right to occupy “in case of disorder” the six Armenian provinces in Anatolia and to seize “any strategic points” in case of a threat to Allied security."

5. Immediate demobilisation of the Turkish Army except for such troops as are required for surveillance of frontiers and for the maintenance of internal order (number of effectives and their disposition to be determined later by the Allies after consultation with the Turkish Government).

16. Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.​
The Idea of "illegal external interference" had not yet become an internationally recognized political concept (General Assembly Resolution 50/172 --- Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes.

*State sovereignty*
The notion concept of sovereignty refers to the three-fold capacity of a state, which is the "absolute supremacy over internal affairs within its territory, absolute right to govern its people, and freedom from any external interference in the above matters" (Wang, 2004: 473). So a state is sovereign if it has the ability to make and implement laws within its territory, and can function without any external power and assistance, and doesn't acknowledges any higher authority above itself in the world of independent states. From the above definition one can draw the conclusion that either a state can be sovereign or not, since sovereignty is defined as the absolute supremacy and right of the government in a given state.

Find out more from UK Essays here: The End Of The State Sovereignty Politics Essay​
The replacement to the Treaty of Sevres (1920) with the Ottomans --- being the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) with the Turks --- is some what tricky in terms of absolute law.  Articles 38 through 44 (Section III --- Protection of Minorities) is where Turkey undertakes that the stipulations (Article 37) contained in Articles 38 to 44 shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, no regulation, nor official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation, nor official action prevail over them.  With the exception of Article 37, nothing in the totality of the remainder even remotely deals with the political concept of external interference.

*ARTICLE 38*.

The Turkish Government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to ali inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.

All inhabitants of Turkey shall be entitled to free exercise, whether in public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, the observance of which shall not be incompatible with public order and good morals.

Non-Moslem minorities will enjoy full freedom of movement and of emigration, subject to the measures applied, on the whole or on part of the territory, to all Turkish nationals, and which may be taken by the Turkish Government for national defence, or for the maintenance of public order.​*ARTICLE 39*.

Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities will enjoy the same civil and political rights as Moslems.

All the inhabitants of Turkey, without distinction of religion, shall be equal before the law.

Differences of religion, creed or confession shall not prejudice any Turkish national in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, as, for instance, admission to public employments, functions and honours, or the exercise of professions and industries.

No restrictions shall be imposed on the free use by any Turkish national of any language in private intercourse, in commerce, religion, in the press, or in publications of any kind or at public meetings.

Notwithstanding the existence of the official language, adequate facilities shall be given to Turkish nationals of non-Turkish speech for the oral use of their own language before the Courts.​*ARTICLE 40*.

Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as other Turkish nationals. In particular, they shall have an equal right to establish, manage and control at their own expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein.​*ARTICLE 41*.

As regards public instruction, the Turkish Government will grant in those towns and districts, where a considerable proportion of non-Moslem nationals are resident, adequate facilities for ensuring that in the primary schools the instruction shall be given to the children of such Turkish nationals through the medium of their own language. This provision will not prevent the Turkish Government from making the teaching of the Turkish language obligatory in the said schools.

In towns and districts where there is a considerable proportion of Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities, these minorities shall be assured an equitable share in the enjoyment and application of the sums which may be provided out of public funds under the State, municipal or other budgets for educational, religious, or charitable purposes.

The sums in question shall be paid to the qualified representatives of the establishments and institutions concerned.​*ARTICLE 42*.

The Turkish Government undertakes to take, as regards non-Moslem minorities, in so far as concerns their family law or personal status, measures permitting the settlement of these questions in accordance with the customs of those minorities.

These measures will be elaborated by special Commissions composed of representatives of the Turkish Government and of representatives of each of the minorities concerned in equal number. In case of divergence, the Turkish Government and the Council of the League of Nations will appoint in agreement an umpire chosen from amongst European lawyers.

The Turkish Government undertakes to grant full protection to the churches, synagogues, cemeteries, and other religious establishments of the above-mentioned minorities. All facilities and authorisation will be granted to the pious foundations, and to the religious and charitable institutions of the said minorities at present existing in Turkey, and the Turkish Government will not refuse, for the formation of new religious and charitable institu- tions, any of the necessary facilities which are guaranteed to other private institutions of that nature.​*ARTICLE 43*.

Turkish nationals belonging to non-Moslem minorities shall not be compelled to perform any act which constitutes a violation of their faith or religious observances, and shall not be placed under any disability by reason of their refusal to attend Courts of Law or to perform any legal business on their weekly day of rest.

This provision, however, shall not exempt such Turkish nationals from such obligations as shall be imposed upon all other Turkish nationals for the preservation of public order.​*ARTICLE 44*.

Turkey agrees that, in so far as the preceding Articles of this Section affect non-Moslem nationals of Turkey, these provisions constitute obligations of international concern and shall be placed under the guarantee of the League of Nations. *They shall not be modified without the assent of the majority of the Council of the League of Nations.* The British Empire, France, Italy and Japan hereby agree not to withhold their assent to any modification in these Articles which is in due form assented to by a majority of the Council of the League of Nations.

Turkey agrees that any Member of the Council of the League of Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the Council any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these obligations, and that the Council may thereupon take such action and give such directions as it may deem proper and effective in the circumstances.

Turkey further agrees that any difference of opinion as to questions of law or of fact arising out of these Articles between the Turkish Government and any one of the other Signatory Powers or any other Power, a member of the Council of the League of Nations, shall be held to be a dispute of an international character under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Turkish Government hereby consents that any such dispute shall, if the other party thereto demands, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The decision of the Permanent Court shall be final and shall have the same force and effect as an award under Article 13 of the Covenant.​
Key in this set of Articles is the *protection of Minorities* _(particularly "non-Muslim)_.  In reading Article 44, you will note that the majority of the Council of the League of Nations plays a very specific roll.  But these minority protection Articles were unique in there time.  The Treaty makes the general understanding clear:

*ARTICLE 16*.​
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​Nothing in the Treaty sets the tone for the _"right" to sovereignty_ as you suggest; the sovereignty went as indicated with none to the indigenous population of the Middle East.  The Ottomans relinquished the sovereignty to the Allied Power in 1918 and the Turks relinquished their control in Article 16, as delimited by Article 37 _(invoking as Law Articles 38 through 44)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Jews had maintained a presence throughout the millennia. Jerusalem the capital of Palestine was majority Jewish in 1896.  Hebron had an ancient Jewish community which Arab animals committed ethnic cleansing on in 1929. 

Zionists went to The BRITISH mandate of Palestine to join their brethren and form a Jewish homeland.  At the same time hoards of Arabs invaded and the savages started a civil war with the Jews.  Arab leader was a certified Nazi who wanted to commit genocide on the Jews and Christians. 

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The savages are those that invaded Palestine from Europe with the intent settle there and evict the local people.  The Europeans attacked the local people.  Those are just facts.


The savagery was started by the Arabs when they attacked the ancient Jews of Hebron in 1929. 

Facts according to Monte. What a joke.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

One needs only look at Muslim behavior today, to determine what would be the destiny of the Jews and Christians and their holy sites, had the savage Arabs actually succeeded in defeating the Jews.  

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2015)

The Covenant of the League of Nations gave provisional independence to certain former Ottoman possessions (Class A Mandates) of which Palestine was one.  

"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. *T*he wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

I include the subsequent paragraphs to make sure that the tiresome refrain that somehow Palestine was not among  the Class A Mandates.  The Mandates of other classes are, in fact, identified in subsequent paragraphs.

"Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, your timeline of what becomes a right and when --- is fouled-up.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

No UN Resolution comes before 1945.  And No UN Resolution expands the concept of "sovereignty and independence" to a status above the roll of the majority of the Council of the League of Nations set by treaty.  

The idea that "Palestine was born under foreign military occupation" is ambiguous at best.  Yes the 1988 Declared Palestine (territories occupied by Israel in 1967) was born under "occupation."  Palestine _(the territory to which the former Mandate applied)_ was created solely by the Allied Powers _(within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers)_.  

The Arab Palestinian had a number of opportunities to exercise their rights (pertaining to that era in time) and generally used it _(with the exception of 1951 and 1988)_ in a negative or obstructive fashion.  Clearly, in 1988, the Palestinians Declared Independence.  And in doing so --- exercised their right --- as it existed then.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The savages are those that invaded Palestine from Europe with the intent settle there and evict the local people.  The Europeans attacked the local people.  Those are just facts.
> ...



Firstly, Europeans were the first to attack the locals, well before Hebron.  They attacked the locals and killed them as has been discovered by researchers in the Ottoman archives in Istanbul.

"*Petitions sent by locals to the Ottoman sultan in Istanbul reveal the complexity of early encounters between local villagers and new European immigrants."*

"We, the residents of villages neighboring with the Jewish colonies of Daran [Rehovot] and Lun Kara (Rishon Leztion)," and complain that the Jews "wanted to strip the camel owner of their clothes, money and camels, but these men refused to give their camels and escaped from Lun Kara with their camels, protecting each other [to seek refuge with] men of the law… *The above mentioned Jews attacked our villages*, robbed and looted our property, *killed* and even damaged the family honor, all this in a manner we find hard to put in words."

New documents reveal early Palestinian attitudes toward Zionist settlements - Israel News Haaretz

The Arab Jews in Hebron were not targeted unless they allied themselves with the European colonists.  In fact, about 4/5s of the Jews killed in Hebron were European Jews.

"Rabbi Slonim, who had tried to shelter the Jews, was approached by the rioters and offered a deal. If all the Ashkenazi yeshiva students were given over to the Arabs, the rioters would spare the lives of the Sephardi community.

Rabbi Slonim refused to turn over the students.  The Arabs killed him on the spot.

By the end of the massacre, 12 Sephardi Jews and 55 Ashkenazi Jews were murdered."


The Hebron Massacre of 1929 Jewish Virtual Library


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

From Monte's site:

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate

*ART. 4.*
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country. 

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

*ART. 6.*
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. 

*ART. 7.*
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. 

*ART. 11.*

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.

******

So ya see, YOU'RE FULLA SHIT. 

Once again you got your butt kicked. I'm beginning to think you enjoy it.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Yeah?  You forgot that ALL the Jews fled from Hebron, after the savagery by the Arabs. 

And are you actually promoting that it was the Jewish MINORITY that were attacking the Arab / Muslim majority who happened to rule Southern Syria as the Ottomans called this mythical Palestine for 700 years? 

More insanity by Monte.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2015)

Roudy said:


> From Monte's site:
> 
> The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
> 
> ...



So what is your point?  Does this change the fact that Jews came from Europe to colonize Palestine?  Britain was a colonial power itself.  Again, what is your point?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



No, just posted an article from an Israeli newspaper.  I make no claims, the Israeli authors made the claim that the settlers attacked the Arabs through the study of Ottoman archives.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > From Monte's site:
> ...



Are you having reading comprehension problems?  It doesn't refer to any colonization.  It does however clearly state that the land is to be the future Jewish homeland, for the Jews that were already there, and those that are coming.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Ha ha ha. A leftist Israeli newspaper. Did you read what the "conflict" was about?  Two Arab boys stole grapes from a Jewish vineyard, and were caught, so they got their asses kicked.  You compare that to the Hebron massacre incited by the Nazi mufti, which wiped out the entire historical Jewish history of Hebron?  You are pathetic.  

Ottoman Turks practiced institutionalized racism and persecution on the Jews in the holy land. They gave preference to the Arabs as fellow Muslims, which is why the Arabs invaded during the Ottoman rule, and kept coming after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. 

So now that you're quoting a leftist propoganda site, I suppose I can quote "Arabs or ex Palestinians" who happen to tell the truth about the situation and its history.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2015)

You have a general comprehension problem.  Going to a place on another continent, evicting the locals and creating one's own state is called colonization.  That's what colonization is, you nitwit. Sheesh.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

That's if the locals were evicted, which they weren't. And if the locals were locals and not Arab colonizers and invaders, sheesh.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



So, now an Israeli newspaper is also considered Arab propaganda.  Here you can download it directly from the academic institution if you don't trust the Israeli press.

 Petitioning the Sultan by Yuval Ben-Bassat Roberto Mazza - Academia.edu

All your ravings and bullshit, don't make your case, by the way.  They lead to a suspicion of  emotional issues.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2015)

Roudy said:


> That's if the locals were evicted, which they weren't. And if the locals were locals and not Arab colonizers and invaders, sheesh.



The locals were evicted.  Making irrational claims do not help your case at all.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

Ottoman Turk oppression and persecution of Jews in the holy land is factual.  The Arabs as fellow Muslims took advantage and further incited the Ottomans into persecuting them even more. 

Even though there was persecution by Muslim savages, Jews still kept coming and maintained a presence throughout the 700 years.  The invaders are the Arabs.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > That's if the locals were evicted, which they weren't. And if the locals were locals and not Arab colonizers and invaders, sheesh.
> ...


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 18, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Yes, I appreciate the clarification and understand.
> 
> ...


The terms of reference of the Sub-Committee were as follows:

1. “To draw up a detailed plan for the future government of Palestine...
----------------------
In political philosophy, the phrase *consent of the governed* refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of *consent* is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government".
-----------------------
The Palestinians universally rejected a foreign created government imposed on them.They had the right to reject this foreign imposition.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 18, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Again, your timeline of what becomes a right and when --- is fouled-up.
> 
> ...


The idea that "Palestine was born under foreign military occupation" is ambiguous at best​
By 1924 Palestine had been under British military occupation for several years. That occupation was supposed to change to a mandate. For Britain that was just a name change. It continued its military occupation until it left in 1948.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



If the non-Jews had not been evicted there would not be Palestinian refugee camps. No link is required.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Link?  Palestinian refugee camps occurred after the Arabs attacked, 48, and then 67. 

You see, you got nothing but false propoganda.  Non of your famous "documents" can show that there was eviction of Arabs, blabbermouth.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

First --- Report: A/AC.14/32 11 November 1947*AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION --- REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2 *[link to .pdf] does not address the concepts of the "consent of the govern."  It was not a criteria used in the recommendation from the UN Special Committee on Palestine to the General Assembly.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Article 21 of the *1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights*  was adopted [A/RES/3/217A (III)] in December 1948 _(6 month after the Israeli Declaration of Independence)_ as a non-binding resolution.  While subparagraph (3) of the Resolution states that "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government;" it is not practiced universally or world-wide.

There are 22 in the League of Arab States (LAS).

Algeria = A military dictatorship with few legal institutions defining it.
Bahrain = Constitutional Monarchy
Comoros = Republic
Djibouti = Republic
Egypt = Republic
Iraq = Parliamentary Democracy
Jordan = Constitutional Monarchy
Kuwait = Constitutional Emirate
Lebanon = Republic
Libya = UNDEFINED --- Operates under a transitional government under siege.
Mauritania = Republic
Morocco = Constitutional Monarch
Oman = Monarchy
Palestine = Unity Government (Coalition)
Qatar = Emirate
Saudi  Arabia = Monarchy
Somalia = In the process of attempting a federal parliamentary republic.
Sudan = Federal republic ruled by the National Congress Party (NCP), which seized power by military coup in 1989;
Syria = UNDEFINED --- Operates under a transitional government under siege.
Tunisia = Republic
UAE = Federation with specified powers delegated to the UAE federal government and other powers reserved to member emirates.
Yemen = UNDEFINED --- Operates under a transitional government under siege.​The word "*democracy*" literally means *"rule by the people."* In a democracy, the people govern.  This is the description of the meaning behind:  "Consent of the Govern"  In the "*List of Forms of Governments*," a Democracy refers to a broad range of types of government based upon the "consent of the governed." It is usually practiced in the form of a republic, which provides checks and balances and an establishment of the collective head.

Of the 22 members of the LAS, only 7 _(one-third)_ are either Republics, Democracies or variations.  Another 7 are forms of dynastic Islamic Monarchies/Emirates.  The remaining third is a set of states in failure or internal conflict.

The implication that the UN must promote a government through the "consent of the govern," flies in the face of a majority of the worlds population.  Approximately 20% of the worlds population is in a Communist State  --- The People's Republic of China; in which the power structure in such a governments is centralized and conservative.  The idea you promote that "a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society over which that political power is exercised, while sounding good --- is not generally true.  It is not even true in the Regional Governments of the Middle East and Arab States.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...



Nah, even the UN noted that the concept of a Palestinian people and state was a NEW PHENOMENON. Yikes!  Where to now, captain bullshit?!


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2015)

The UN never, ever stated anything of the sort.  Constant, pathological lying from Ruddy.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 18, 2015)

Look it up liar.  Under "assessment of Arab claims", from one of your own documents. 

Still can't come up with a link showing Jews evviting the Arabs, eh?  

You miserable fool.  Ha ha ha.


----------



## theliq (Apr 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


And at this time "Israel" was a mere Dream......


----------



## montelatici (Apr 19, 2015)

Roudy said:


> Look it up liar.  Under "assessment of Arab claims", from one of your own documents.
> 
> Still can't come up with a link showing Jews evviting the Arabs, eh?
> 
> You miserable fool.  Ha ha ha.



Keep blabbering.  I said that the Europeans evicted the local non-Jews.  This is just a fact, no links required. I don't have any idea what "evviting" means.  (Don't post when you are on the sauce.

The personal insults and the "ha,ha,has" just make you appear more of an uneducated clown than you really are, if that's possible.


----------



## toastman (Apr 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Look it up liar.  Under "assessment of Arab claims", from one of your own documents.
> ...


The fact that you brought up a clear typo says a lot about you Monti.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 19, 2015)

What does it say Toast?


----------



## Roudy (Apr 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Look it up liar.  Under "assessment of Arab claims", from one of your own documents.
> ...



Actually, it's you that looks like an uneducated troll with nothing better to do all day than post terrorist propoganda.  I doubt you even graduated from high school. 

Typical Pro Palestinian mentality, accusing others of things you are most guilty of.

Ha ha ha...ha ha ha...yes I write that because you are obviously so mentally ill, that you make me laugh.  

So, after two days of scouring all those "documents" where's your proof that the jews evicted anybody? 

YA GOT NOTHIN'!   

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!


----------



## Roudy (Apr 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> What does it say Toast?



That you're a pathetic, desperate propagandist who's hatred of Jews has driven you insane.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 19, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Don't forget, instead of completing the sentence with a parenthesis ")" he put a period. Must be because he's an insane, illiterate troll.

This is all because he can't come up with any proof that Jews evicted anybody. So he's just creating one diversion after another. 

Oh look! A bird! No it's a ROCKET from a Hamas freedom fighter!  Ha ha ha.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 You mean you have spammed this board and others with manipulated reports.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






It was all a colonial scheme, even the arab muslim nations set up under the various mandates. o why are you singling out the Palestinian mandate as being any different


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...







 Why they are both the same when push comes to shove. Any Palestinian state would very soon become an Islamic state and the non muslims would be ethnically cleansed in short order.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



I see the facts, even when written down in black and white can't deprogram the brainwashing you and Ruddy have undergone.

Nothing is manipulated it is just what the text says, verbatim. Sorry it contradicts nearly all the propaganda you have fed and constantly spew.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



There cannot be a colonial project without colonists you nitwit.  Do you ever reread the nonsense you write?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 19, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Israel singled itself out. In all of the other countries mentioned the natives still live in their homeland.

In the case of Israel the natives got the boot. So Israel is the odd one out by its own choice.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think that like most Muslim populations of the greater Middle East and Gulf States, few of those in the tribes were able to grasp and understand the intent and purpose of the post-WW1 Mandates.  Nor were these populations to understand the unification effort of the military and political campaigns, in which the various Arab tribes, Sheikhdoms, and Emirates, on most of the Arabian Peninsula were gradually inducted by the House of Saud into a single Kingdom --- Saudi Arabia came into existence on 23 September 1932.  



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel singled itself out. In all of the other countries mentioned the natives still live in their homeland.
> 
> In the case of Israel the natives got the boot. So Israel is the odd one out by its own choice.


*(COMMENT)*

And in general, the attmpt to over throw the newly formed government of Israel was a major criminal offense.

This is not truly colonialism, just the same as the unification of the tribes by the House of Saud was not empire building.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 19, 2015)

1.  Attempting to prevent a colonial power from establishing a settler colony on one's land is not only *not *a criminal offense, it is a duty of the people in the process of being colonized, to resist colonization.  

I don't like to use Wiki because there is an acknowledged high level of organized editing of articles that have to do with the I/P conflict, especially via the Hasbara project.  But, since the definition of settler colonialism is not that controversial, U.S., Australian, New Zealand academics freely admit that their respective countries are settler colonial projects, I am using it here. The Wiki definition of settler colonialism applies to the Zionist project. 

"_*Settler colonialism* is a form of colonial formation whereby foreign family units move into a region. An imperial power oversees the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority. This colonization sometimes leads, by a variety of means, to depopulation of the previous inhabitants, and the settlers take over the land left vacant by the previous residents. Unlike other forms of colonialism, the "colonizing authority" (the imperial power) is not always the same nationality as the "colonizing workforce" (the settlers) in cases of settler colonialism. The settlers are, however, generally viewed by the colonizing authority as racially superior to the previous inhabitants, giving their social movements and political demands greater legitimacy than those of colonized peoples in the eyes of the home government.

Land is the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. gold, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labor, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Normal colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts indefinitely, except in the rare event of complete evacuation (e.g., the Lost Colony of Roanoke) or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes that "settler colonialism destroys to replace" and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".
_
Settler colonialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


The "tribes" lived on the Arabian peninsula, they did not come from another continent to colonize the peninsula.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think that like most Muslim populations of the greater Middle East and Gulf States, few of those in the tribes were able to grasp and understand the intent and purpose of the post-WW1 Mandates.  Nor were these populations to understand the unification effort of the military and political campaigns, in which the various Arab tribes, Sheikhdoms, and Emirates, on most of the Arabian Peninsula were gradually inducted by the House of Saud into a single Kingdom --- Saudi Arabia came into existence on 23 September 1932.
> 
> ...


And in general, the attmpt to over throw the newly formed government of Israel was a major criminal offense.​
How so?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 19, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

I think you are lost here.

Where is the point of origin for the "duty of the people" --- to --- "prevent a colonial power from establishing a settler colony?"



montelatici said:


> 1.  Attempting to prevent a colonial power from establishing a settler colony on one's land is not only *not *a criminal offense, it is a duty of the people in the process of being colonized, to resist colonization.


*(COMMENT)*

You start by asking the questions:  

Is there a distinction between "legal duty" and a "moral obligation?"
How are "duties" and "obligations" established?   



montelatici said:


> I don't like to use Wiki because there is an acknowledged high level of organized editing of articles that have to do with the I/P conflict, especially via the Hasbara project.  But, since the definition of settler colonialism is not that controversial, U.S., Australian, New Zealand academics freely admit that their respective countries are settler colonial projects, I am using it here. The Wiki definition of settler colonialism applies to the Zionist project.


*(COMMENT)*

Forget the political end-fighting and use your intellect.   Is there a difference between "*colonization* by settlers" --- and --- "*colonialism* by settlers?"  _(If so, what is it?)_

The difficulty in the question is the very issue that many pro-Palestinians raise:  That colonialism extends from imperialism; conquest in which the European Imperialist expects to receive a return of their exploratory investment --- or --- either an economic profit or strategic benefits.  But in the case of imperialism --- foreign powers generally extend administration over the territory without a significant investment in settlement.   This is more commonly seen in economic hegemony.

Colonization is more akin to migration --- with the migrants maintain "strong links" with their parent nation; but not necessarily a subordinate association.  Typically,  the migrants obtain tremendous "privileges" over indigenous population in the area being colonized.  This is more the case of the Jewish Population and its immigration to the Middle East _(Territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied)_.   

The big distinct is in the return on the investment to the Allied Powers and the Mandatory.  There was no economic, political or military advantage achieved in the Mandate territories realized by the Mandatories.



montelatici said:


> "*Settler colonialism*_ is a form of __colonial__ formation whereby foreign family units move into a region. An imperial power oversees the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority. This colonization sometimes leads, by a variety of means, to depopulation of the previous inhabitants, and the settlers take over the land left vacant by the previous residents. Unlike other forms of colonialism, the "colonizing authority" (the imperial power) is not always the same nationality as the "colonizing workforce" (the settlers) in cases of settler colonialism. The settlers are, however, generally viewed by the colonizing authority as racially superior to the previous inhabitants, giving their social movements and political demands greater legitimacy than those of colonized peoples in the eyes of the home government. _


*(COMMENT)*

In the case of the territory to which the Mandate applied, the Jewish People migrated under the authority of the legitimate government established by treaty and overseen by the Allied Powers and the Council of the League of Nations.  The principle objective was the establishment of the Jewish National Home to protect and preserve the Jewish people and culture.
_


montelatici said:



			Land is the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. gold, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labor, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Normal colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts indefinitely, except in the rare event of complete evacuation (e.g., the Lost Colony of Roanoke) or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes that "settler colonialism destroys to replace" and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".
		
Click to expand...

_


montelatici said:


> Settler colonialism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



*(COMMENT)*
This would be arguable if it were not for the fact that the issue is cultural preservation and not colonialism. 



montelatici said:


> The "tribes" lived on the Arabian peninsula, they did not come from another continent to colonize the peninsula.


*(COMMENT)*

The distance travelled is not the criteria by which you judge --- but the objective.  In the case of the Arab Tribal unification, the House of Saud (Second Saudi State) appraised the territory and subordinated the Main Tribes of: 

Ajman
Al-Dawasir
Al-Murrah
Amarat
Anaizah
Awazim
Bani Malik
Bani Yam
Dahamsha
Dhufir
Harb
Huwaytat
Muntafiq
Mutair
Qahtan
Ruwalla
Shammar
Utaibah
Whether you unify the territory from Europe or Arabia --- the result is nearly the same in terms of the leadership in the other 18 tribes (removed from power). 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 19, 2015)

1.  The duty of persons to defend themselves from invaders, particularly invaders planning to dispossess them is based on  natural law.  

2.  Among the experts, there is a difference between simple colonialism and settler colonialism.  There is a website dedicated to the subject.  

"Settler colonialism is a global and transnational phenomenon, and as much a thing of the past as a thing of the present. There is no such thing as neo-settler colonialism or post-settler colonialism because settler colonialism is a resilient formation that rarely ends. Not all migrants are settlers; as Patrick Wolfe has noted, settlers come to stay. They are founders of political orders who carry with them a distinct sovereign capacity. And settler colonialism is not colonialism: settlers want Indigenous people to vanish (but can make use of their labour before they are made to disappear). Sometimes settler colonial forms operate within colonial ones, sometimes they subvert them, sometimes they replace them. But even if colonialism and settler colonialism interpenetrate and overlap, they remain separate as they co-define each other."

definition settler colonial studies blog

3.  Whether colonists migrate legally or illegally to form a colony, makes very little difference.  The Italian colonists that colonized Tunisia (they outnumbered the French colonists 3 to 1) were legal colonists though not from the colonizing power.  It did not make them any less "colonists" and were treated no different from the French when the native Tunisians were able to force decolonization. 

4.  The people on the Arabian peninsula were living in the land, they were not colonists.  The European Jews came from Europe and were not living on the land that was colonized.  I hope you can comprehend the distinction.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 19, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

These were direct attacks against Civilians and Civilian Objects --- which were protected against attack under Rules #6, #10, and #21, at a minimum, Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL).




P F Tinmore said:


> And in general, the attmpt to over throw the newly formed government of Israel was a major criminal offense.​
> How so?


*(COMMENT)*

UN CHARTER
Chapter I --- Article 2 --- Clause 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## theliq (Apr 19, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > What does it say Toast?
> ...


I dunno Roudy every one at times uses Propaganda but only Israel have made it an Art Form over the past 50 years.........Glass Houses Roudy,Glass Houses.....steve


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> These were direct attacks against Civilians and Civilian Objects --- which were protected against attack under Rules #6, #10, and #21, at a minimum, Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
> 
> ...


How about posting a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where that territorial integrity was violated?


----------



## theliq (Apr 19, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> These were direct attacks against Civilians and Civilian Objects --- which were protected against attack under Rules #6, #10, and #21, at a minimum, Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
> 
> ...


But Israel was NEVER ratified by the UN security council deeming it an unlawful State.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 20, 2015)

theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Every heard of Pallywood?  It's a huge industry dedicated to bullshit and lies and employs many so called Palestinians. When it comes to propoganda they are the masters.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> 1.  The duty of persons to defend themselves from invaders, particularly invaders planning to dispossess them is based on  natural law.
> 
> 2.  Among the experts, there is a difference between simple colonialism and settler colonialism.  There is a website dedicated to the subject.
> 
> ...



So after the Arab savages invaded, raped, looted and killed nearly every country in the region, they ended up living there and that's what made them indigenous!  Nice.


----------



## theliq (Apr 20, 2015)

Roudy said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  The duty of persons to defend themselves from invaders, particularly invaders planning to dispossess them is based on  natural law.
> ...


No they did not do the things you mentioned at all Roudy......but Jews,Israelites have


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 20, 2015)

theliq,  et al,

The Israeli application for admission was forwarded to the UN Security Council.



theliq said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The UN Security Council _Recommended _ to the "General Assembly" that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations; S/RES/69 (1949) S/1277 4 March 1949.

The General Assembly _Decided_ to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations; A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949. The Charter is quite clear:

*Article 4 
CHAPTER II: MEMBERSHIP*

Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
*The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council*.
There it is:

Application
Favorable Security Council Recommendation
General Assembly Admission

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 So you post the reports in their entirety do you, or do you start half way through a sentence that is half way through the report.   That is the manipulation you carry out every time after being destroyed on your Berman report


----------



## montelatici (Apr 20, 2015)

I post the relevant text you nitwit.  The reports are hundreds of pages long.  There is no manipulation.  I have never been destroyed by any of you propagandists.  Quit dreaming, I only post fact, supported by fact.  Your propaganda is unveiled as such through the posting of fact, so your only defense is making false claims.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Read the hadiths and you will find that you are wrong


----------



## Roudy (Apr 20, 2015)

theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Ya okay, and that's just because you said so, right?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 And it was the arab muslims that colonised by force the whole of the M.E. and are still doing it in Africa and Europe today


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 So the Egyptians living in the west bank are in their homeland, and the Syrians living in gaza are in their homeland. I know the Jews living in Israel are in their homeland as International Law says they are.   And since when has Saudi been in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Iran, because that is where the leaders and most of the people of those nations came from.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

o





montelatici said:


> I post the relevant text you nitwit.  The reports are hundreds of pages long.  There is no manipulation.  I have never been destroyed by any of you propagandists.  Quit dreaming, I only post fact, supported by fact.  Your propaganda is unveiled as such through the posting of fact, so your only defense is making false claims.






No you SPAM the board with the same cherry picked and manipulated reports from the UN and other sources that support your islamomorn POV


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> I post the relevant text you nitwit.  The reports are hundreds of pages long.  There is no manipulation.  I have never been destroyed by any of you propagandists.  Quit dreaming, I only post fact, supported by fact.  Your propaganda is unveiled as such through the posting of fact, so your only defense is making false claims.






 No they are 5 or 6 pages long at the most of the relevant information, stupid things like nominees for committee are what should be removed. Not the parts that destroy your argument before it has even got of the ground


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> 1.  Attempting to prevent a colonial power from establishing a settler colony on one's land is not only *not *a criminal offense, it is a duty of the people in the process of being colonized, to resist colonization.
> 
> I don't like to use Wiki because there is an acknowledged high level of organized editing of articles that have to do with the I/P conflict, especially via the Hasbara project.  But, since the definition of settler colonialism is not that controversial, U.S., Australian, New Zealand academics freely admit that their respective countries are settler colonial projects, I am using it here. The Wiki definition of settler colonialism applies to the Zionist project.
> 
> ...






 The problem is that the European Jews were not colonists but invited citizens of Palestine, it was the arab muslims that were the aggressive colonisers as shown by the number of attacks since 635 C.E. when they first invaded to colonise the M.E.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Because it went against International law, UN charter and the UN resolutions. So the UN should have mobilised a task force to take out the arab armies and withdraw membership to all arab muslim nations. Then take their mandates away from them and send them all back where they came from


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> 1.  The duty of persons to defend themselves from invaders, particularly invaders planning to dispossess them is based on  natural law.
> 
> 2.  Among the experts, there is a difference between simple colonialism and settler colonialism.  There is a website dedicated to the subject.
> 
> ...






 Using a BLOG to spam the board now Abdul, you really are desperate to win a point aren't you.  Now go away and play with the rest of the islamomorons who have been destroyed on this board


----------



## montelatici (Apr 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  Attempting to prevent a colonial power from establishing a settler colony on one's land is not only *not *a criminal offense, it is a duty of the people in the process of being colonized, to resist colonization.
> ...



How does "being invited" transform a colonist into something else?  How could they have been citizens of Palestine before they went to Palestine?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

theliq said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Then you haven't been paying attention to the arab muslim propaganda that has existed for the last 100 years. Israel has kept to the UN charter that forbids propaganda as a weapon, can you say the same about the P.A.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






 How about you post a 1923 map of Palestine that states Nation of Palestine first


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Because that is what the International law of the time said, and it was the arab muslims that illegally migrated to Palestine as your link showed after Roudy had posted the rest of the details.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> I post the relevant text you nitwit.  The reports are hundreds of pages long.  There is no manipulation.  I have never been destroyed by any of you propagandists.  Quit dreaming, I only post fact, supported by fact.  Your propaganda is unveiled as such through the posting of fact, so your only defense is making false claims.






 Losing the argument again Abdul as you are acting like a spoilt brat and resorting to personal abuse and LIES


----------



## montelatici (Apr 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  The duty of persons to defend themselves from invaders, particularly invaders planning to dispossess them is based on  natural law.
> ...



It is colonial settler academic blog and was indicated that it was a site for experts in this particular field.  If you have a different definition of settler colonialism please point us to it.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Still just a BLOG and they are just the authors own personal views and have no founding in reality. I don't need to point anything other than you are using propaganda again and spamming


----------



## montelatici (Apr 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Most of the organized propaganda comes out of Israel.  They have organized propaganda organizations like the Hasbara project. Aren't you part of it?

"The _hasbara_ onslaught inevitably cranks up when Israel is being strongly criticized. There were notable surges in activity when Israel attacked Gaza in 2009 and 2012, as well as when it hijacked the Turkish humanitarian relief ship the _Mavi Marmara_in 2011. The recent Gaza fighting has inevitably followed suit, producing a perfect storm of pro-Israel commentary. The comments tend to appear in large numbers on websites where moderation and registration requirements are minimal, including Yahoo! News, or Facebook and Twitter. Sites like _TAC_ as well as leading national newspapers have much stricter management control over who comments, and are generally avoided."

Israel s Information Ops The American Conservative


----------



## montelatici (Apr 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



If you have a better definition post it.  How is posting an alternative  definition (to the wiki version) of settler colonialism, which basically says the same thing, propaganda?  And, more to the point, how is it possibly spamming?  You consistently make false accusations about other posters.  When will you stop?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Deflection.

I asked first.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > theliq said:
> ...






 Guess you have not kept up with recent admissions on here that show once and for all that hasbara was a student group hat died a death many years ago. But like the protocols the muslims have turned it into propaganda.

 You lose again abdul


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Look at the source it is pure pallywood fiction.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 There were never any produced a none were ever needed, the UN knew what the outcome would be an so did not ask for a map. It is only team Palestine that asks for maps and guess who just found one









Your go


----------



## montelatici (Apr 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Very strange, since you can apply for a Hasbara Fellowship today, right here. How is it possible that you are always, always wrong?  Maybe it's because you have difficulty with facts.


Hasbara Fellowships - Homepage


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You posted a map of a proposal that flopped? Good show.

BTW, what country did they propose to partition?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 20, 2015)

montelatici, Phoenall, _et al,_

Development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR), colonialism, and colonization are all concepts with distinct philosophies associated even though they may have some points of commonality; and from a professional standpoint _(as opposed to the layman's view)_ notoriously difficult to distinguish and defined.



montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


*(REFERENCES)*

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:  Definition of Colonialism & Colonization
5 Policies and international instruments relevant to DIDR 5.1 The development of policies, standards, and guidelines on involuntary resettlement 

*(COMMENT)*

All three of these concepts are ethically complex issue, in which cultural and international interest and distributive concerns stand in tension with self-determination and individual rights protecting against harm and coercion.  This is made even more complex depending on the evolutionary time frame relative to advancements and considerations --- and --- relative to self-determination and individual rights.  As it pertains the territory and people, to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, several sets of ethics are addressed and become relative as the concepts and philosophies behind "self-determination and individual rights" changed and developed over time.  "Key among these are the _Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement_, formulated by a team of international legal scholars and presented to the United Nations in 1998. These were the first guidelines developed within the context of human rights and humanitarian law to address internal displacement and development-induced displacement."  And again, depending on the --- time frame --- the specific territory --- and traumatic event(s) involved, there are several different groups that hold the characteristic of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) that share outward similarities, yet are motivated by entirely different circumstances and concepts.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


----------



## Roudy (Apr 20, 2015)

Hey Monte I'm just wondering when I'm going to get a link from a legit source showing the Jews "evicted" the Arabs. We're going now four days and so far you've come up with Jack Shiite.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 20, 2015)

Sorry, I thought you read it the 3 other times I posted it.


 "a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition


----------



## Roudy (Apr 20, 2015)

Is that all you got.  Try again moron.  Refugees as a result of the Arabs attacking Israel, don't count and neither does an "opinion" of Le Monde De Fifi De Poopo magazine.

Your claim, the European Jews "colonized" the land and then "evicted" the Arabs.  Where's your proof, do you have a link from an official document?  Or is it just this speculative garbaggio?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 And what does it mean. I can also apply for hamas fellowship does that mean I will


 Here you go their mission that is very innocent compared to the islamomoron illegal propaganda mission that is based on RACISM, RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE and Islamic commands to KILL THE JEWS


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 None as there was no country there in 1923, it was just the former Ottoman Empire land
 But the map clearly shows Jewish land as a nation that the arab muslims rejected and as a result left the rest as unclaimed land.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Sorry, I thought you read it the 3 other times I posted it.
> 
> 
> "a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."
> ...





Have you checked the credentials of the source yet, I will let you figure it out  ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


That was a 1947 map not 1923.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

I see that you both are a little off-target here.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(CLARIFICATION)*

The question posed was:


P F Tinmore said:


> How about posting a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where that territorial integrity was violated?


*(COMMENT)*

The UN Charter on territorial Integrity is written as a prohibition. 

*Article 2 UN CHARTER*
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​You have to look at it in terms of "elements of the offense."  In this case, you don't prove the "status of who _("Members shall refrain")_ was violated" _(ie "crossing into Israel")_; but instead who "did not refrain" _(from the charter)_, what was use in violation ("force"), under what intent _("against the territorial integrity or political independence")_.

The Arab Combatants (Principle Arab Combatants are:  Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) did not refrain from the use of military force.
The Arab Combatants used the force outside their respective and individual territorial sovereignties; beyond their jurisdiction "against the territorial integrity" of another.
The Arab Combatants used force, outside their jurisdiction, against the territory not sovereign to them, in which another peoples have declared "political independence."
There are very few official maps that track, moment to moment, how the Forward Edge of Battle (FEBA) moves back and forth.  What we have seen are Maps or Agreements that indicate the Armistice Lines _(a demarcation between forces that separate the belligerents)_.  In the case of the third party non-combatants (The Palestinians), it is a pause in which the opposing force allow political forces to establish a more permanent peace.

There is not question that the Arab Forces (Principle Arab Combatants are:  Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) were locked in combat.  There is not question where, by mutual agreement, the FEBA for each of these force came to rest (Armistice Lines).  And, as far as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are concerned, the permanent international borders as described and ratified by the Israelis and the hostile parties of Egypt and Jordan, are established.

If there is a question to be asked, the question would be, where is the State of Palestine, since the boundaries between Israel and the borders of Egypt and Jordan are established.  Well the answer is:  That Israel allowed the Palestinians to exercise their self-determination and declare independence.  But the recognized international borders are as defined by treaty between the sovereign nations that were locked in conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Apr 21, 2015)

Roudy said:


> Is that all you got.  Try again moron.  Refugees as a result of the Arabs attacking Israel, don't count and neither does an "opinion" of Le Monde De Fifi De Poopo magazine.
> 
> Your claim, the European Jews "colonized" the land and then "evicted" the Arabs.  Where's your proof, do you have a link from an official document?  Or is it just this speculative garbaggio?



Allow me.

Israel s Transfer Committee Ethnic Cleansing and an enormous process of destruction 


Why Israel is Wrong The Case Against Israel s System of Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 Your claim is that the nation of Palestine was created by the Mandate for Palestine in 1923, so produce your map with the legend Nation of Palestine dated 1923 ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Is that all you got.  Try again moron.  Refugees as a result of the Arabs attacking Israel, don't count and neither does an "opinion" of Le Monde De Fifi De Poopo magazine.
> ...





 Talk about scraping the barrel, you are actually underneath it with these links

_The HyperTexts_ is an on-line poetry journal with a simple goal: to showcase the best poetry, literary prose and art available to us. We are not a "formal" journal or a "free verse" journal; we simply publish the best poetry we can find. We ask our poets to provide us with their career-defining work (that is, career-defining in _their_ opinion, not someone else's); thus, most of our poems have been published elsewhere. While other poetry journals seem to quail at the thought of their poems having been read elsewhere, we sincerely doubt that anyone has ever been harmed by reading good poems more than once.



 from your links so showing they are not what was asked for


----------



## Challenger (Apr 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



The site also includes texts sourced about the Nakba including works and quotes by prominent Jewish intellectuals. 

Jewish Intellectuals Who Have Opposed Zionism and or Israeli Racism Inustices Apartheid and or Ethnic Cleansing

Unless you can disprove the information provided it's a valid "one stop shop"  that saves me the time and effort of digging out the original information. So yes it does show what was asked for; prove otherwise.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Is that all you got.  Try again moron.  Refugees as a result of the Arabs attacking Israel, don't count and neither does an "opinion" of Le Monde De Fifi De Poopo magazine.
> ...



IslamoNazi sources?  Thanks, I was running out of toilet paper.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



So, no OFFICIAL sites proving that actual evictions and ethnic cleansing occurred. Just bullshit opinions, IslamoNazi sites,  speculations, and false propaganda.

Like I thought. 

You got nothin'.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course they do. Everybody does.


Including Israel.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 21, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...






 Still not an official document which is what you were asked for, having trouble understanding English now ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I see that you both are a little off-target here.
> 
> ...


WOW, all that verbosity while ducking the question.

How about posting a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where that territorial integrity was violated?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> WOW, all that verbosity while ducking the question.
> How about posting a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where that territorial integrity was violated?


None of that matters any more.
Israel invaded Jordan in a war Israel did not start.  In doing so, it captured and then occupied the West Bank. part of the state of Jordan.
In 1988, Jordan gave up the West Bank, reaffirming this cession of territory, by treaty, in 1994.
And so, regardless of anything laid down by the UN in 1947/48, the West Bank, under international law, belongs to Israel.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You just  don't get it.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Forces (Principle Arab Combatants are:  Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) left their territory.  That is the violation.  On May 15 1948, the approximate borders were represented by the *Annex A *Plan of Partition with Economic Union; until the Principle Arab Combatants (Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) illegally departed their countries and entered territory Declared Independent by Israel or under Trusteeship to the UN May 15 1948.    Immediately the Arab Forces invaded.  At the conclusion of hostilities, four Armistice Agreements were concluded.  At the end of hostilities and war, with Egypt and Jordan, two Peace Treaties were concluded, each depicting the Permanent Boundaries.  

That is where it is today.  The Gaza Strip is inside the boundary between Israel - with the Permanent International Boundary with Israel.  The West Bank is inside the International Boundary between Israel and Jordan.  

There is no such thing as a 1948 Map of Israel because Israel was lock in combat with the Principle Arab Combatants  (Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria).  As previously stated.  

You are asking for something that does not exist (that I know of).  But that still does not make the intrusion of the Principle Arab Combatants  (Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) and unauthorized use of force.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...





 How about you post a map of the nation of Palestine rom any year in the last century. You got a 1947 map of Israel so it is only fair. It has to say Nation of Palestine in the legend mind.................


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

M14 Shooter, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, this comment by our friend M14 Shooter is extremely important.



M14 Shooter said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > WOW, all that verbosity while ducking the question.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

This makes any Palestinian who was a refugee in the 1948-49 War of Israeli Independence who moved to the West Bank as "no longer Refugees;" losing their "right of return" when they became Jordanian Citizens in April 1950.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You just  don't get it.
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as a 1948 Map of Israel...​
Then how do you know its territorial integrity was violated?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Because the Principle Arab Combatants (Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) crossed their borders and entered the territory in which the Mandate formerly applied.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Israel Declared Independence over the initial territory outlined in the *Annex A *Plan of Partition with Economic Union; as specified in Part II --- Boundaries.  However, those borders did not last very long as the Israelis pushed back Arab Offensive and began to reshape the position and move the FEBA forward.

The Arabs did capture and Annex the West Bank.
The Egyptians captured and placed the Gaza Strip under Military Occupation.
The Lebanese and Syria lost gained control of a further 25% of the Arab apportioned in the Partition Plan.

While the Israelis were defending themselves and their new state, the Arab Forces fought to capture as much territory as they could to ad to their sovereignty. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Because the Principle Arab Combatants (Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria) crossed their borders and entered the territory in which the Mandate formerly applied.
> 
> ...


Israel Declared Independence over the initial territory outlined in the *Annex A *Plan of Partition with Economic Union;...​
No it didn't.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> M14 Shooter, P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, this comment by our friend M14 Shooter is extremely important.
> 
> ...



Firstly, you are attempting to use  1951 Refugee Convention Article 3C (which indicates that a refugee accepting refugee status loses refugee status).  

Palestinian refugees were specifically excluded from the 1951 Refugee Convention in Article 1D, wherein: 

 “This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance. When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this convention.” 

Of course, the Palestinian refugees were and are still receiving "protection/assistance" from the 
United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) at the time.  UNRWA was established to comply with UN Resolution 194  which states:

11. _Resolves_ that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;"

It is UNRWA that dictates the refugee status of the Palestinians and it includes all those refugees that wish to return to their homes and/or want to be compensated, per the resolution.  UNRWA's charter assigns refugee status to the actual refugees and male descendants (and their dependents).

It always amazes me how the Zionist propaganda machine is able to fool even a relatively well informed person like Rocco.


----------



## pbel (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


You can argue with Rocco and his litany of ligase, I say break it down to a simple logic of Human understanding...

Did the UN or anybody else have the right in 1948 to displace an indigenous population by force via political fiat?

For me, its not right and I don't think it was legal under UN Laws...


----------



## pbel (Apr 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter, P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


I like Rocco, to me he's polite but spreads his agenda, but logic is logic. How can it be right to give a land occupied for a Millennia to displaced people, especially by military and political force after the very UN political farce that became the lackey of the WWll powers? None of the indigenous people voted for this travesty of Justice!


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,





P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Israel Declared Independence over the initial territory outlined in the *Annex A *Plan of Partition with Economic Union;...
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Oh, come now!



			
				Text of Main Body --- Israeli Declaration of Independence said:
			
		

> HAVE HONOUR INFORM YOU THAT NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR JEWISH STATE CONSISTING OF MEMBERS OF ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE JEWISH BODIES PALESTINE WHICH HAD APPLIED TO UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION FOR RECOGNITION AS PROVISIONAL COUNCIL GOVERNMENT *UNDER PART ONE B FOUR OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON NOVEMBER 29TH 1947* MET YESTERDAY MAY 14TH AND *ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING “ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE* AND CALLED UPON INHABITANTS OF COUNTRY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS MAY BE NECESSARY ON THEIR PART TO PUT THE PLAN INTO EFFECT. THIS RECOGNITION BY UNITED NATIONS OF RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO ESTABLISH THEIR INDEPENDENT STATE MAY NOT BE REVOKED. IT IS MOREOVER SELF-EVIDENT RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE TO BE A NATION AS ALL OTHER NATIONS IN ITS OWN SOVEREIGN STATE. ACCORDINGLY WE MEMBERS OF NATIONAL COUNCIL REPRESENTING JEWISH PEOPLE IN PALESTINE AND ZIONIST MOVEMENT; MET TOGETHER IN SOLEMN ASSEMBLY TODAY, DAY OF TERMINATION OF BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE, BY VIRTUE OF NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT OF JEWISH PEOPLE AND OF RESOLUTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY PROCLAIM ESTABLISHMENT OF JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE TO BE CALLED ISRAEL. WE HEREBY DECLARE THAT AS FROM TERMINATION OF MANDATE THIS NIGHT OF 14TH TO 15TH MAY 1948 AND UNTIL SETTING UP OF DULY ELECTED BODIES OF STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSTITUTION TO BE DRAWN UP BY CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY NOT LATER THAN 1ST OCTOBER 1948 PRESENT NATIONAL COUNCIL SHALL ACT AS PROVISIONAL STATE COUNCIL AND ITS EXECUTIVE ORGAN SHALL CONSTITUTE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL. STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE OPEN TO IMMIGRATION OF JEWS FROM ALL COUNTRIES OF DISPERSION WILL PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTRY FOR BENEFIT OF ALL INHABITANTS WILL BE BASED ON PRECEPTS OF LIBERTY JUSTICE AND PEACE WILL UPHOLD FULL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EQUALITY OF ALL CITIZENS WITHOUT DISTINCTION RACE CREED OR SEX WILL GUARANTEE FULL FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE WORSHIP EDUCATION CULTURE AND LANGUAGE WILL SAFEGUARD SANCTITY AND INVIOLABILITY OF SHRINES AND HOLY PLACES OF ALL RELIGIONS AND WILL DEDICATE ITSELF TO PRINCIPLES OF UNITED NATIONS CHARTER. *STATE OF ISRAEL WILL BE READY COOPERATE WITH ORGANS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF UNITED NATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY OF NOVEMBER 29 1947 AND WILL TAKE STEPS TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC UNION OVER WHOLE OF PALESTINE.* WE APPEAL TO UNITED NATIONS TO ASSIST JEWISH PEOPLE IN BUILDING OF ITS STATE AND TO ADMIT ISRAEL INTO FAMILY OF NATIONS”. *ACCORDINGLY I BEG DECLARE ON BEHALF OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF ISRAEL ITS READINESS TO SIGN DECLARATION AND UNDERTAKING PROVIDED FOR RESPECTIVELY IN PART ONE C AND PART ONE D OF RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY* AND BEG HEREBY TO APPLY FOR ADMISSION OF STATE OF ISRAEL TO MEMBERSHIP OF UNITED NATIONS.





			
				Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948 said:
			
		

> It was the general view of the Commission members that the General Assembly resolution of last November 29 remained intact and that therefore the Commission was not and could not be legally dissolved.
> ---------------------------------------------- A N D ----------------------------------------------​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*."





			
				Application for Admission --- A/AC.24/SR.45 said:
			
		

> In that connexion, Mr. Malik (Lebanon) quoted from section F, part I of the Assembly's resolution of 29 November 1947, which stated that sympathetic consideration should be given to the application for membership of either the Jewish or the Arab State, when the independence of either as envisaged in the plan had become effective and the declaration and undertaking as envisaged in the plan had been signed by either of them.
> ---------------------------------------------- A N D ----------------------------------------------​Referring to Arab opposition to the application of Israel, Mr. Eban stated that the Arab States which now advocated compliance with General Assembly resolutions had in the past assaulted the very foundations of the United Nations by attempting to overthrow a General Assembly resolution by force. The threats they had uttered in various bodies of the United Nations, and which had been translated in destruction and slaughter, had rested upon the doctrine of the optional character of the resolutions of the General Assembly.



I think it is quite obvious that “powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein”.  Deviation from the implementation was a direct result of the Arab Forces deliberately attempting to defy the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING “ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE​*​
When the liars mentioned resolution 181 they had already violated the proposed borders, violated the international city of Jerusalem, and violated the rights if the native population. They only mentioned it to pretend to have some legitimacy.

http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING “ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE*​
When the liars mentioned resolution 181 they had already violated the proposed borders, violated the international city of Jerusalem, and violated the rights if the native population. They only mentioned it to pretend to have some legitimacy.

http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Yes, they did


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



How does your post refute what Rocco said , and how can you deny something so obvious ?

How many more times must we remind you that Tinmore rules do not apply to real life ?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 21, 2015)

Actually, Israel has not yet agreed to borders.


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



How does your post refute what Rocco said , and how can you deny something so obvious ?

How many more times must we remind you that Tinmore rules do not apply to real life ?


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Actually, Israel has not yet agreed to borders.




Umm, yes they have, with Egypt and Jordan


----------



## montelatici (Apr 21, 2015)

Yes, but not with Syria, Lebanon or the Occupied Territories.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Actually, Israel has not yet agreed to borders.


*Bingo!*


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, Israel has not yet agreed to borders.
> ...



Actually, he was wrong, and so are you.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, Israel has not yet agreed to borders.
> ...


Where did Israel get the authority to claim borders on Palestinian land?

Link?


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Yes, but not with Syria, Lebanon or the Occupied Territories.



That's because they never signed peace treaties with Lebanon, Syria or the Palestinians.


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



It's Israeli land you moron. Again, Tinmore land rules do not apply to real life. 

Would you like to compare our evidence ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but not with Syria, Lebanon or the Occupied Territories.
> ...


So if those are not Israel's borders, whose are they?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Sure, go ahead.

Show me where Israel legally acquired that land.


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace was signed on October 26, 1994. The treaty resolved territorial and border issues that were ongoing since the 1948 war. *The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan (it doesn't get c*


P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



I can't believe I have to explain these things to you:

The border with Israel and Lebanon is called the Blue line

The border between Israel and Syria is called the Purple Line


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace was signed on October 26, 1994. The treaty resolved territorial and border issues that were ongoing since the 1948 war. *The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan (it doesn't get c*
> 
> 
> P F Tinmore said:
> ...


I know that. Why is that?

BTW, nice duck.


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Acquiring land has nothing to do with anything, that is part of the Tinmore Laws. You're deflecting.

So, lets compare evidence:

The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979* created an officially recognized international border along the 1906 line,* with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip

The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace was signed on October 26, 1994. The treaty resolved territorial and border issues that were ongoing since the 1948 war. *The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan
*
It doesn't get clearer than that !


Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt - Non-UN document 26 March 1979 

*Article II*

The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel in the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II


A 50 73-S 1995 83 of 27 January 1995

The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.











Your turn


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace was signed on October 26, 1994. The treaty resolved territorial and border issues that were ongoing since the 1948 war. *The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan (it doesn't get c*
> ...



How is it a duck ? I answered your question directly ... What the hell is the matter with you?


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 21, 2015)

pbel said:


> I like Rocco, to me he's polite but spreads his agenda, but logic is logic. How can it be right to give a land occupied for a Millennia to displaced people, especially by military and political force after the very UN political farce that became the lackey of the WWll powers? None of the indigenous people voted for this travesty of Justice!


*RoccoR* is polite, but his arguments are all smoke and mirrors.  He's the _*Goebbels's of Israel. *_


----------



## Roudy (Apr 21, 2015)

According to the same documents the term Palestine and Palestinian are mythical made up crapola:

_Appraisal of the Arab case_

A 364 of 3 September 1947

163. *The Arabs of Palestine consider themselves as having a "natural" right to that country, although they have not been in possession of it as a sovereign nation.*

166. * Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, is itself a relatively new phenomenon, which appeared only after the division of the "Arab rectangle" by the settlement of the First World War.*

175. The Peel Commission, in referring to the matter, had noted in its report that* "there was a time when Arab statesmen were willing to consider giving Palestine to the Jews, provided that the rest of Arab Asia was free.* That condition was not fulfilled then, but it is on the eve of fulfilment now".


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> pbel said:
> 
> 
> > I like Rocco, to me he's polite but spreads his agenda, but logic is logic. How can it be right to give a land occupied for a Millennia to displaced people, especially by military and political force after the very UN political farce that became the lackey of the WWll powers? None of the indigenous people voted for this travesty of Justice!
> ...



Haha ya right. You're just saying that because Rocco doesn't kiss Palestinian ass like you. He certainly knows more than you on the subject.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Sure, that wasn't the question.

BTW:
_Emphasizing_
the inadmissibility of the *acquisition of territory* by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,...

S RES 242 1967 of 22 November 1967​
The acquisition of territory must be of some concern.


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Your point ?


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> Haha ya right. You're just saying that because Rocco doesn't kiss Palestinian ass like you. He certainly knows more than you on the subject.


Is that why he's lost every debate against me?


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Haha ya right. You're just saying that because Rocco doesn't kiss Palestinian ass like you. He certainly knows more than you on the subject.
> ...



   

Keep Dreaming Palestinians ass kisser


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


What part of "that wasn't the question" confuses you?


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I said "Let's compare evidence" 

You say Israel has no borders. I say they do. I provided my evidence. Where's yours?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


I have said that Israel has no borders, but not this time.


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Post #337


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


The question was in my post 343.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

pbel, et al,

Yes, let's do --- "break it down to a simple logic of Human understanding..."



pbel said:


> How can it be right to give a land occupied for a Millennia to displaced people, especially by military and political force after the very UN political farce that became the lackey of the WWll powers? None of the indigenous people voted for this travesty of Justice!


*(COMMENT)*

Right and Wrong have very little to do with real life...

This reality is hard to accept.  But life is not fair --- either at the individual level or the macro-Level for the aspiration of an entire people.  We want to believe that if we are good, we will be rewarded.  The Arab Palestinians did not want the outcome of the 1948 War to be more favorable to the Israelis; after all it was four stablizied Arab countries with support from other, against one newly formed country --- smaller than any if it individual opponents.  Yet the Israelis come out of its War of Indepedence with control of 25% more territory.   The Arab Palestinians want to maintain the illusion that life is much simpler than it is --- and that if they maintain a century of protest they just might establish more control than they actually have.

The Arab Palestinian needs to assess the reality:

*"Give us the grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed, grant the Courage
to change the things which should be changed,
And the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other."​*
_("The Serenity Prayer" by Elisabeth Sifton)_​
The reality is that in the world of current events, this protest has just about run its course.  

You ask:  How can it be right to give a land occupied for a Millennia to displaced people.  
Answer:  It has happened before --- it is happening now --- and will happen again.  

In the Roman Empire, Displaced Persons and Refugees emerged as a significant issue in the third and fourth centuries AD – especially in the western (European) provinces. The best known of these are the Goths.  The Chinese Diaspora (mass emigration) that started in the 19th century; along with the displacement of Native Americans.  There was the deported and elimination of millions of Jews and many millions of others were likewise enslaved or murdered, including Ukrainians, Russians and other Slavs.  The 1947 Partition resulted in the migration of millions of people between India and Pakistan. Millions were killed in the sectarian violence of the period, with estimates of fatalities up to 2 million people.  Iraqis and ISIS are examples of sectarian violence that displaced large numbers.  The Afghan diaspora resulted from the 1979 invasion by the former Soviet Union; a war that displaced nearly 6 million people.  And then their was the many thousands of people that fled from the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 into neighboring countries.

Other Examples include:

There was the incorporation of Tibet into China --- 1951.
The forced annexation of Western New Guinea by Indonesia in 1969.
In 1979, and after a military putsch, Mauritania withdrew from the territory which left it controlled by Morocco. A UN peace process was initiated in 1991, but stalled.
March 2014, Russia annexed most of the Crimean Peninsula, at that time part of Ukraine.
Throughout history there have been many - many displacements.  I realize that my opening a discussion on the concepts of such things as Development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR), colonialism, and colonization --- was probably a little too much to discuss with those that endlessly plead foul play, victimization, misfeasance/malfeasance and nonfeasance --- not to mention the ethics and justice of the decisions of old.  But honestly, I don't think that in the world-reality of Islamic Fundamentalism --- that the International Community is going to displace or overrun a stable nation and replace it with a Regime spawned by Islamic Resistance Movement, Jihadist and Fedayeen.  No one once another Regional failure like Syria, of a country intimidated by Hezbollah terrorists, or trade Israel for another failed state like Yemen, Iraq, or Pakistan with monstrous debt, poverty, and rampant Islamic extremism.  Nor does anyone want to see another example like the SUDAN: Home to the brutal genocide in Darfur, Sudan got the worst possible scores for refugees, group grievances, factionalized elites, and external intervention.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


I've answered that question before. Acquiring territory has nothing to do with declaring independence and practising self - determination. I never once read that Israel had to have acquired territory to declare independence. .Have you ?


----------



## pbel (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> pbel, et al,
> 
> Yes, let's do --- "break it down to a simple logic of Human understanding..."
> 
> ...


War of Independence my arse! Independence from whom?


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

Rocco, I do have a question for you. Following the 1948 war, Israel captured territory that became part of Israel. How come that territory is not considered occupied?

The only reason I can come up with is that in the wikipedia link it says


pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > pbel, et al,
> ...



Israel you moron. The war started a day after Israel declared independence. In Hebrew, the war is called _Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut_


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Sure.

*ARTICLE 1​*​
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population;* b ) a defined territory;* c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

The Avalon Project Convention on Rights and Duties of States inter-American December 26 1933​
Where is Israel's defined territory?


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



How does that answer my question ?? You said Israel needed to have acquired territory. Where in the link that you posted say anything about acquiring territory ??


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves Page 35 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do try to keep up.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 21, 2015)

^^^^^
Do Israelis have a right to defend themselves from Palestinian Islamic Nazi savages who are no different that ISIS animals?


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Man , you are beyond confused. I know what you posted, why are you giving me a link to that post again ??

Now, you said Israel needed to have acquired territory in order to declare independence. I asked you where is it you read about this 'acquiring territory' crap ?
You responded by posting a link that does not back up your claim


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

montelatici, et al,

Absolutely --- montelatici is correct.  All refugees in the world are cared for by one agency UNHRC except Palestinians.  While the UNHCR has found solutions for many many refugees, the UNRWA is a failed agency and has not found a solution for a single Palestinian that claims refugee status under CERI, but would not otherwise be considered a refugee.  Advisory Commission was created by UN Resolution 302 (IV) on 8 December 1949, has not shown a single solution, and the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine has also failed in this regard.  Despite the lack of progress, the commission still exists and the General Assembly still continues to pass annual resolutions calling on it to continue its efforts to carry out its original mandate.

This is a Palestinian Slight of hand.  Under this regime, not only will the UNRWA not place a single refugee, but it will be the only refugee program which generates more refugees.



montelatici said:


> Firstly, you are attempting to use  1951 Refugee Convention Article 3C (which indicates that a refugee accepting refugee status loses refugee status).
> 
> Palestinian refugees were specifically excluded from the 1951 Refugee Convention in Article 1D, wherein:
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The UNRWA is established pursuant to General Assembly 302 (IV), a resolution that does not supersede international law.  No organization established on a temporary basis is going to be funded forever.  Once the funding is withdrawn, the UNRWA simply melts away.  It was originally suppose to terminated not later than 31 December 1950.

The Convention is superior to the CERI (UNRWA Consolidated and Eligibility Registration Instructions).  CERI is a UNRWA specific instruction, it is not a law, intended to facilitate the Agency’s operations. 

The UNRWA has no official Charter only continuing resolutions.  It has self-generated instructions CERI.  But no universal law behind it.  And while the UNHCR has found durable solutions for more that 3 million real refugees --- the UNRWA has found zero.  Eventually, the funding will stop for the UNRWA.  And since its numbers never go down, but always up --- eventually someone will notice.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


A state should have a defined territory.

Where is Israel's defined territory?

When did it legally acquire that territory?

I can't make it any simpler than that.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 21, 2015)

pbel said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > pbel, et al,
> ...


Israel s War of Independence 1947-1949


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes --- a good question.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

What is "defined territory;" it is undefined.   It is given to be the territory that a nation has sovereign control over.  Israel has has had, and continues to have, sovereign control over its established perimeter. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy (Apr 21, 2015)

^^^^
Or, to put it another way, try stepping into Israel illegally, and the Israelis will make sure you understand how serious they are about their borders


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Absolutely --- montelatici is correct.  All refugees in the world are cared for by one agency UNHRC except Palestinians.  While the UNHCR has found solutions for many many refugees, the UNRWA is a failed agency and has not found a solution for a single Palestinian that claims refugee status under CERI, but would not otherwise be considered a refugee.  Advisory Commission was created by UN Resolution 302 (IV) on 8 December 1949, has not shown a single solution, and the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine has also failed in this regard.  Despite the lack of progress, the commission still exists and the General Assembly still continues to pass annual resolutions calling on it to continue its efforts to carry out its original mandate.
> 
> ...


The UN has passed several resolution attempting to address the refugee problem.


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Now you're deflecting. You're asking the wrong questions. Acquiring territory has nothing to do with ANYTHING. It is simply a Tinmore pre requisite.
You keep avoiding my question: Where did you read that Israel needed to have acquired territory to legally declare independence ??

If you want to see Israels territory, look at a map.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes --- a good question.
> 
> ...


That is only half true. A nation can also have control over occupied territory.

The answers to my questions will clarify that.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, you are being foolish again.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(ANSWERS)*

Where is Israel's defined territory?  
It is given to be the territory that a nation has sovereign control over. Israel has has had, and continues to have, sovereign control over its established perimeter.   Any reasonable map of today will tell you were that is.

When did it legally acquire that territory?
Territory does not have to be "legally acquired."  (Where ever did you get that idea?)  Israel was declared by right if self-determination, pursuant to the advise and assistance of the UN and the established "Steps Preparatory to Independence."  Since that time, the rule body of Israel, like any other country, determines where they establish and control their sovereignty.

Legally has nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty.  You don't think that China is going to give back Tibet or allow Taiwan to go independent.  You don't think Russia is going to give back the Crimea.  Heavens no...  They establish sovereign control and keep it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

Since Israel is a sovereign state:

In international law, a *sovereign state* is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. *International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory*, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Armistice lines are not borders. They do not define anything.


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



What do armistice lines have to do with anything ?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

There is a difference between Occupied Territory and Sovereign Territory.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You are still wrong.  There is a difference between sovereign control and effective control.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> There is a difference between Occupied Territory and Sovereign Territory.
> 
> ...


Isn't sovereign control over territory that is yours and effective control over territory that is not?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You get half credit.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


(COMMENT)

You are correct in that an Armistice Line is note a border.  It is an International Demarcation Line.

*A/RES/25/2625*  Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States


*The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations*
Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, *such as armistice lines*, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Good question, I would like to know the answer as well...


----------



## Roudy (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici, et al,
> ...


Which was caused by Arab aggression.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


All maps define Israeli territory with armistice lines. Armistice lines are specifically *not* to be political or territorial boundaries.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Close again.



P F Tinmore said:


> Isn't sovereign control over territory that is yours and effective control over territory that is not?


*(COMMENT)*

Sovereign Control has the characteristic that all laws and legislation are domestically derived.

Occupied Territory has the characteristic that it is subject to either International Laws/Conventions or under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.  The Occupying Power does not exercise Legislative Authority to institute laws.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Close again.
> 
> ...


I don't see where you post is relevant. An occupying power can do whatever it wants. It has the guns, remember.


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Which maps are you talking about ? Current maps of Israel show Israel's international borders with Egypt and Jordan, Blue line with Lebanon (2000), Purple line with Syria. (1974)
The latter two are demarcation lines, which are  ' temporary geopolitical borders, often agreed upon as part of an armistice or ceasefire'
Demarcation line - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

But they are NOT the Armistice lines of 1949


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



Not really. There are rules.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, you are almost correct.



P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Armistice lines are not borders. They do not define anything.
> ...


All maps define Israeli territory with armistice lines. Armistice lines are specifically *not* to be political or territorial boundaries.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

First, whether or not you have seen Maps with Israel Defensive Control Zone, or Navigational Limits, Border Controls or whatever, they do exist.  

Second, there are two logged and registered international peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan that establish International Borders and Boundaries.  That is just fact, a matter of record.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Again, you are almost correct.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

First, whether or not you have seen Maps with Israel Defensive Control Zone, or Navigational Limits, Border Controls or whatever, they do exist. 

Second, there are two logged and registered international peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan that establish International Borders and Boundaries.  That is just fact, a matter of record.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
And that leads us full circle to the question I had a few pages ago that was ducked.


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


And that leads us full circle to the question I had a few pages ago that was ducked.[/QUOTE]
What question? It better not be the 'acquiring territory' one


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

If this is the border question, I answered that.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


And that leads us full circle to the question I had a few pages ago that was ducked.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

Just because you don't want to believe an answer, does not mean it is wrong.

*(ANSWERS)*

Where is Israel's defined territory?
It is given to be the territory that a nation has sovereign control over. Israel has has had, and continues to have, sovereign control over its established perimeter. Any reasonable map of today will tell you were that is.

When did it legally acquire that territory?
Territory does not have to be "legally acquired." (Where ever did you get that idea?) Israel was declared by right if self-determination, pursuant to the advise and assistance of the UN and the established "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Since that time, the rule body of Israel, like any other country, determines where they establish and control their sovereignty.

Legally has nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty. You don't think that China is going to give back Tibet or allow Taiwan to go independent. You don't think Russia is going to give back the Crimea. Heavens no... They establish sovereign control and keep it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 21, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> If this is the border question, I answered that.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Just because you don't want to believe an answer, does not mean it is wrong.

*(ANSWERS)*

Where is Israel's defined territory?
It is given to be the territory that a nation has sovereign control over. Israel has has had, and continues to have, sovereign control over its established perimeter. Any reasonable map of today will tell you were that is.

When did it legally acquire that territory?
Territory does not have to be "legally acquired." (Where ever did you get that idea?) Israel was declared by right if self-determination, pursuant to the advise and assistance of the UN and the established "Steps Preparatory to Independence." Since that time, the rule body of Israel, like any other country, determines where they establish and control their sovereignty.

Legally has nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty. You don't think that China is going to give back Tibet or allow Taiwan to go independent. You don't think Russia is going to give back the Crimea. Heavens no... They establish sovereign control and keep it.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
A state should have a defined territory.

Now you are saying that is not necessary. That people can set up shop wherever they want.


----------



## toastman (Apr 21, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


A state should have a defined territory.

Now you are saying that is not necessary. That people can set up shop wherever they want.[/QUOTE]
Israel is a sovereign state. A sovereign state has defined territory. Therefore, Israel has defined territory. It's that simple.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Then what did it do ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter, P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






 They weren't as they were full citizens of Jordan and as such received no assistance from any UN source

 And if you read your cut and paste it prohibits the Palestinians from returning to Israel because it clearly states

_Resolves_ that the refugees wishing to return to their homes *and live at peace with their neighbours* should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,

 This is something the Palestinians refuse to do point blank.


 Another fail by Abdul because he does not read his own links


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

pbel said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...






 Yes it did as it was already embodied in International law, and the rights of today have no jurisdiction on the rights of 1948.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

pbel said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...







 Simple because the so called indigenous  were recent illegal immigrants and the European Jews were the legal land owners under International law. As the legal land owners they had the right to evict the illegal occupiers from their land and re claim it.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Proposed borders have no validity until they are negotiated by mutual consent, so no violation took place. Who was it took control of Jerusalem and forcibly evicted the MAJORITY of the occupants in 1948/1949.  What 1948 rights were violated then ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Proposed borders have no validity until they are negotiated by mutual consent, so no violation took place. Who was it took control of Jerusalem and forcibly evicted the MAJORITY of the occupants in 1948/1949.  What 1948 rights were violated then ?


----------



## pbel (Apr 22, 2015)

toastman said:


> Rocco, I do have a question for you. Following the 1948 war, Israel captured territory that became part of Israel. How come that territory is not considered occupied?
> 
> The only reason I can come up with is that in the wikipedia link it says
> 
> ...


Again braying jackass, Independence from whom?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Rocco, I do have a question for you. Following the 1948 war, Israel captured territory that became part of Israel. How come that territory is not considered occupied?
> ...






 The same people that the state of Palestine declared it was independent from in 1988 of course.............. Are you that slow witted you don't know


----------



## Challenger (Apr 22, 2015)

Roudy said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Nah, *this* is toilet paper Amin Al Husseini Nazi Father of Jihad Al Qaeda Arafat Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood - Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No, as a matter of fact, I did not say that.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


A state should have a defined territory.

Now you are saying that is not necessary. That people can set up shop wherever they want.[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

The territory in question was not sovereign to the Arab Palestinian.  The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction;  in both cases to the Allied Powers.  This is a document fact of history.   The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint British and French military administration over The Levantine and Mesopotamian Provinces until July 1920 _(when the Enemy Territory transitioned from military to civilian administration)_, and dissected these two Provinces into three administrative sub-units:

OETA South:  Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre,
OETA East:  Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Syria and Hejaz.
OETA West:  Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Lebanon, Lataqiya _(and a few pieces of other Sanjaks split by the Sykes-Picot Line)._
Whatever you may think of the judgement in that era, it was not Arab Palestinian to which they had sovereign rule and authority.  That was reserved for the League Council and the Allied Powers.  

Recognition of a sovereign state is a unilateral political act whereby other nations and state acknowledge the status of another state or government in control over a territory - which is not in the control under another sovereignty.

Whether or not a new state comes into existence or dissolves in the declarative process is a "question of fact" and not merely words on paper.  Under the "declarative theory" _(as in Declaration of Independence)_ of "state recognition" --- the actual existence of a sovereign state is NOT dependent on the recognition of other sovereign states.  _(However, that may have legal consequences on the full exercise of power.)_ In the declarative process, those people that exercise their "right to self-determination" may be called upon to physically defend their action _(the "question of fact")_ as a part of their establishment _(often called a war of independence)_.

A "defined territory" is not just any territory.   It is a territory that is not dependent on another sovereign entity, and has successfully defended itself (physically and/or diplomatically) in a question of fact as a part of their establishment. 

As YOU SAY:  The "people can set up shop wherever they want" as long as they can actually answer the "question of fact" in their establishment.  The Arab Palestinian People did not do this.  The Jewish People did.  In a "question of fact" that is a significant difference.

Anyone can declare independence over anything.  The question is, can they defend it?  The Arabs Palestines --- NOT SO MUCH.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Apr 22, 2015)

Roudy said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


What do you classify as an "official" site?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, as a matter of fact, I did not say that.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The territory in question was not sovereign to the Arab Palestinian.  The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction;  in both cases to the Allied Powers.  This is a document fact of history.   The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint British and French military administration over The Levantine and Mesopotamian Provinces until July 1920 _(when the Enemy Territory transitioned from military to civilian administration)_, and dissected these two Provinces into three administrative sub-units:

OETA South:  Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre,
OETA East:  Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Syria and Hejaz.
OETA West:  Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Lebanon, Lataqiya _(and a few pieces of other Sanjaks split by the Sykes-Picot Line)._
Whatever you may think of the judgement in that era, it was not Arab Palestinian to which they had sovereign rule and authority.  That was reserved for the League Council and the Allied Powers. 

Recognition of a sovereign state is a unilateral political act whereby other nations and state acknowledge the status of another state or government in control over a territory - which is not in the control under another sovereignty.

Whether or not a new state comes into existence or dissolves in the declarative process is a "question of fact" and not merely words on paper.  Under the "declarative theory" _(as in Declaration of Independence)_ of "state recognition" --- the actual existence of a sovereign state is NOT dependent on the recognition of other sovereign states.  _(However, that may have legal consequences on the full exercise of power.)_ In the declarative process, those people that exercise their "right to self-determination" may be called upon to physically defend their action _(the "question of fact")_ as a part of their establishment _(often called a war of independence)_.

A "defined territory" is not just any territory.   It is a territory that is not dependent on another sovereign entity, and has successfully defended itself (physically and/or diplomatically) in a question of fact as a part of their establishment.

As YOU SAY:  The "people can set up shop wherever they want" as long as they can actually answer the "question of fact" in their establishment.  The Arab Palestinian People did not do this.  The Jewish People did.  In a "question of fact" that is a significant difference.

Anyone can declare independence over anything.  The question is, can they defend it?  The Arabs Palestines --- NOT SO MUCH.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

" The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers."

Rocco et al.

Not at all.

The people (Arabs 95% of the population in the case of Palestine at the time) in territories were accorded provisional sovereignty as of the date of the Mandate(s) given that the main purpose of the Mandate(s)  was:

"for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations"

Tutelage by the Mandatory, as stated in the Covenant,  is not sovereignty.

.  
*ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where* their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory* until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, as a matter of fact, I did not say that.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The territory in question was not sovereign to the Arab Palestinian.  The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction;  in both cases to the Allied Powers.  This is a document fact of history.   The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) which was a joint British and French military administration over The Levantine and Mesopotamian Provinces until July 1920 _(when the Enemy Territory transitioned from military to civilian administration)_, and dissected these two Provinces into three administrative sub-units:

OETA South:  Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre,
OETA East:  Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Syria and Hejaz.
OETA West:  Former Ottoman Sanjaks of Beirut, Lebanon, Lataqiya _(and a few pieces of other Sanjaks split by the Sykes-Picot Line)._
Whatever you may think of the judgement in that era, it was not Arab Palestinian to which they had sovereign rule and authority.  That was reserved for the League Council and the Allied Powers. 

Recognition of a sovereign state is a unilateral political act whereby other nations and state acknowledge the status of another state or government in control over a territory - which is not in the control under another sovereignty.

Whether or not a new state comes into existence or dissolves in the declarative process is a "question of fact" and not merely words on paper.  Under the "declarative theory" _(as in Declaration of Independence)_ of "state recognition" --- the actual existence of a sovereign state is NOT dependent on the recognition of other sovereign states.  _(However, that may have legal consequences on the full exercise of power.)_ In the declarative process, those people that exercise their "right to self-determination" may be called upon to physically defend their action _(the "question of fact")_ as a part of their establishment _(often called a war of independence)_.

A "defined territory" is not just any territory.   It is a territory that is not dependent on another sovereign entity, and has successfully defended itself (physically and/or diplomatically) in a question of fact as a part of their establishment.

As YOU SAY:  The "people can set up shop wherever they want" as long as they can actually answer the "question of fact" in their establishment.  The Arab Palestinian People did not do this.  The Jewish People did.  In a "question of fact" that is a significant difference.

Anyone can declare independence over anything.  The question is, can they defend it?  The Arabs Palestines --- NOT SO MUCH.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it?​
So you are saying that military conquest is not illegal?

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf


----------



## Roudy (Apr 22, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



A site that doesn't publish opinion pieces by terrorist ass kissers and leftist morons.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...







 Why because it tells the truth about the Palestinian muslims, and this goes against your indoctrination doesn't it.

 I see that Milli is looking like losing by a large majority in the upcoming elections because of his bed mates ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...






 Not some site that posts poetry, unless the thread is about that poetry


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



" The sovereignty was relinquished by the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic relinquished all Jurisdiction; in both cases to the Allied Powers."

Rocco et al.

Not at all.

The people (Arabs 95% of the population in the case of Palestine at the time) in territories were accorded provisional sovereignty as of the date of the Mandate(s) given that the main purpose of the Mandate(s)  was:

"for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations"

Tutelage by the Mandatory, as stated in the Covenant,  is not sovereignty.

. 
*ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where* their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory* until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."[/QUOTE]





 And the disclaimer at the end sums it up

 Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development


The arab Palestinians have still not reached that stage of development as shown by their inability to form a state.


----------



## fanger (Apr 22, 2015)

This disturbing video shows Israeli youths, escorted by police and occupation forces, marching through the Old City of Jerusalem chanting “_mavet la’aravim_” – “death to the Arabs”  
According to the racism-monitoring website Kifaya, the 19 April march was part of the monthly “Tour of the Gates” by Jewish extremists through the Muslim Quarter of the Old City.

As part of the event, held at the beginning of every month according to the Jewish calendar, the one-kilometer-long route is blocked to Palestinians, and businesses and stores must close, Kifaya says.

Palestinians are forbidden from leaving their homes during the march.

“Some 1,500 Jews participated in the march,” Kifaya says, “and it was secured by hundreds of policemen and soldiers, who thronged the area.”


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it?​
So you are saying that military conquest is not illegal?

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf[/QUOTE]




 Nope the answer is in the post CAN THEY DEFEND IT ?

 Wrong as it deals with the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE and no the sovereignty of the Palestinians, who in 1947 happened to be the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Anyone can declare independence over anything. The question is, can they defend it?​
So you are saying that military conquest is not illegal?

BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf[/QUOTE]




 Nope the answer is in the post CAN THEY DEFEND IT ?

 Wrong as it deals with the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE and no the sovereignty of the Palestinians, who in 1947 happened to be the Jews.


----------



## toastman (Apr 22, 2015)

pbel said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Rocco, I do have a question for you. Following the 1948 war, Israel captured territory that became part of Israel. How come that territory is not considered occupied?
> ...



You're asking the wrong question Pbel.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 22, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...







And the disclaimer at the end sums it up

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development


The arab Palestinians have still not reached that stage of development as shown by their inability to form a state.[/QUOTE]

No, all the Ottoman possessions were subject to Class A Mandates, including Palestine. The other states that did not get classified with Class A status were identified in subsequent paragraphs of Article 22.

"Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."

And, as confirmed by Britannica and elsewhere:

*Class A mandate*

League of Nations


This topic is discussed in the following articles:

*divisions of mandate system*
Mandate (League of Nations)
Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone. Iraq and Palestine (including modern Jordan and Israel) were assigned to Great..."
Class A mandate League of Nations Encyclopedia Britannica


Nice try, but no cigar. Do you ever tire of making a fool of yourself?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes... I've seen you raise this issue before.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > *ISSUED PROCLAMATION DECLARING FOLLOWING “ON NOVEMBER 29 1947 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED RESOLUTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT JEWISH STATE IN PALESTINE*​
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Depending one your point of reference, many would contend that the Civil War in Palestine started shortly after the November 1947 siege of the Jaffa Gate and the destruction of the commercial center in that quarter of Jerusalem and the Manshiyeh quarter.  But generally speaking, the Arab Palestinians and British start clock on 1 June 1946 _(with the bombing of the King David Hotel)_ to 15 May 1948 _(when the Jewish Agency facilitated the Provisional Government of Israel to declare independence)_, for general time frame of the Civil War.   

I notice that anything you disagree with or that varies from your interpretation --- you declare a lie.  With you, that word has entirely lost meaning.

Up until 29 November 1947, there was no possibility of violating the Partition Plan (GA/RES/181), as it had not been adopted yet.   You cannot violate anything about a non-binding Resolution until its made real.  In that sense, both Jew and Arab had free legal travel to move or travel anywhere within the Territory still under the application of the Mandate for Palestine.  You simply cannot violate Any proposed borders, that violated the International City of Jerusalem --- it was not an International City.  

What is was (ever truly International or not) is a point in fact.

The State of Israel has annex a portion and made it the capital.
The State of Palestine also declared that Jerusalem was their capital.
The "question of fact" is:

Do either country (Israel or Palestine) have sovereign control over and specific part of Jerusalem?
Once you answer who has sovereign control over what, the solution is known.

As for who did what when back --- seven decades ago, is irrelevant.  Whether is was honest, fair, or just --- is irrelevant.  What is relevant is who exercises positive sovereign control over what territories.  Is there any reasonable expectation that it will change in the foreseeable future?

The US and the UN cannot promise that, if Israel where to surrender its sovereignty and relinquish it to the Arab Palestinians, that the US and UN could protect the Jewish National Home from the reoccurrence that prompted the original Allied Powers --- and the events of a half century ago that actually demonstrated that special protections were warranted, prompting the WWII Allied Powers and UN General Assembly to take the actions it did and make the decisions it made.

There is no reason to believe --- given the outcomes and value of the US Presidential Promises (Clinton and Obama) to the Ukraine --- that Israel should trust in the protection of either.  The Ukraine gave up their military. The Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal which they gave it up in exchange for a promise that their borders would not be invaded and their sovereignty would remain intact.  And what happened, the Russians annexed the Crimea by force and no one lifted a finger to prevent it.  Why should the Israelis give any credibility to an evolving US and UN.  No.  The Israelis must take control and protect themselves.  Even if it makes a country populated by hundreds of thousands of unproductive Jihadist and Fedayeen Palestinians angry.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 22, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



No, all the Ottoman possessions were subject to Class A Mandates, including Palestine. The other states that did not get classified with Class A status were identified in subsequent paragraphs of Article 22.

"Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."

And, as confirmed by Britannica and elsewhere:

*Class A mandate*

League of Nations


This topic is discussed in the following articles:

*divisions of mandate system*
Mandate (League of Nations)
Class A mandates consisted of the former Turkish provinces of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. These territories were considered sufficiently advanced that their provisional independence was recognized, though they were still subject to Allied administrative control until they were fully able to stand alone. Iraq and Palestine (including modern Jordan and Israel) were assigned to Great..."
Class A mandate League of Nations Encyclopedia Britannica


Nice try, but no cigar. Do you ever tire of making a fool of yourself?[/QUOTE]




 You are the one making a fool of yourself by posting one thing and then contradicting what you have just posted.   The Jews were considered to be able to create a nation and stand on their own feet , the arab muslims were not as they were farm workers and tramps. Still the same today as the evidence shows, why haven't they taken the next step after declaring independence and formed a proper nation. No one is stopping them from sitting down and talking mutual borders but themselves. They know when they do they will lose every penny in aid and have to generate their own income, and pay their bills for water, gas and electricity


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 22, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

OK, let's ask the interrogatives.



montelatici said:


> Rocco et al.
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> ...



And the disclaimer at the end sums it up

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development


The arab Palestinians have still not reached that stage of development as shown by their inability to form a state.[/QUOTE]

No, all the Ottoman possessions were subject to Class A Mandates, including Palestine. The other states that did not get classified with Class A status were identified in subsequent paragraphs of Article 22.
[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage *of* development where their existence as independent *nations* can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering *of* administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes *of* these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection *of* the Mandatory.​
"Certain communities" --- it did not just say "communities" and it did not say "all communities."  It said certain communities. 
When did the Arab Palestinians ever demonstrate that they "able to stand alone."  They could not even help in the maintenance of peace and security , or assist on development of Friendly relations and Co-operation among States.  For crying out loud, the Fedayeen tried to assassinate the King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (not just once - but twice).

The same people that wrote the Article 22 of the Covenant --- also agreed on the San Remo where it was decided to establish a Jewish National Home.  But that was too much for the Arabs.  They wanted as much as they could take by force.  

No, the world --- not even the other Arab Counties, owes the Arab Palestinian anything.  With every one around them against the Jewish People, surrounded and outnumbered, the Jews made the most stable and productive country in the reason.  No one needs to hand the Palestinians a country.  When they become mature enough, like the Jew people, they will come togather and build a nation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 22, 2015)

Should we enjoin them to "harass a Judge" instead?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians.  For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.



P F Tinmore said:


> BTW, the Palestinian's sovereignty over their land is mentioned many times here:
> http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf


(COMMENT)

Of the membership to Sub-Committee 2 _(which wrote A/AC.14.32)_, 7 out of 8 where countries that were predominately Muslim and three-quarters contributed forces for the Arab Invasion, for the May 1948 Invasion - .




​What do you think they would say.

"C. Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."   UN Palestine Commission --- First Special Report to the Security Council

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> OK, let's ask the interrogatives.
> 
> ...



No, all the Ottoman possessions were subject to Class A Mandates, including Palestine. The other states that did not get classified with Class A status were identified in subsequent paragraphs of Article 22.
[/QUOTE]
*(COMMENT)*

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage *of* development where their existence as independent *nations* can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering *of* administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes *of* these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection *of* the Mandatory.​
"Certain communities" --- it did not just say "communities" and it did not say "all communities."  It said certain communities.
When did the Arab Palestinians ever demonstrate that they "able to stand alone."  They could not even help in the maintenance of peace and security , or assist on development of Friendly relations and Co-operation among States.  For crying out loud, the Fedayeen tried to assassinate the King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (not just once - but twice).

The same people that wrote the Article 22 of the Covenant --- also agreed on the San Remo where it was decided to establish a Jewish National Home.  But that was too much for the Arabs.  They wanted as much as they could take by force. 

No, the world --- not even the other Arab Counties, owes the Arab Palestinian anything.  With every one around them against the Jewish People, surrounded and outnumbered, the Jews made the most stable and productive country in the reason.  No one needs to hand the Palestinians a country.  When they become mature enough, like the Jew people, they will come togather and build a nation.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]


There is no question that Palestine was one of the  Class A Mandates.  

"the Class A mandates were moved into independence. Most of these were in the former Ottoman Empire, such as Trans-Jordan, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon. Wilson's charge to the peace conference in the plenary session of 14 February 1919 was only partially observed; but his expectations on mandates were more fulfilled than in most other areas of the Fourteen Points. Wilson told the conference members that they were "done with annexation of helpless peoples," and henceforth nations would consider it their responsibility to protect and promote the interests of people under their tutelage before their own interests. It would remain for the United Nations, not the League of Nations, to carry out this promise."

Read more: League of nations mandates - Mandates and Trusteeships

"Too much for the Arabs"?  It would be too much for any people to accept European colonization without resisting.  Do you believe that the Christians and Muslims having lived in Palestine for thousands of years should have just accepted the settlement of Europeans in Palestine?


----------



## Roudy (Apr 22, 2015)

fanger said:


> This disturbing video shows Israeli youths, escorted by police and occupation forces, marching through the Old City of Jerusalem chanting “_mavet la’aravim_” – “death to the Arabs”
> According to the racism-monitoring website Kifaya, the 19 April march was part of the monthly “Tour of the Gates” by Jewish extremists through the Muslim Quarter of the Old City.
> 
> As part of the event, held at the beginning of every month according to the Jewish calendar, the one-kilometer-long route is blocked to Palestinians, and businesses and stores must close, Kifaya says.
> ...



Posting a clip from a clip from an Islamist site called "Kifaya" doesn't really cut it.  Besides, Israelis have free speech and Arab Muslims never did and never will.

Reedemoun.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians.  For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.
> 
> ...


I notice that you slime the source without addressing the content.

From another source.:

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 neither legally partitioned Palestine nor conferred upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. It merely _recommended _that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties. Naturally, to have any weight of law, the plan, like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties, which it was not. Nor could the General Assembly have legally partitioned Palestine or otherwise conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership, as it simply had no such authority to confer. When the Security Council took up the matter referred to it by the General Assembly, it could come to no consensus on how to proceed with implementing the partition plan. It being apparent that the plan could not be implemented by peaceful means, the suggestion that it be implemented by force was rejected by members of the Security Council. The simple fact of the matter is that the plan was never implemented. Numerous delegates from member states, including the U.S., arrived at the conclusion that the plan was impracticable, and, furthermore, that the Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case.

The Myth of the U.N. Creation of Israel - Jeremy R. Hammond​
My previous link http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf laid out the legalities of the time. Those who favored the plan wanted to push the legalities aside like Israel continues to do because of being on the wrong side of the law.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

It is just a discussion paper.  I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


*(OBSERVATION)*

Always consider the source.  _(False appeal to authority.  GRANTED --- Hammond is an authority on Prison chow, but not much else.)_
Jeremy Hammond is a political activist with no experience in politics, diplomacy or senior executive service. And che is an ex-con and a hacker from Chicago. He was convicted and sentenced in November 2013 to 10 years in US Federal Prison for computer hacking.​
*(COMMENT)

Sub-point:  *The Working Paper A/AC.14.32 is Sub-committee #2  with 7 out of 8 members from Islamic States.

*Afghanistan:*  Afghanistan is one of the countries where economic instability has given birth to political instability. As there is no stable economic infrastructure, the country’s democratic structure has shaky foundations. In Afghanistan insecurity has been influencing the economic life to a large extent. Both national and international businessmen are not readily willing to invest in all the sectors and they do not see positive prospects of their businesses.
*Colombia:*  A contradictory feature of Colombia's long democratic tradition is its high level of political violence (six interparty wars in the nineteenth century and two in the twentieth century). An estimated 100,000 Colombians died in the War of a Thousand Days (1899-1902), and 200,000 died in the more recent period of interparty civil war called _la violencia_, which lasted from 1948 to 1966. According to Colombian Ministry of National Defense statistics, an additional 70,000 people had died in other political violence, mainly guerrilla insurgencies, by August 1984. This violence included left-wing insurgency and terrorism, right-wing paramilitary activity, and narcoterrorism.
*Egypt:*  There is a popular demand for improvement in people’s living conditions, but the economic realities are not able to meet these demands and expectations.  The political situation in Egypt remains fragile and protests keep occurring throughout the country, as a response to the difficult economic situation.
*Iraq:*  The current Iraqi government in front of an enormous challenge is the creation of an inclusive political system "contributes to legitimize the state.   It is unlikely to realize the economic potential in Iraq as a result of the dominance of violence and political instability.
*Lebanon:*  Just like the critical security situation in Lebanon, which witnessed a series of terrorist bombings, the economic situation — in decline for over three years now — awaits a positive political shock to be created by the announcement of the formation of the government.  Its economic recovery is based some what over the reduced influence of Hezbollah in the South and against ISIS.
*Pakistan:*  Is trying to build confidence in the people by impressing upon them that the path of political and economic stability despite a decade-long role of Pakistan as the frontline state in international war on terror.
*Saudi Arabia: * The most stable of the eight members; both economically and politically.
*Syria:*  In total chaos.  May not survive with any reasonable stability.
*Yemen:*  In total chaos - failed state.  Government is likely to fall.

The Arab Palestinian thinks that they have some special understanding; some intuitive insight that is unique to them; pertaining to them.  _(Which is generally dissimilar to every other Arab population and culture on the planet.)_  They are simply just the an inferior social order with in the greater culture that has demonstrated its fundamental nature in the past through a continuous history of aggressive action and behaviors made by their respective armies, cults and radical constituents.  For nearly seven decades of the amplified negative attitude that they may use any all means to address their grievance has demonstrated just how little they are enlightened and woefully underdeveloped they actually are.

The Arab Palestinian see themselves as holding the exclusive right to self-determination; "the legitimacy of struggle by the Palestinian people under colonial rules (Mandate System) to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence; while at the same time excluding the special conditions recognized by the Allied Powers in the preservation of the culture and society of the Jewish persuasion.  The Arab Palestinian believe that they have some unearned exclusive right over the territorial sovereignty for which they did not expend one drop of energy to earn, improve and expand in terms of development.   The Arab Palestinian have been unable to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is just a discussion paper.  I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.
> 
> ...


Still avoiding the content, I see.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



I completely understand the content.  It is the exact same content the Arab Palestinian and Arab Hight Committee have always used.

It does not change the reality.

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 is not an authority.  Maybe not --- but since all peoples have the right of self-determination.  If nothing else, the General Assembly, through the adoption of Resolution 181, lent its support.  But the Resolution is quite clear.  It does not require both the concur.​
Part I --- Chapter 4 --- Section F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
*When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State* as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

The fact that the "It merely _recommended _that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties."  Does not effective bar the General Assembly from adopting the recommendation OR the Jewish Agency form accepting the offer OR the UNPC from assisting in the implementation of the Steps Preparatory to Independence. 
Yes "like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties" Yes, it is one of the 8 elements of the contract.  But the contract is not between the Jewish People and the Arab People --- the contract offer is between the UN General Assembly (the offeror) and the "either" the Arab or the Jewish or both individually.​
The "Palestine NEVER HAD THE AUTHORITY to conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership," It was the League of Nations that stipulated that: " 

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;" 
​The suggestion that it be *implemented by force* was *rejected* by members of the Security Council.  This is totally irrelevant.  The UN Security Council did not force the Arabs to accept the 181 Offer --- and the UN Security Council did not force the Jewish to accept the offer.

The idea that the Plan was never implemented is totally false.  It is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD and took the form of a Press Release from the UN Palestine Commission in PAL/169 17 MAY 1948 :  EXCERPT:  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*." 

Where is this written:  "he Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case."  *I see the exact opposite.*  I see that "All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council (Article 25 of the charter). While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states, only the Security Council has the power to make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under the Charter.​I did not see much that I didn't expect.

Most Respectfully,
R
​


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



I completely understand the content.  It is the exact same content the Arab Palestinian and Arab Hight Committee have always used.

It does not change the reality.

U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 is not an authority.  Maybe not --- but since all peoples have the right of self-determination.  If nothing else, the General Assembly, through the adoption of Resolution 181, lent its support.  But the Resolution is quite clear.  It does not require both the concur.​
Part I --- Chapter 4 --- Section F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
*When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State* as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

The fact that the "It merely _recommended _that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties."  Does not effective bar the General Assembly from adopting the recommendation OR the Jewish Agency form accepting the offer OR the UNPC from assisting in the implementation of the Steps Preparatory to Independence. 
Yes "like any contract, would have to have been formally agreed upon by both parties" Yes, it is one of the 8 elements of the contract.  But the contract is not between the Jewish People and the Arab People --- the contract offer is between the UN General Assembly (the offeror) and the "either" the Arab or the Jewish or both individually.​
The "Palestine NEVER HAD THE AUTHORITY to conferred legal authority for the creation of Israel to the Zionist leadership," It was the League of Nations that stipulated that: " 

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;" 
​The suggestion that it be *implemented by force* was *rejected* by members of the Security Council.  This is totally irrelevant.  The UN Security Council did not force the Arabs to accept the 181 Offer --- and the UN Security Council did not force the Jewish to accept the offer.

The idea that the Plan was never implemented is totally false.  It is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD and took the form of a Press Release from the UN Palestine Commission in PAL/169 17 MAY 1948 :  EXCERPT:  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*." 

Where is this written:  "he Security Council had no authority to implement such a plan except by mutual consent by concerned parties, which was absent in this case."  *I see the exact opposite.*  I see that "All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council (Article 25 of the charter). While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states, only the Security Council has the power to make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under the Charter.​I did not see much that I didn't expect.

Most Respectfully,
R
​


----------



## Roudy (Apr 22, 2015)

Hp


RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is just a discussion paper.  I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.
> 
> ...


Jaysus, you mean Tinmore brainless used a false propaganda site?  Who woulda thunk?!


----------



## Roudy (Apr 22, 2015)

Hp


RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is just a discussion paper.  I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.
> 
> ...


Jaysus, you mean Tinmore brainless used a false propaganda site?  Who woulda thunk?!


----------



## Roudy (Apr 22, 2015)

Hp


RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is just a discussion paper.  I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.
> 
> ...


Jaysus, you mean Tinmore used a false propaganda site?  Who woulda thunk?!


----------



## montelatici (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is just a discussion paper.  I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.
> 
> ...



The Arab Palestinian was


RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is just a discussion paper.  I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.
> 
> ...



Rocco,

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations gave the Palestinians the right to self-determination, as it did to the people in all the other "territories and colonies" formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire, Germany etc.  The Arab Palestinians were around 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of writing. Do you think that the Article 22 only applied to 5% of the population of Palestine, nearly all European settlers?

The inhabitants of Trans-Jordania, far less developed and less educated than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine were treated in accordance with Article 22.  How did they own the right to self-determination? Why not the Christians and Muslims of Palestine?

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine were unable "to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture" because the British did not allow them to do so by introducing a European colonial project which would not permit the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) to coalesce into a unified state, as nearly half of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims were living in the part of Palestine assigned to the Europeans by the British. Not to mention the fact that the area assi


----------



## montelatici (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is just a discussion paper.  I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.
> 
> ...



The Arab Palestinian was


RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is just a discussion paper.  I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.
> 
> ...



Rocco,

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations gave the Palestinians the right to self-determination, as it did to the people in all the other "territories and colonies" formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire, Germany etc.  The Arab Palestinians were around 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of writing. Do you think that the Article 22 only applied to 5% of the population of Palestine, nearly all European settlers?

The inhabitants of Trans-Jordania, far less developed and less educated than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine were treated in accordance with Article 22.  How did they own the right to self-determination? Why not the Christians and Muslims of Palestine?

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine were unable "to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture" because the British did not allow them to do so by introducing a European colonial project which would not permit the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) to coalesce into a unified state, as nearly half of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims were living in the part of Palestine assigned to the Europeans by the British. Not to mention the fact that the area assigned to the Europeans represented 55% of Palestine while the Europeans represented less than a third of the population of Palestine.  I think you get the point.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is just a discussion paper.  I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.
> 
> ...



The Arab Palestinian was


RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It is just a discussion paper.  I really haven't slimed the source yet; but not that you brought it up --- see the observation below.
> 
> ...



 Rocco et al,

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations gave the Palestinians the right to self-determination, as it did to the people in all the other "territories and colonies" formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire, Germany etc.  The Arab Palestinians were around 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of writing. Do you think that the Article 22 only applied to 5% of the population of Palestine, nearly all European settlers?

The inhabitants of Trans-Jordania, far less developed and less educated than the Christians and Muslims of Palestine were treated in accordance with Article 22.  How did they own the right to self-determination? Why not the Christians and Muslims of Palestine?

The Christians and Muslims of Palestine were unable "to organize themselves into a productive nation building culture" because the British did not allow them to do so by introducing a European colonial project which would not permit the Arabs (Muslims and Christians) to coalesce into a unified state, as nearly half of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims were living in the part of Palestine assigned to the Europeans by the British. Not to mention the fact that the area assigned to the Europeans represented 55% of Palestine while the Europeans represented less than a third of the population of Palestine.  I think you get the point.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 22, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

There are many people who claim this and that about Article 22.



montelatici said:


> Rocco,
> 
> Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations gave the Palestinians the right to self-determination, as it did to the people in all the other "territories and colonies" formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire, Germany etc.  The Arab Palestinians were around 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of writing. Do you think that the Article 22 only applied to 5% of the population of Palestine, nearly all European settlers?
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

First, what does Article 22 have to say (exactly)?

*ARTICLE 22.  LoN Covenant *

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.​
Palestine is not mentioned in Article 22, except for the fact that it might, or it might not, be one of the "certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire.  One   might ask, does any clause within Article 22 specifically applied unambiguously to Palestine at all?  I don't think so.  Nothing in Article 22 promises anything specific to any particular Mandate, territory or people.  Nothing at all.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


OK, but:

The Sub-Committee stated that  “the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine” and that “the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine ...” The Sub-Committee, in its report to the _Ad Hoc_ Committee,* further stated that “partition involves the alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of the State of Palestine. The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country ...”*[14]

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
-----------------------
United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 denied the most fundamental national right to the Palestinian people – by providing for the partition of Palestine into two states on the basis of vague ethnic assumptions and discriminatory policies along the lines of the legally invalid “Balfour Declaration” and its incorporation into the League of Nations’ Mandate. The Palestinians had never been consulted in this process; new political structures had _de facto_ been imposed on them. In strictly legal terms, the General Assembly had no authority to divest the Palestinians of their sovereignty over the areas of Palestine which it allocated to the Jewish state.

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict​
Palestinian sovereignty is mentioned here and affirmed in subsequent UN resolutions.

Your posts are based on the false premise that the Palestinians do not have sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> There are many people who claim this and that about Article 22.
> 
> ...


“The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation* was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”*[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which *sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.*[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict​


----------



## montelatici (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> There are many people who claim this and that about Article 22.
> 
> ...



The Palestine Mandate was one of the Class A Mandates.  That's just a fact.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 22, 2015)

Yawn.  All of this happened 65 years ago.  Israel is a flourishing state and steaming ahead into the future. The Jewish stste has been reestablished after thousands of years in exile. Palestine never was, and never will be.


----------



## theliq (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Of course the discussion paper (not a resolution, not a directive and not an advisory opinion) is going to sound favorable to the Arab Palestinians.  For crying out loud, the members of Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.
> 
> ...


You forgot to mention on the Israeli Belligerents side the 100,000's of MERCENARIES Israel have and do use up until today..........Naughty Boy Rocco,look if you cannot bother to elucidate the truth and facts in your posts.....then stop using the term "Most Respectfully" because there is NO RESPECT IN YOUR LYING,ADULTERATED POSTS.

Most Respectfully Steven


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 22, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I don't think so.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestinian sovereignty is mentioned here and affirmed in subsequent UN resolutions.
> 
> Your posts are based on the false premise that the Palestinians do not have sovereignty.


*(COMMENT)*

Palestinian Sovereignty is only acknowledge after 1988.  And even today that is a bit questionable.

Central to the idea of sovereignty  there is strong implication meaning the possession of absolute _authority within a bounded territorial space._   Implied is that to be sovereign the nation is not subordinate or dependent on an external government _(external interference)_.   It has been 500 years since the Mamelukes were defeated by the Ottomans.  It has been for at least that long that Arabs have not ruled as sovereign over any territory in the to which the Mandate of Palestine once applied.  To be truly sovereign -- a nation must have the capacity to govern; but in the case of the State of Palestine, that is questionable.  Similarly sovereignty can be essentially based on borders; not any capacity on the part of government.   Yet in the case of Palestine --- once again, it becomes questionable.  It is the when the General Assembly adopts Resolution *58/292. Status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem* (17 May 2004) --- _Affirming _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise sovereignty and to achieve independence in their State, Palestine.  Depending on your perspective, this could be interpreted that as of May 2004, the State of Palestine was still not sovereign.

If the State of Palestine is (indeed) sovereign --- then what are the critical issues to resolve?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 22, 2015)

theliq,  et al,

Educate me...



theliq said:


> You forgot to mention on the Israeli Belligerents side the 100,000's of MERCENARIES Israel have and do use up until today..........Naughty Boy Rocco,look if you cannot bother to elucidate the truth and facts in your posts.....then stop using the term "Most Respectfully" because there is NO RESPECT IN YOUR LYING,ADULTERATED POSTS.
> 
> Most Respectfully Steven


*(QUESTION)*

Who are these "Israeli Belligerents side the 100,000's of MERCENARIES" _(persons who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain)_ of which you speak?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> ...


If the State of Palestine is (indeed) sovereign --- then what are the critical issues to resolve?​
Military occupation.


----------



## theliq (Apr 22, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> theliq,  et al,
> 
> Educate me...
> 
> ...


I like your "EUPHEMISM''........PRIVATE GAIN......what you really mean is MURDER for MONEY,that's their only motivation.........Now being as you,love to Unrespectfully like to post reams of information,why don't YOU check and let us all know......it is well documented...With Respect..S


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage *of* development where their existence as independent *nations* can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering *of* administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes *of* these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection *of* the Mandatory.​
"Certain communities" --- it did not just say "communities" and it did not say "all communities."  It said certain communities.
When did the Arab Palestinians ever demonstrate that they "able to stand alone."  They could not even help in the maintenance of peace and security , or assist on development of Friendly relations and Co-operation among States.  For crying out loud, the Fedayeen tried to assassinate the King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (not just once - but twice).

The same people that wrote the Article 22 of the Covenant --- also agreed on the San Remo where it was decided to establish a Jewish National Home.  But that was too much for the Arabs.  They wanted as much as they could take by force.

No, the world --- not even the other Arab Counties, owes the Arab Palestinian anything.  With every one around them against the Jewish People, surrounded and outnumbered, the Jews made the most stable and productive country in the reason.  No one needs to hand the Palestinians a country.  When they become mature enough, like the Jew people, they will come togather and build a nation.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]


There is no question that Palestine was one of the  Class A Mandates. 

"the Class A mandates were moved into independence. Most of these were in the former Ottoman Empire, such as Trans-Jordan, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon. Wilson's charge to the peace conference in the plenary session of 14 February 1919 was only partially observed; but his expectations on mandates were more fulfilled than in most other areas of the Fourteen Points. Wilson told the conference members that they were "done with annexation of helpless peoples," and henceforth nations would consider it their responsibility to protect and promote the interests of people under their tutelage before their own interests. It would remain for the United Nations, not the League of Nations, to carry out this promise."

Read more: League of nations mandates - Mandates and Trusteeships

"Too much for the Arabs"?  It would be too much for any people to accept European colonization without resisting.  Do you believe that the Christians and Muslims having lived in Palestine for thousands of years should have just accepted the settlement of Europeans in Palestine?[/QUOTE]



 Yes because the Jews had shown the ability to form a government and stand on their own. The arab muslims were not counted in those numbers, and as the evidence shows they were right almost 100 years ago.
 It was the arab muslims that were the colonists Abdul and do you think that the Jews who had lived in Palestine for 4,500 years should accept even more abuse, mass murders and slavery from illegal arab muslim immigrants


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






 And you forget that in 1923 the LoN entered into International law the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that stated the land was for the national home of the Jews. So all the UN should have done was rubber stamped Israel's declaration of independence and then started bombing the arab nations that invaded in 1948. Then we would not have the problems we have today as the arab muslims would know the world was turned against them.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...








P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



 And you forget that in 1923 the LoN entered into International law the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that stated the land was for the national home of the Jews. So all the UN should have done was rubber stamped Israel's declaration of independence and then started bombing the arab nations that invaded in 1948. Then we would not have the problems we have today as the arab muslims would know the world was turned against them. 



 What content as there is no content just your interpretation of the facts based on your islamomoron POV. If the source is suspect then your POV is suspect making you as dishonest as the source.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...








P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



 And you forget that in 1923 the LoN entered into International law the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that stated the land was for the national home of the Jews. So all the UN should have done was rubber stamped Israel's declaration of independence and then started bombing the arab nations that invaded in 1948. Then we would not have the problems we have today as the arab muslims would know the world was turned against them. 



 What content as there is no content just your interpretation of the facts based on your islamomoron POV. If the source is suspect then your POV is suspect making you as dishonest as the source.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 23, 2015)

Roudy said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



So in other words any site you don't agree with, or tells the truth, figures.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 23, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Nope. I just recognise BS when I see it.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 23, 2015)

yes, some on the left believe they should start recruiting _honest Injeun contingents_, and consider "harassing a Judge" for their Cause.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 23, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...






 never yet came across a terrorist arse licker or a leftist moron that could utter more than 2 words truthfully.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 23, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...






 You cant do as you are a leftist moron, and your ideology is based on B.S.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 23, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Now that's funny.  You are a pathological liar.  I haven't see you post one fact on this site.  All you do is repeat Zionist propaganda.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...






 So all your links are Zionist propaganda are they Abdul, because I have used thos to prove you wrong and to be a RACIST LIAR.

 Want to post table 1 again that tells the truth about land ownership?


----------



## Roudy (Apr 23, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



An opinion is not fact, moron.  And that site is very low on facts.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 23, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



99% of my links are to UN archives, academic archives or similar and represent fact.  All you have proven is that you are a poor propagandist and even less capable liar.


----------



## Roudy (Apr 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Links which basically prove you wrong.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 23, 2015)

No, they prove me absolutely correct.  They also prove that you post nothing but Zionist propaganda.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Does not make them fact does it, as many such reports are shown to be false at a later date. Like your laiming a white paper is somehow law

 A *white paper* is an authoritative report or guide informing in a concise manner about a complex issue and presenting the issuing body's philosophy on the matter. It is meant to help readers understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 23, 2015)

montelatici said:


> No, they prove me absolutely correct.  They also prove that you post nothing but Zionist propaganda.





 So your links are Zionist propaganda then, nice of you to finally admit it.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 23, 2015)

None of the reports have been proven to be false.  It is just the UN presenting the facts on the ground prior to partition.  It isn't a white paper, it is the  report to the General Assembly setting forth the facts on the ground on which the partition of Palestine was executed.  And, of course the data presented to the General Assembly was fact.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 23, 2015)

Roudy said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...



Prove it.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 23, 2015)

Should they impugn the _Israelis_ for not being _Judean_ enough to "harass a Judge" before waging war on them.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 23, 2015)

Phoenall, montelatici, Challenger, Roudy, et al,

For most of my time participating in the "Israel and Palestine Forum" the general process involved has been adversarial; more concerned with resolving sport and narrow controversies than with finding the ultimate truth and a workable solution.  There has been a plethora of sources used in this forum; anywhere from papers written by prisoners, to designer dissertations by ever well respected personalities.  One of the unique problems of this forum is that it is adversarial in the conventional sense _(pro 'versus' con)_; but, the two principle opponents _(pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian)_ are both on the positive side of the same question.   Yet in the reality of the situation is that they both are 180º out of sync with each other and with their interpretations of reality being blinded to evidence in fact.  One aspect that is seen more than any other is the concept of "propaganda."  Each side professes to claims that they c_ondemn _all forms of propaganda which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.  

Propaganda is a systematic effort to persuade; not unlike a debate; with each opponent attempting to use the art of persuasion to their advantage.    Thus the issue is not the truth or falsehood of what is said.  Depending on your perspective or approach to the Israel-Palestine Forum, you might observe _(through powers of deduction)_ the two general ways in which both sides use the techniques:

Propaganda is the spreading of information and ideas to advance a cause or discredit an opposing cause.
Propaganda is spreading of information and ideas to advance a cause or discredit an opposing cause. 
Both of these techniques attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognition, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the agenda, using what evidence and logic there is to project the image towards the expected outcome.

In learning the craft of rhetoric, . . . critics have deliberately drawn distinctions between rhetoric and propaganda. On the other hand, evidence of the conflation of rhetoric and propaganda, under the general notion of persuasion, has become increasingly obvious, especially in the forum, where forum participants seem incapable of differentiating among the suasory forms _(both out of Necessity and dangerously close to Paradox)_ of communication pervasive now in our heavily mediated society. . . .



montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

It is important to note that the label _“ad hominem” _is ambiguous, and that not every kind of _"ad hominem"_ argument is fallacious.  But as I have said before, 
"There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others. The _OED _definition of lying is as follows:

To lie =df to make a false statement with the intention to deceive.​
There are several problems with this definition. According to it, a person who makes a statement that she believes to be true — a person who makes a truthful statement — with the intention to deceive another person, is lying, if, unbeknownst to her, the statement is false."   _*SOURCE:*_ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"Questions central to the philosophical discussion of lying to others and other-deception (or interpersonal deceiving) may be divided into two kinds. 

Questions of the first kind are definitional. They include the questions of how lying is to be defined, and how deceiving is to be defined, and whether lying is a form of intended deception. 
Questions of the second kind are moral. They include the questions of whether lying and deceiving are _(defeasibly --- meaning capable of being annulled or invalidated)_ morally wrong, and whether, if either lying or deception, or both, are defeasibly morally wrong, they are ever morally obligatory, and not just merely morally permissible.  _*SOURCE:*_  SEP 
You will notice that I nearly always choose to challenge questionable or incorrect data with evidentiary remarks from an unimpeachable source; the is the capable of being annulled or invalidated by verifiable sources.  

EXAMPLE:  We have a member who is quite fond of saying:  General Assembly Resolution 181(II) "never happened."  I do not counter with "You are a pathological liar" OR that You are a "Zionist propagandist" OR You are a "RACIST LIAR."  _(Bad form and bad behavior.)_  In stead, I counter with a very strong public statement that take the form of a UN Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948, which says:  "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."​
I make a difference between good manners and good breeding; Politeness works everywhere, all the time.  Even in this discussion group and forum.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 23, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

_Ad hoc_ analysis or report is the term commonly used to describe a product (_analytical report, statistical analysis or model, or other report or summary of data)_ produced one time to answer a single, specific question. 



montelatici said:


> None of the reports have been proven to be false.  It is just the UN presenting the facts on the ground prior to partition.  It isn't a white paper, it is the  report to the General Assembly setting forth the facts on the ground on which the partition of Palestine was executed.  And, of course the data presented to the General Assembly was fact.


*(COMMENT)*

For instance, A/AC.14/32 of 11 November 1947 ---- the *AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2 *submitted by members of Sub-Committee 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.  The appearance of bias and impropriety is a phrase referring to a situation which show prima facie evidence in specific circumstances might seem to raise ethics questions and a clear and precise exhibition of such bias must be made.  In this case, the report was accepted and included for the record _(not disqualified)_ because the misfeasance and malfeasance _(subverting the course of the General Assembly) _had not become apparent until after November 29; when 7 of the 8 member nations participated in a coalition military operation on the day of Israeli independence.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall, montelatici, Challenger, Roudy, et al,
> 
> For most of my time participating in the "Israel and Palestine Forum" the general process involved has been adversarial; more concerned with resolving sport and narrow controversies than with finding the ultimate truth and a workable solution.  There has been a plethora of sources used in this forum; anywhere from papers written by prisoners, to designer dissertations by ever well respected personalities.  One of the unique problems of this forum is that it is adversarial in the conventional sense _(pro 'versus' con)_; but, the two principle opponents _(pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian)_ are both on the positive side of the same question.   Yet in the reality of the situation is that they both are 180º out of sync with each other and with their interpretations of reality being blinded to evidence in fact.  One aspect that is seen more than any other is the concept of "propaganda."  Each side professes to claims that they c_ondemn _all forms of propaganda which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.
> 
> ...


EXAMPLE: We have a member who is quite fond of saying: General Assembly Resolution 181(II) "never happened." I do not counter with "You are a pathological liar" OR that You are a "Zionist propagandist" OR You are a "RACIST LIAR." _(Bad form and bad behavior.)_ In stead, I counter with a very strong public statement that take the form of a UN Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948, which says: "In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."​
You post that quote a lot. The only issue I have with it is that other sources say different and there are no facts on the ground to validate that assertion.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> _Ad hoc_ analysis or report is the term commonly used to describe a product (_analytical report, statistical analysis or model, or other report or summary of data)_ produced one time to answer a single, specific question.
> 
> ...


In this case, the report was accepted and included for the record _(not disqualified)_ because the misfeasance and malfeasance _(subverting the course of the General Assembly) _had not become apparent until after November 29; when 7 of the 8 member nations participated in a coalition military operation on the day of Israeli independence.​
Why is that a dis-qualifier for you?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

I was only using that as a result.



P F Tinmore said:


> You post that quote a lot. The only issue I have with it is that other sources say different and there are no facts on the ground to validate that assertion.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, and that is a questionable claim.

A couple point that are positive facts on the Ground.

All the government infrastructure was transferred for the Mandatory to the Provisional Government of Israel.

Essential Food Products
The continuance of Postal Services
Credits to Finance
Liquid assets and liabilities of the Government of Palestine
Allocation and liquidation of assets
Drafting of democratic constitutions, declarations and choice of provisional governments by the Constituent Assemblies
Control of Land Regulations
Control of immigration
Palestine Currency Board

Palestine’s Broadcasting Requirements. 

Release of Sterling Balances 
The UNPC did not report to your standard, it reports to the Security Council on its progress.

Facts on the ground seem to be a vary depending on your vantage point.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I was only using that as a result.
> 
> ...


Links?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 23, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > No, they prove me absolutely correct.  They also prove that you post nothing but Zionist propaganda.
> ...



The UN reports on the partitionin


RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> _Ad hoc_ analysis or report is the term commonly used to describe a product (_analytical report, statistical analysis or model, or other report or summary of data)_ produced one time to answer a single, specific question.
> 
> ...



*
Ad hoc analysis or report is the term commonly used to describe a product (analytical report, statistical analysis or model, or other report or summary of data) produced one time to answer a single, specific question. 



montelatici said:



			None of the reports have been proven to be false.  It is just the UN presenting the facts on the ground prior to partition.  It isn't a white paper, it is the  report to the General Assembly setting forth the facts on the ground on which the partition of Palestine was executed.  And, of course the data presented to the General Assembly was fact.
		
Click to expand...

(COMMENT)

For instance, A/AC.14/32 of 11 November 1947 ---- the AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION REPORT OF SUB-COMMITTEE 2 submitted by members of Sub-Committee 2: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.  The appearance of bias and impropriety is a phrase referring to a situation which show prima facie evidence in specific circumstances might seem to raise ethics questions and a clear and precise exhibition of such bias must be made.  In this case, the report was accepted and included for the record (not disqualified) because the misfeasance and malfeasance (subverting the course of the General Assembly) had not become apparent until after November 29; when 7 of the 8 member nations participated in a coalition military operation on the day of Israeli independence.

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

Rocco et al

I was referring to A/364 not  A/AC.14/32.

A/364
3 September 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY


SUPPLEMENT No. 11



UNITED NATIONS
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
ON PALESTINE



REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME 1


RoccoR said:



			montelatici,  et al,
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 23, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Members of UN Committees must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the members activities.”  Otherwise is detracts from the confidence in the organization.



P F Tinmore said:


> Why is that a dis-qualifier for you?


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab League was a confederation formed in 1945.  The Arab Higher Committee was reconstituted the same year by the Arab League.  The Arab League consisted of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and Yemen and later joined by Libya, Sudan, Morocco, Tunisia, Kuwait, Algeria, Bahrain, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, and the United Arab Emirates.   Sub-Committee 2 were from: Afghanistan, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.

The cross connect and associates are clear:  Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen.  The same nations that submitted the report were the same nations that attacked Israel on their Independence Day.  

It is the case that these countries could have been ignored when the other members of the General Assembly realized that this was just part of the Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Members of UN Committees must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the members activities.”  Otherwise is detracts from the confidence in the organization.
> 
> ...



Rocco et al.  

The members of the members of the Committee were Canada, Czechoslovakia, Iran, Netherlands, Peru and Yugoslavia. Not one Arab member and only Iran was a Muslim country. Subsequently, of the members, only Iran voted against partition.

UN Special Committee on Palestine UNSCOP - Background information - Press release 31 August 1947


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 23, 2015)

montelatici,  

I screwed-up!



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

As I said, I thought we were still talking about the UNSCOP Sub-Committee 2.

I fell off track.

v/r
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 23, 2015)

Thanks.


----------



## Humanity (Apr 23, 2015)

Don't think I have commented on this thread before...

Mainly because I don't like the question... It's pretty dumb to be honest!

However, for what it's worth...

EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves!

And before one or two of the Zionist 'activists' asks, YES, even the Israelis!


----------



## Humanity (Apr 23, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...


----------



## Humanity (Apr 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> While it is lofty to say --- that all peoples have the right of self-defense and the right of self-determination, in reality the price of such an ideal can be too much to endure.



What price freedom?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 23, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Members of UN Committees must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the members activities.”  Otherwise is detracts from the confidence in the organization.
> 
> ...


You are still sliming the source while not addressing the content.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 24, 2015)

montelatici said:


> None of the reports have been proven to be false.  It is just the UN presenting the facts on the ground prior to partition.  It isn't a white paper, it is the  report to the General Assembly setting forth the facts on the ground on which the partition of Palestine was executed.  And, of course the data presented to the General Assembly was fact.






 You claimed that your links were Zionist propaganda so how about proving it Abdul. Because the links we use are yours when we destroy your POV and it is you that claims they are false.
 It says in the heading    WHITE PAPER so why do you LIE you RACIST POS. And as you have found out it has no legal standing and was ignored and finally binned


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 24, 2015)

Challenger said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...





 I did from the site itself when I posted its mission.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall, montelatici, Challenger, Roudy, et al,
> ...






 Are the other sources UN derived, as they should know better than anyone if a Resolution was implemented or not. That is the deciding factor, not some self serving Islamic big mouth changing words in treaties to match their religious  convictions. Non UN sources are suspect in this case.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...






 Ulterior motives by 7 of the 8 member states invading because their recommendations were not passed.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 24, 2015)

Humanity said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > While it is lofty to say --- that all peoples have the right of self-defense and the right of self-determination, in reality the price of such an ideal can be too much to endure.
> ...





 DEATH


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Only to you because you are MYOPIC when it comes to arab nationalist blame


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 24, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Don't think I have commented on this thread before...
> 
> Mainly because I don't like the question... It's pretty dumb to be honest!
> 
> ...






 Which is all Israel has ever done since its creation and legitimate acceptance by the world. It is not self defence to fire illegal weapons at Israeli civilians, that is a war crime and an act of war.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 24, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 MANDATE FOR PALESTINE   once again.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 24, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> ...the two general ways in which both sides use the techniques:
> 
> Propaganda is the spreading of information and ideas to advance a cause or discredit an opposing cause.
> Propaganda is spreading of information and ideas to advance a cause or discredit an opposing cause.



Two general ways? 

As you cited me in that post, please be advised I tend to respond in kind, depending who I'm dealing with and rarely, if ever, suffer fools gladly. If you want to discuss a topic seriously, you could always start it in the clean debate zone and I'll happily participate if it's of interest to me and I have a reasonable understanding of it. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee the Hasbarists won't follow.


----------



## theliq (Apr 24, 2015)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > ...the two general ways in which both sides use the techniques:
> ...


"Fools" being the operative word here Challenger,in your post..steve


----------



## Challenger (Apr 24, 2015)

theliq said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Not really, but paid or unpaid trolls/shills, probably.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 24, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Their invasion had nothing to do with the UN.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 It is what instigated it in 1947 when the UN issued 181 and the arab muslims threatened to invade and wipe out the Jews. They are GREEDY ARROGANT and VIOLENT and they use any excuse to spill blood


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 24, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


They went in to defend the natives against dispossession.

What are you talking about?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 24, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



That they were unable to protect the Christians and Muslims of Palestine from the European onslaught does not mean it was not the right thing to do.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 No that was the excuse they used, the real reason was because they could not stand to see a little oasis of non arab muslim control in the M.E. On top of this there was the commands of the Koran that told them to take back the land of Dar al Harb and wipe out the Jews. The natives finally had control of the land, and the interlopers were about to get taught a lesson. The arab muslim combined forces were destroyed and the UN had to step in and call a ceasefire before Israel showed the world what cowards the arab muslims were.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

montelatici said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...






 Then explain why the savage beasts of islam have decimated the Christians of the M.E. for the last 1400 years


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Load of crap.

It is because the people who already lived there were getting the boot.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





Explain then why the arab muslims have been attacking the Jews relentlessly since 635C.E. and why the mentally deranged false prophet made it a command of islam to KILL THE JEWS

 The people who already lived there were the Jews and they were getting a National Home that the arab muslims did not want them to get.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



The people of Palestine were Christians prior to the defeat of the Byzantines by the Muslims, you nut, they were subjects of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, and the state religion was Christianity.  No Jews.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



So, posting fact, such as the fact that Palestine was part of the  Christian Eastern Roman Empire prior to the Muslim conquest is posting propaganda.  Tone it down by the way.  Grow up.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 25, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, that region of the world has flip-flopped so many times, it is a wonder that the sands are not stained red by all the blood spilt over it.  Over that specific sliver of time, this became a reasonable depiction:

In the 330s BCE, Alexander the Great conquered the area now called Palestine, and the region changed hands numerous times during the wars of the Diadochi, ultimately joining the Seleucid Empire between 219 and 200 BCE. In 116 BCE, a Seleucid civil war resulted in the independence of certain regions including the minor Hasmonean principality in the Judean Mountains. From 110 BCE, the Hasmoneans extended their authority over much of the area, creating a Judean–Samaritan–Idumaean–Ituraean–Galilean alliance.[3] The Judean (Jewish, see Ioudaioi) control over the wider region resulted in it also becoming known as Judaea, a term that had previously only referred to the smaller region of the Judean Mountains. During 73–63 BCE, the Roman Republic extended its influence into the region in the Third Mithridatic War, conquering Judea in 63 BCE, and splitting the former Hasmonean Kingdom into five districts. In 70 CE, Titussacked Jerusalem, resulting in the dispersal of the city's Jews and Christians to Yavne and Pella. In 132 CE, Hadrian joined the province of Judaea with Galilee to form a new province and renamed it Syria Palaestina, and Jerusalem was renamed "Aelia Capitolina". During 259–272, the region fell under the rule of Odaenathus as King of the Palmyrene Empire. Following the victory of Christian emperor Constantine in the Civil Wars of the Tetrarchy (306–324), the Christianization of the Roman Empire began, and in 326, Constantine's mother Saint Helena visited Jerusalem and began the construction of churches and shrines. Palestine became a center of Christianity, attracting numerous monks and religious scholars. The Samaritan Revolts during this period caused their near extinction.   *SOURCE:* From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​


montelatici said:


> Palestine was part of the  Christian Eastern Roman Empire prior to the Muslim conquest


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the Kingdom of Jerusalem changed hands so many times in the 12th Century that nearly every major power _(except the Arabs of Palestine)_ could establish some claim historically during the medieval life and times of the Southern Levant.  

It does not really matter in contemporary times.  What does matter is what the Arab Palestinians want that will be reasonably and practically implemented.  Out of their demands, what can actually be accomplished to secure a regional peace; one which is not dependent on the word or pledge of honor by the Arab. 

What is reasonable and will keep the Jewish National Home intact and secure from hostile control, attack and annihilation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, that region of the world has flip-flopped so many times, it is a wonder that the sands are not stained red by all the blood spilt over it.  Over that specific sliver of time, this became a reasonable depiction:
> 
> ...


Yes, that region of the world has flip-flopped so many times,...​
So true, however, it was relatively stable and peaceful during the Ottoman period. When Palestine was carved out after WWI, all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens. There is no evidence that that amicable relationship would not continue.

Then Britain landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket and fucked everything up big time. There has been nothing but death and destruction since.


----------



## teddyearp (Apr 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > teddyearp said:
> ...



Now which is it Monte?  You alluded that you posted there and even said, "Hint I go by a different user name there".  And I can confirm that I do not see that Pheonall has any admin status there.

Like I said, your lies seem to know no bounds.


----------



## toastman (Apr 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...



Thanks to the Arabs who started all the violence.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...






 HORSE APPLES  the M.E. has always been a hotbed of mass murder, violence and atrocities at the hands of the muslims. The ottomans were no better and they massacred Jews, Christians and muslims as the mood took them.

 The arab muslims agreed to the Balfour declaration when Mcmahon spelt out the proposals in his letters to the arab muslim shieks


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






He/she is caught every day in one lie or another, it is a wonder that the imam allows them to keep on posting


----------



## teddyearp (Apr 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> He/she is caught every day in one lie or another, it is a wonder that the imam allows them to keep on posting



The iman probably encourages the half truth lies.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 25, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


----------



## montelatici (Apr 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, that region of the world has flip-flopped so many times, it is a wonder that the sands are not stained red by all the blood spilt over it.  Over that specific sliver of time, this became a reasonable depiction:
> 
> ...



What is reasonable is that the Christians and Muslims of Palestine, who were dispossessed by the European settlers, achieve what all other people colonized by the Europeans in the late 19th and 20th have  achieved.  Their freedom and independence from the hostile control of the colonizers.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > He/she is caught every day in one lie or another, it is a wonder that the imam allows them to keep on posting
> ...






 Of course they do, and if you notice the islamomorons all come out with the same propaganda on Saturday because they are given their orders on the Friday after the afternoon sermon.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 25, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



How can indigenous people resisting foreign settlers be accused of starting any violence?  That's like claiming the native americans started the violence when they attacked the Spanish.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 1929 Hebron massacre because the Mufti spread a BLOOD LIBEL

 1931  civil war because the mufti wanted to wipe out the Jews

and so the story goes on until the Jews formed defence groups that fought back against islamonazi oppression and violence.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...







 MORE ISLAMOMORON RACIST LIES.   the muslims were the ones dispossessing the Christians and Jews until the Jews formed defence groups and fought back. And now they have their independence and National home that the arab muslims cant do anything about. So they form propaganda groups like yours that spew RACIST LIES


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Are you still shoveling Israeli shit?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...





montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 How can they be indigenous when your own UN link shows that they were illegal immigrants in the main. So the Indigenous Jews are resisting and beating the foreign arab muslim land thieves and illegal immigrants aren't they


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Are you saying it was the Martians then that massacred the Jews ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 25, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


How can indigenous people resisting foreign settlers be accused of starting any violence?  That's like claiming the native americans started the violence when they attacked the Spanish.​
*Post of the day!*


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...







 You mean


* RACIST ISLAMOMORON LIE OF THE DAY*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


What Islamic about the Native Americans defending themselves from the Spanish?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 25, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Why do you continue making things up?  You truly have a problem with reality. 

"75 percent of the Palestinian Arab population, including Christians, of what is now the State of Israel became refugees. Entire Christian villages were destroyed by Israel; and tens of thousands of Christians were expelled. Some areas of today’s west Jerusalem, such as Talbiya and Katamon, were home to thousands of Palestinian Christians whose homes were looted and private property confiscated."

The plight of Palestinian Christians - Opinion - Jerusalem Post


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 25, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


At the time of the creation of the Israeli state in 1948, it is estimated that the Christians of Palestine numbered some 350,000. Almost 20 percent of the total population at the time, they constituted a vibrant and ancient community; their forbears had listened to St. Peter in Jerusalem as he preached at the first Pentecost. Yet Zionist doctrine held that Palestine was “a land without a people for a people without a land.” Of the 750,000 Palestinians that were forced from their homes in 1948, some 50,000 were Christians—7 percent of the total number of refugees and 35 percent of the total number of Christians living in Palestine at the time.

In the process of “Judaizing” Palestine, numerous convents, hospices, seminaries, and churches were either destroyed or cleared of their Christian owners and custodians. In one of the most spectacular attacks on a Christian target, on May 17, 1948, the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate was shelled with about 100 mortar rounds—launched by Zionist forces from the already occupied monastery of the Benedictine Fathers on Mount Zion. The bombardment also damaged St. Jacob’s Convent, the Archangel’s Convent, and their appended churches, their two elementary and seminary schools, as well as their libraries, killing eight people and wounding 120.

Forgotten Christians The American Conservative​


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 No hes posts about Israel and the Jews


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...





 Such is war, and blame the arab muslims for it all


----------



## Dante (Apr 25, 2015)

They should all strap on vests and blow themselves up


----------



## Roudy (Apr 25, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Worthless *opinion *piece, of course.  You should praise allah that Israel is a democracy that allows anybody to say whatever crap they feel like.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 25, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, here is something to agree with.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that region of the world has flip-flopped so many times,...​
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Well, first off --- that peaceful period was under the sovereign control of the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.  It was not a result of any peaceful pursuits of autonomous efforts of the Arabs.

The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take.  They did not have to extend those rights to the govern.  They did so because they felt it was the right thing to do.  A set of decisions they have come to regret.  At that time, the Arabs had virtually nothing to do with the creation of those rights as they were totally alien concepts to the Arab Muslims.  Who --- became citizens of the (whatever geography they determined was) territory to which the Mandate applied --- was a decision of the Allied Powers and the Council; not a decision of the Arabs --- and not a decision of the Ottomans or the Turks. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Then Britain landed with the Balfour Declaration in its pocket and fucked everything up big time. There has been nothing but death and destruction since.


*(COMMENT)*

Well not exactly.  The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers.  In fact, the first office of governance over the entire region was The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA 1918-1920).  It was territory lost in war --- and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory _(the area covered by OETA)_ went to the victors.  That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.  

The death and destruction over that very small path of land was not entirely the fault of the Arab; but, pretty damn close.  Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category _(the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc)_  they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas.  Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 25, 2015)

_"The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers..."_

No, the Arabs of the region participated in the Great Arab Revolt against the Turks allied with the British.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, here is something to agree with.
> 
> ...


Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category _(the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc)_  they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas.​
Do have links to that crap?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, here is something to agree with.
> 
> ...


Every day they demonstrate that the need to carve-out a special plot of land is necessary and essential to the safety, preservation and development of the Jewish National Home.​
You forgot to mention *inside Palestine.*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, here is something to agree with.
> 
> ...


...and under the Law of Conquest active in 1918, the captured territory _(the area covered by OETA)_ went to the victors. That customary law was really not set assign until 1945 and the UN Charter granting territorial integrity.​
Then why do UN resolutions say that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity if they have no territory?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 25, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, here is something to agree with.
> 
> ...


The fact that "all of the people who lived there became Palestinian citizens" was a consequence of the Principle Allied Powers deciding that was the high road they wanted to take.​
Then Britain came by catering to the agenda of foreigners and fucked that up. There has been nothing but death and destruction ever since. Britain took the low road.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You, yourself have attempted to justify that the Arab Palestinian has the right to attack civilian Israeli objects; to use any and all means including terrorism.

Posting #156 in which you try to argue that it is OK (not a crime) for Palestinians to Kill members of the Occupying Power because it is not a crime ("The nationals of an occupying power are not protected persons.").  What you did not tell them is that a Palestinian who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, or a grave collective danger, or seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, or is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, IS punishable under Article 68 of  the Fourth Geneva Convention.  This is very similar to the justification you used (Post #99) to defend the use of violence _(or the threat of violence) _*against civilians *in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature.

Another one of my favorites is Posting #29 wherein you argue that HAMAS cannot be a terrorist organization ("whole terrorist name calling thing is a load of horse crap") because "Hamas does not fight outside its own territory and does not attack protected persons." This suggests that Israel is not sovereign and that attacks on Israel are purely domestic (contained within a Palestinian State); (you argument being that "HAMAS does not operate outside of Palestine") so "How is that international?" (Post #40)  Talk about a bunch of crap.

Posting #7
Posting #70
Posting #76
Posting #110



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category _(the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc)_  they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas.​
> ...


*(OBSERVATION)*

Watch: Hamas Official Heaps Praise on 'Heroic' Kidnap Operation
Hamas 'political bureau' official Muhammad Nazal, hails abduction of three Israeli teenagers as a 'milestone in the Palestinian struggle'.

Netanyahu: Mashal made it clear Hamas was committed to fighting Israel
Prime minister addresses Abbas condemnation of kidnapping for the first time, saying if the PA president really means them, he is obligated to end his pact with Hamas.

Hamas Calls Special Press Conference, Says Nothing Important
Hamas (Hamas senior official, Salah Bardawil) claims they didnt kidnap the boys, but they praise whoever did.

*(COMMENT)*

As I've said before, one of the many faces of Arab Palestinian terrorism is the use of violent acts intended to create and instill fear in the mind of non-combatants (civilians), perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; which deliberately target of non-combatants.  Which is not only advocating the attack on civilians in violation of Rule #6 (*Civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities*.) of Customary IHL and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to Part IV : Civilian population #Section I -- General protection against effects of hostilities.

In an article published July 16, 2013, a Senior Hamas Official, Dr 'Issam Adwan, former Minister of Palestinian Refugee Affairs, stated that the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) Is Entitled To Attack: 

Israel's Embassies,
Israeli Interests,
Israeli Officials Worldwide –
The Interests of Israeli Allies, supporting the US
(And of course) US interests.
They glorify the Jihadist and Fedayeen that engage and kill civilian non-combatants.

Now, you are not going to tell me that you did not know that Palestinians killed half the Israeli Olympic Team in Munich; of when they hijacked El Al Flight 426 (1968), Dawson's Field Hijackings (1970), Air France Flight 139 (1976), Lufthansa Flight 181 (1977), TWA Flight 847 (1985), EgyptAir Flight 648 (1985), and Pan Am Flight 73 (1986). Or who remembers when the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) hijacked the Italian MS Achille Lauro liner off the coast of Egypt. And just how many rocket and mortars have the Palestinians fired (18,928 Rocket & Mortar attacks between 2001-2014)? 

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

2001 (40 bombings)
2002 (47 bombings)
2003 (23 bombings)
2004 (17 bombings)
2005 (9 bombings)
And these are actions and not words.  The language of the Hostile Arab Palestinian has not changed since 1948.  The tone is just updated.  Even as we speak, they boast about reconstructing tunnels into Israeli sovereignty.

*HAMAS using Heavy Machinery to accelerate Attack Tunnels *
Business Insider 
AVI ISSACHAROFF, THE TIMES OF ISRAEL

APR. 15, 2015,
Hamas has begun using heavy machinery and engineering tools to accelerate the excavation of attack tunnels leading from the Gaza Strip under the Israeli border, sources in the Palestinian enclave told the Times of Israel Wednesday.
I think this makes my point that there are plenty of "LINKS" out there that demonstrate you perspective as well as how the Palestine both dramatize and demonstrate their position on advocating violence and attempting to present that they have some special dispensation to attack both civilians and the Occupation Force.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, you are not listening.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Palestine _(defined as the territory to which the Mandate applied)_ is pre-1945.  The State of Palestine _(defined by the Declaration of Independence of 1988)_ is an entirely different place and time.  The territorial integrity of today's contemporary Palestine _Affirms _the need to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right." 

Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon.  The Israelis do.

Someday when the Palestinians negotiate their sovereignty, they can apply their right of territorial integrity.  Everyone has the right to earn a billion dollars if you want.  I have that right and you have that right.  It just so happens that Warren Buffet has that right.  Warren Buffet was smart and hard working and earn an estimated net worth US$70.9 Billion (April 2015).  Why do you and I have the right, but not the money.  Well we were not as smart as Warren Buffet, or as hard working as Warren Buffet.  But if we do ever amass $70 Billion --- we can reach in our back pocket and pull out that right to earn it.  The same goes for the Palestinian and their rights.  Just because you have a right, doesn't mean you have the object of that right.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OH, I guess that I could go back in the record and find links.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Even today, the Arab Palestinian desperately tries to argue and claim that they have the right to suicide bomb, ambush, --- kidnap and kill civilians in every sort of helpless category _(the old, infirm, school age, clergy, etc)_  they claim they have the right to hijack ships and conduct piracy on the high seas.​
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, you are not listening.
> 
> ...


Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.

You have that backwards.

Palestine has international borders.

Israel is defined by armistice lines.

Then you base the rest of your post of false premise.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OH, I guess that I could go back in the record and find links.
> 
> ...


You are talking about years.

Israel has had better days than that.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, you are not listening.
> 
> ...


sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967; not the HAMAS or PLO Palestine --- as defined "from the river to the sea, and from north to south," and qualified the "land of the Palestinian people and its homeland and its legitimate right."

That does not look correct.

...before a lasting peace can be established *in Palestine* is the question of
the disposition of the more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the
Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now *Israeli occupied*
*territory* and are at present living as refugees in Arab Palestine and
the neighboring Arab states.

FRUS Foreign relations of the United States 1949. The Near East South Asia and Africa Israel

The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine, a seizure of territory that much of the world recognizes as an illegal occupation. But it wasn’t the first illegitimate occupation.

That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel_._ Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). *It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day.*

Occupation of Palestine started in 1948

...and Palestinians living as Israeli citizens in *1948 occupied Palestine*...

1948 Internally Displaced Persons Palestinians

The 69-page book explores the emergence of these parties and their programs and their influence in the political life of the Palestinians in the * 1948 occupied territories.*

Al-Zaytouna Centre - Information Report 25 Arab Parties in 1948 Occupied Palestine in Israel


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



No, YOU have that wrong. Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan. That's just a fact. There's no going around that. 

"Then you base the rest of your post of false premise"
This is what you post when you have no rebuttal. What exactly did he post that was based on false premise?


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



"The June 1967 Arab-Israeli War resulted in a vast expansion of the Zionist colonial project in Palestine"

If this is true, then why did Israel give back the Sinai in 1979 (they actually offered to give it back following the sic day war, but Egypt signed the Khartoum Resolution", offer to give back the Golan for a peace treaty (Syria also signed the Khartoum Resolution) and have offered to give up virtually the entire West Bank for  a peace offer with the Palestinians (who have refused every one) ?
The answer is because the 'Zionist colonial project' is pure 100% Palestinian propaganda. It's simply not true.


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



"That first occupation began with a project calling itself the State of Israel_._ Its armed wing is known as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). *It occupied Western Palestine in 1948 and still does to this day.*"

In your dreams moron. Even the Palestinians recognize that territory as being Israel's. What the fuck is wrong with you? You have got to be the most unaware poster concerning this conflict.


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

This is the state of Palestine









That is not up for debate


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 26, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

I think you are confusing me.

I've seen this before.  These are two separate and distinct events that happened in different areas of the Middle East at different intervals in time.

EVENT ONE:  _The Arab Revolt was initiated by the Sherif Hussein bin Ali (Sharif Ali)_

The Arab Revolt of COL Lawrence fame, began _(o/a)_ 5 June 1916 and ended in 1918_ [Armistice of Mudros (30 October 1918)]_. Forces commanded by Sharif Ali, and Emir Faisal, attacked the Ottoman garrison at Medina.  This revolt was largely active in the Arab Hejaz.  Nearly every source agrees that when Sharif Ali, on seeing an opportunity to secure Arab lands from Ottoman control, launched the famous Arab Revolt.  These Arab Bedouin Tribes, opposing secular nationalism in favor of the potential promise by the British to a Kingdom _(leading to a pan-Islamic nation)_.  In view of these growing consequences, in June 1916, Sharif Ali, as head of the Arab nationalists and in alliance with Britain and France, initiated the Great Arab Revolt against Ottoman rule.  But --- it was done to accomplish the objective to establish a single independent and unified Arab state stretching from Aleppo (Syria) to Aden (Yemen).  Not to assist the Allied Powers.   This pan-Arab view of Sharif Ali conflicted with the plans for the House of Saud to unify the various tribes, sheikhs, emirates, and other kingdoms in the Arabian Peninsula; a campaign that would last some three decades (_1902 - 1932) _and the Unification of the Kingdom, 23 September 1932 (Independence).  In the final analysis, King Ali bin al-Hussein, the eldest brother of Abdullah and Faisal, lost the throne of the Kingdom of the Hejaz to Abdel Aziz bin Saud of Najd (House of Saud).​
EVENT TWO:

The "Arab revolt" in Palestine _(AKA:  "The Great Uprising")_ took place between _(15 April)_ 1936 --- 1939. It was a nationalist uprising by Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine against British colonial rule.  This is not to be confused with the rise of the Muslim Insurgency know as the Palestinian Black Hand founded late 1929 or early 1930 _(by Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam)_ eventually killed in a manhunt in late 1935. The Sheikh (al-Qassam) moved to Haifa in 1921 _(after his attempt to start a revolt in Syria failed and the French Sécurité began to close in)_  and began anew in the recruitment and training of the easily molded Arab peasants; Sheikh al-Qassam was a Palestinian Muslim preacher.​


montelatici said:


> _"The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers..."_
> 
> No, the Arabs of the region participated in the Great Arab Revolt against the Turks allied with the British.


*(COMMENT)*

Now follow this closely.  This is the part that most people miss.

​
The Arab Irregular Force (AIF) associated with COL T.E. Lawrence were Bedouins from the Hejaz; not affiliated to the House of Saud.  Those AIF essentially follow the Hejaz Rail Line north from Median to Aqaba --- then bypassing Amman on the East ---and going into Syria (Damascus) and north to almost Aleppo.  The AIF of COL Lawrence never touched the territory of west of the Jordan River.  What we call the Arab Palestinian was never part of the Arab Revolt and never assisted the Allied Powers.

If you look at the Battle Map.  You will see that the British Empire's Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign are engaging the Turkish 4th, 7th and 8th Armies; four enemy Corps on the West side of the Jordan River.  There are no AIF west of Dera.  If you look half way up the right side of the map you will see a box marked ARAB (XXXX); that is the AIF.

​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

montelatici said:


> _"The Arabs of that region and the Ottoman were enemies of the Allied Powers..."_
> 
> No, the Arabs of the region participated in the Great Arab Revolt against the Turks allied with the British.






 And in the process murdered Jews and Christians


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Will the ones you use be good enough ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...





 And you refuse to give it it's full title MANDATE FOR PALESTINE.   Why is that ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Because the UN are steering them towards full statehood and all that goes with it. It is the next step on free determination that they are loathe to take because it will show they are not interested in peace just conquest, violence and murder.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 LINK ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Again with this LIE   The MANDATE FOR PALESTINE has borders, the nation of Palestine refuses to state its borders.  Israel is defined in part by International treaty that sets it borders in stone. Now when did the Palestinians negotiate their borders and sign to accept them ?
 It should be easy to produce the treaty, that is if there ever was one .....................


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 How about some proper sources and not looney left pro islam ones.


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Such is war, and blame the arab muslims for it all


Just like the Nazis blamed the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Such is war, and blame the arab muslims for it all
> ...






 Did they really, then how about a link showing where the Nazis blamed the Jews for the destruction and deaths in gaza ?

 That was what my reply was to, so lets see you squirm out of this without showing yourself up.


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Such is war, and blame the arab muslims for it all
> ...



Not even close. Try again.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


What proof do you have for what you say?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You, yourself have attempted to justify that the Arab Palestinian has the right to attack civilian Israeli objects; to use any and all means including terrorism.
> 
> ...


You, yourself have attempted to justify that the Arab Palestinian has the right to attack civilian Israeli objects; to use any and all means including terrorism.

It is Israel's war against the civilian Palestinian people. It can end the war any time it wants.

Why do they whine about a few casualties?


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


This is easily one of the dumbest things I've heard you say. You need to stop reading so much Palestinian propaganda, it's really interfering with your common sense.


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Did they really, then how about a link showing where the Nazis blamed the Jews for the destruction and deaths in gaza ?
> 
> That was what my reply was to, so lets see you squirm out of this without showing yourself up.


Oh, the little jerk-off pre-teen just realized he put his foot in his mouth and is now trying to back-track.  Too bad, punk.  What you said is already out there.

_*"...blame the arab muslims for it all"*_​
Just like the Nazis blamed the Jews for all their problems.


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 26, 2015)

toastman said:


> Not even close. Try again.


Not only was that close, it was the nail on the head.

How is it not?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Israel claims borders on Palestinian land.

Interesting legal concept.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


What does that have to do with my post?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


The Palestinians or the US paid oligarchs in Ramallah?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Because the Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.

It had no land or borders.


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


It's not Israel claiming the borders. IT's not Palestinian land. You're on another planet.

Not to mention you have ZERO proof for your assertion , as usual.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Workers world   a communist source for starters


 Badil is pallywood productions


 Same with Al-Zaytouna


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Wow, must EVERYTHING be explained to you?? I just explained to you why you 'Zionist Colonial' crap is pure bullshit.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 Then produce the posts

 No it is against terrorists and militia, you have failed to prove that any of the dead were civilians.

 Why do the arab muslims do the same when most are involved in the terror attacks on Israel


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

Tinmore, I think it's time you find another topic to debate. You are by far the biggest liar and most unaware poster here. You are wrong about 99% of the things you post about the conflict.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Did they really, then how about a link showing where the Nazis blamed the Jews for the destruction and deaths in gaza ?
> ...






 Squirm squirm little worm it will do you no good, you have been busted for what you are.


 So produce the link little worm or squirm done your stinking hole.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Again Mandate of Palestine land as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.

 And we are still waiting for you to post the link that says otherwise. Who made the borders, what person acting on behalf of Palestine signed the papers and where are the treaties


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Which mandate are you going by as there were two for Palestine...............


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 A lot as it detailed exactly what was going on, proving you wrong in the process.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Define Palestinian using contemporary evidence of who was named as Palestinians ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 They had the options spelt out and they refused them all, so they only have themselves to blame.     LIVE WITH IT


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Which mandate as there were two of them


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, you're in part correct.  Now you are "quibbling" _(argue or raise objections about a trivial matter)_ with words --- as opposed to making a valid and worthy contribution.  Let's lay this to rest once and for all.  This is one of those issues which the Palestinians believe they can force a change over though force and active belligerence.  It is at least one of the attitudes that has prevented the Arab Palestinian to see a productive way though negotiations for a lasting peace.

I do question your description of the Mandate as "temporary."  I believe the better term to apply is "indefinite"  _(meaning: lasting for an undetermined period or an unstated time)._   There was Article 22 criteria to be met that the Palestinians declined to engage.  Palestine is not capable of standing on its own even today, being parasitic on the donor nations.



P F Tinmore said:


> Because the Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.
> 
> It had no land or borders.


*(COMMENT)*

From 1922 - 1946:  Palestine the PLACE was mutually delineated by the Council, the ALLIED POWERS, and the Mandatory as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, hereinafter described as "Palestine."

Afterwards and until 1948, Palestine was delineated as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, less the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

After 1948, Palestine was delineated as the remainder of the territories to which the Former Mandate for Palestine applied, less the combined territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and that territory under the sovereign control of Israel.   After 15 May 1948 and until 1988, Palestine was defined as a legal entity, not self-governing; with the United Nations Commission for Palestine as the successor for Government of Palestine.

After November 1988, Palestine was re-defined as the sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967;  --- as recognized by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated --- as acknowledged by the UN.

*NOTE:*  The West Bank was NOT part of Palestine, either delineated as part of the remainder of the territories to which the Former Mandate for Palestine applied --- or --- as a component of the territory occupied since 1967.  During the period April 1950 until July 1988 _(and the Disengagement)_, the West Bank was a sovereign to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.  The West Bank was annexed by the authority of the West Bank Palestinian exercising their right of self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


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

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​
Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel

*Article 5:*

The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

*Article 6:*

The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.​
The Avalon Project The Palestinian National Charter

You're welcome.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, you're in part correct.  Now you are "quibbling" _(argue or raise objections about a trivial matter)_ with words --- as opposed to making a valid and worthy contribution.  Let's lay this to rest once and for all.  This is one of those issues which the Palestinians believe they can force a change over though force and active belligerence.  It is at least one of the attitudes that has prevented the Arab Palestinian to see a productive way though negotiations for a lasting peace.


What are the Palestinians trying to change?


> I do question your description of the Mandate as "temporary."  I believe the better term to apply is "indefinite"  _(meaning: lasting for an undetermined period or an unstated time)._   There was Article 22 criteria to be met that the Palestinians declined to engage.  Palestine is not capable of standing on its own even today, being parasitic on the donor nations.


When the people could stand alone was a goal oriented termination date.

Of course the British, with its military force, prevented that from happening.


P F Tinmore said:


> Because the Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily assigned administration.
> 
> It had no land or borders.


*



			(COMMENT)
		
Click to expand...

*


> From 1922 - 1946:  Palestine the PLACE was mutually delineated by the Council, the ALLIED POWERS, and the Mandatory as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, hereinafter described as "Palestine."
> 
> Afterwards and until 1948, Palestine was delineated as the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied, less the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
> 
> ...


3. _Reaffirms_ the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under alien and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence,* territorial integrity,* and national unity and sovereignty without external interference;

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978​
What territory were they talking about when according to you there was none.


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Squirm squirm little worm it will do you no good, you have been busted for what you are.
> 
> So produce the link little worm or squirm done your stinking hole.


You're such a dumbass!  Are you actually saying the Nazis didn't blame the Jews?

Here's your link, punk-ass...


> _People frequently ask why the Jews were the target of the Holocaust or why the Holocaust happened. The first is an easy question to answer. Jews were the targets of the Holocaust because *Hitler hated Jews and **blamed them for all of the problems in the world*. He especially blamed them for Germany's loss of World War I. Hitler told the German people that they could have won the first war, if Germany had not been "stabbed in the back" by the Jews and their conspirators_.


Want more?

From a book on Anne Frank...





It's hard to believe some dumbass would actually argue that the Nazis didn't blame the Jews, but you've proven to the world, you are that dumbass!



> _*KEY CONCEPT*: *Everyone knew* from the first* that the Nazis blamed the Jews for Germany's problems* and they wanted the Jews to leave Germany_.


You asked for one link, I gave you three.

_Worm out..._


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't actually say anything different than what was already enacted.  You act like some other higher group wrote the Treaty.  The very same people who were instrumental in the drafting of the Treaty of Sevres were the same as those that wrote the Treaty of Lausanne.  Absolutely nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne changed any aspect of the Palestine Order in Council or caused the change in the Citizenship Order of 1925.



PF Tinmore said:


> Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:
> 
> “Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become _ipso facto_, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​
> The automatic, _ipso facto_, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

*FIRST: *  In fact, the passage in the 1924 Treaty uses spme of the exact same language in the 1922 Order in Council, which came before.  Why, because the very same interests wrote both. The Treaty of Lausanne is not the Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine.  It is relative to Armenians and Kurds, but not the Palestinians.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--







 (a)*Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine *at the date of commencement of this Order.






 (b)All persons of other than *Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine* at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​
*SECOND:  *The The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968, were not law of any sort and even if it were, it was written two decades too late _(although it did make me smile)_.  The Palestinian National Charter was written by the legislative body of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that elects the Executive Committee (PLO EC).  

The Palestinian National Charter Language you cite is what the UNRWA CERI (Consolidate Enrollment Registration Instructions) are derivative of.  The PLO, working for the UN in the RWA influenced CERI.  That is why it does not match existing IHL.

Remember these are the same people that wrote, in the same document that:

Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
Commando (Feday'ee) action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.
The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time,
The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. 
The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aimed at the liquidation of the Palestinian cause, or at its internationalization.
But as I said, none of this will make a difference in the final analysis.  All the remainder of the region will want is power and money.  And it is not likely that the Palestinians will be competitive there.   And the Levant is a basin of potential wealth.  And the Palestinians, the longer they procrastinate and behave in an obstructionist manner, the less likely they will be able to build a thriving and productive nation.  No one, event the Arabs, in their right mind want another bunch of barbaric bloodthirsty radicals, jihadist, Islamic Resistance fighters, and fedayeen --- who think they have some special privilege for belligerents, running loose, unsupervised and unrestrained in the Levant; creating even more havoc than ISIS is already. 

Most Respectfully,
R
*










*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't actually say anything different than what was already enacted.  You act like some other higher group wrote the Treaty.  The very same people who were instrumental in the drafting of the Treaty of Sevres were the same as those that wrote the Treaty of Lausanne.  Absolutely nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne changed any aspect of the Palestine Order in Council or caused the change in the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> ...


The partition resolution of the General Assembly violates international law in another important respect. It contradicts the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. As Quincy Wright explains in his legal analysis of the Palestine problem, the General Assembly resolution “partitioning Palestine and establishing the state of Israel as demanded by Zionists is difficult to reconcile with this principle. Local hostilities between Zionist and Arab forces deprived the ‘peoples’ in the mandated territory of rights explicitly protected by the Mandate and Article 80 of the Charter without their consent.”[21] Art. 80 (1) – in connection with Art. 77, Par. 1 (a) – of the UN Charter explicitly states that, in regard to a mandated territory, the United Nations provisions on trusteeship must not be interpreted in a way that could “alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples” under the regime of a mandate.

As far as the occupation of additional territories in excess of those allocated – though without sufficient authority – by the General Assembly in 1947 is concerned, the universally recognized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force applies. The general principle of law "_ex injuria jus non oritur_" is relevant in this context. A claim to a territorial title which originates in an illegal act is invalid. This relates to the Palestinian territories seized in 1948 as well as to those occupied in 1967.[23] Israel’s status in those territories is that of a “belligerent occupant.”

“The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.”

Palestinian-Israeli Conflict


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them _on her behalf,_ in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



You need to learn how to read. It says they have THE RIGHT TO territorial integrity.


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Squirm squirm little worm it will do you no good, you have been busted for what you are.
> ...



So you're saying the Israelis blame the Palestinian for all the problems in the world ?

Do you realize how stupid your Nazi comparisons are? Get your head out of yo


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...



None of this changes the fact that the Treaty of Lausanne changed nothing for Palestine .. You keep posting the same lie over and over and over and over


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


The Treaty of Lausanne was not supposed to change anything. It merely reiterated customary international law.

Why are you so hot about it?


----------



## Hossfly (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...


Hey, Tinmore. That's old news about the Palestinians defending themselves. Here's the new way for them to defend. Looks like things are building up to another ass whupping in Gaza. They must want to hold some more victory parades.


_*In what may be the beginning of a new wave of terror against Jews, Palestinian terrorists carried out three attacks over the weekend.*_

*By: Aryeh Savir, World Israel News*




Mayor Barkat holds the hand of one of the wounded officers as he is evacuated form the scene of the attack. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Palestinians committed three terror attacks against Israeli security forces in the Jerusalem vicinity over the weekend, just a day after the country celebrated Independence Day.

In the most severe incident, a Palestinian drove his car into a group of police officers on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, moderately wounding a policewoman and lightly wounding two others. The police opened fire on the assailant, but he managed to flee. They launched a manhunt, during which the car used in the attack was recovered, and later the terrorist himself was caught.

The three wounded officers were evacuated to Shaare Zedek hospital in Jerusalem.

Arabs began rioting in the area after the attack, and the unrest spread to other neighborhoods in the capital. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat was on his way to the scene of the attack when Arabs pelted rocks at his car, which was lightly damaged

Jerusalem area rocked by three terror attacks over weekend


----------



## Coyote (Apr 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...




"Palestinians committed three terror attacks against Israeli security forces"


It sounds like they are hitting military targets.


----------



## Hossfly (Apr 26, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Military targets in Jerusalem? I didn't know that.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



"Palestinians committed three terror attacks against* Israeli security forces*"

Isn't that military?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have this entirely wrong again.



P F Tinmore said:


> The partition resolution of the General Assembly violates international law in another important respect. It contradicts the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. As Quincy Wright explains in his legal analysis of the Palestine problem, the General Assembly resolution “partitioning Palestine and establishing the state of Israel as demanded by Zionists is difficult to reconcile with this principle. Local hostilities between Zionist and Arab forces deprived the ‘peoples’ in the mandated territory of rights explicitly protected by the Mandate and Article 80 of the Charter without their consent.”[21] Art. 80 (1) – in connection with Art. 77, Par. 1 (a) – of the UN Charter explicitly states that, in regard to a mandated territory, the United Nations provisions on trusteeship must not be interpreted in a way that could “alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples” under the regime of a mandate.
> 
> As far as the occupation of additional territories in excess of those allocated – though without sufficient authority – by the General Assembly in 1947 is concerned, the universally recognized principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force applies. The general principle of law "_ex injuria jus non oritur_" is relevant in this context. A claim to a territorial title which originates in an illegal act is invalid. This relates to the Palestinian territories seized in 1948 as well as to those occupied in 1967.[23] Israel’s status in those territories is that of a “belligerent occupant.”
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Not that the principle applies anyway, but even if it did, a General Assembly Resolution cannot violate the Charter, because the General Assembly Resolution does not take the form of a requirement or action by force.  It is a case in which the UN via the General Assembly Resolution made an "offer and acceptance;" under Security Council surveillance to take the necessary measures for implementation.  It was not a case of "acquisition of territory by force."

It offered the Opportunity for the Jewish to establish a Jewish State.
And the Jewish Agency had the opportunity to reject the acceptance to the offer without prejudice.

It offered the Opportunity for the Arab to establish an Arab State.
And the Arabs had the opportunity to reject the acceptance to the offer without prejudice.

The regime and protocols of the mandate did not alter the status of the citizens of the territory to which the mandate applied.  Neither the Arab or the Jewish population had responsibility for the government or any sovereignty issue.

Finally the concept of "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force" applies to the aggressor and NOT the defender.  The external interference was a result of the assault by the Arab countries involved in the invasion.  The Armistice between Lebanon and Syria puts the matter in stasis, until a formal peace arrangement is made.  The Peace Treaties resolve any action pertaining to the permanent international borders between Israel and the adjacent states of Jordan and Egypt.  

It is not the case that Israel is inside Palestine as is often alleged.  Quite the contrary.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly (Apr 26, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


The security could be a watchman at a massage parlor.   Why do Palestinians need to attack people in Jerusalem?


----------



## Coyote (Apr 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



The same reason Israeli's attacked British military targets before they were granted Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Of course the lying propagandists call attacks on military targets "terrorism."

Well they have to pimp their terrorist propaganda campaign.


----------



## Hossfly (Apr 26, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


There was a shooting war then. Today these people are supposed to be wanting peace. Supposedly.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



It seems to me that the main distinction made between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" is the choice of targets.  I don't agree with targeting civilians especially children.  But this is clearly targeting military members - security forces.  In that - what is the difference between what the Palestinians are doing and what the Israeli's did?


----------



## Coyote (Apr 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



I'm not seeing any difference Hoss.  These people want a nation - a homeland.  Just like the Jews did.


----------



## Hossfly (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You're just wasting bandwidth, Tinny Boy. Terror is terror is terror.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't actually say anything different than what was already enacted.  You act like some other higher group wrote the Treaty.  The very same people who were instrumental in the drafting of the Treaty of Sevres were the same as those that wrote the Treaty of Lausanne.  Absolutely nothing in the Treaty of Lausanne changed any aspect of the Palestine Order in Council or caused the change in the Citizenship Order of 1925.
> 
> ...



I am puzzled by your listing of these points:



_Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine_
_Commando (Feday'ee) action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war. This requires its escalation, comprehensiveness, and the mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution._
_The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time,_
_The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void._
_The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aimed at the liquidation of the Palestinian cause, or at its internationalization._
Do you believe that these are unusual for a national liberation movement?

The Algiers Charter says much the same things, only in French. Instead of repudiating the Balfour Declaration it repudiates the act making Algeria a "Departemente" (state) of France.

La Charte d Alger

The ANC also adopted violence officially:


"The African National Congress announced its adoption of armed struggle on December 16 1961. It is relevant to quote from the flyer distributed on that day, issued by Umkhonto we Sizwe, announcing that sabotage attacks had been carried out:

"Umkhonto we Sizwe will carry on the struggle for freedom and democracy by new methods, which are necessary to complement the actions of the established national liberation organisations. Umkhonto we Sizwe fully supports the national liberation movement, and our members, jointly and individually, place themselves under the overall political guidance of that movement........ The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices: submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means within our power in defence of our people, our future and our freedom.

5. The ANC Stages of Struggle and Policy Foundations 1960-1994 - The O Malley Archives
*


Why do you hold the Christians and Muslims of Palestine to different standards?

*


----------



## Hossfly (Apr 26, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


They keep refusing a nation. Because they would have to recognize Israel if they accepted.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 26, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...



It's not that simple.  I fully agree - *they must recognize Israel.*  But Israel in turn, must recognize their right to a homeland.  And you and I both know Netanyahu has no such intentions.


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



Let me rephrase. The Treaty of Lausanne had nothing to do with Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You have this entirely wrong again.
> 
> ...


What you consistently miss is that the plan was to partition *Palestine.* The UN states that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity. The UN has no authority to take any Palestinian land and give it to anyone. If the Palestinians agreed, fine. But they did not. End of story.

Some say that the Zionists agreed. So what? No land could be transferred.

The foreign Zionists mentioned resolution 181 in its declaration of independence. So what? No land could be transferred.


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...



The Palestinians ALSO agreed, just not in 1947, but in 1988.

Again with the land transfer crap ? Which part of 'land transfer has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING' don't you understand ??


----------



## toastman (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...



What the hell does this video prove ?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 26, 2015)

Coyote, et al,

When investigating a crime, all the basic interrogatives are important.  But your instinct is somewhat correct; maybe not the first or main concern.

And the exact same event can be evaluated differently depending upon the vantage of the jurisdiction.  And, the scope and nature of terrorism events is constantly evolving; and growing --- and now includes cyber-terrorism and financial terrorism.

"International Terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violates International Humanitarian, Customary or Criminal Law;
Appear to be intended to:
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; 
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

Occurs primarily transcending international boundaries; 
"Terrorist acts" mean intentional acts which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or international organization and which are defined as an offense under national law. These include: 

• Attacks upon a person's life which may cause death; 
• Attacks upon the physical integrity of a person; 
• Kidnapping or hostage taking; 
• Causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility; • seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport; 
• Manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives, or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, 
• Participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group.​
In order for these acts to constitute terrorist acts, they must be carried out with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, or unduly compelling a Government or an international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization. 

The generally accepted (totally independent) laws or criteria pertaining to threats to international peace and security *caused by terrorist acts* are found in the UN Security Council List of Resolutions.  In this regard the conduct of activities prohibited by the Security Council is a _prima facie_ case for terrorism by a terrorist.



Coyote said:


> It seems to me that the main distinction made between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" is the choice of targets.  I don't agree with targeting civilians especially children.


*(COMMENT)*

Most terrorist organization of an international complexion, identify or associate themselves with the cover of a nationalist for democracy or freedom fighting against a major power.  However, "freedom fighters" do not have a depraved indifference to human life and their operations and actions are:

Not directed against the helpless or infirm.
Not directed against persons not a member of the opposing force.
Not directed against civilians IAW Article 50 of Additional Protocol I.
Not “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.”  Rule 97 Customary Law



Coyote said:


> But this is clearly targeting military members - security forces.  In that - what is the difference between what the Palestinians are doing and what the Israeli's did?


*(COMMENT)*

Security Forces is too broad a term.  For instance "Police Officers" (Law Enforcement Officers) are generally considered "civilians."  However, the use of military forces to perform defense and security functions is a "military" activity.  But again, Article 68 of the Geneva Convention comes into play.  

Palestinians who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, or involves espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, is punishable under Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (IHL).

A good investigation tries to assess each event on it own merit (case-by-case).  In fact, it would be a rare case in the History of Man when a belligerent action that has lasted 70 years, did not include questionable activity by each of the parties to the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Coyote, et al,
> 
> When investigating a crime, all the basic interrogatives are important.  But your instinct is somewhat correct; maybe not the first or main concern.
> 
> ...


In fact, it would be a rare case in the History of Man when a belligerent action that has lasted 70 years, did not include questionable activity by each of the parties to the conflict.​
Like a settler colonial occupation.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are lost.



P F Tinmore said:


> What you consistently miss is that the plan was to partition *Palestine.* The UN states that the Palestinians have the right to territorial integrity. The UN has no authority to take any Palestinian land and give it to anyone. If the Palestinians agreed, fine. But they did not. End of story.


*(COMMENT)

There was never a beginning to the story:*

Wrong!!!   It is the Partition Plan for the territory to which the Mandate applied (the official definition of Palestine - found in the Palestine order in Council).
Yes.  If they have a territory _(or adopted to accept the GA/RES/181 offer)_, they can use the "right of territorial integrity."  BUT, when did the Palestine Government _(the Mandatory)_ 
recognize any plot or allocation of territory that was unique to the Arab Palestinian.  That did not happen until 1988.
And WRONG!  The Palestinian had no land under their sovereign control. 



P F Tinmore said:


> Some say that the Zionists agreed. So what? No land could be transferred.  The foreign Zionists mentioned resolution 181 in its declaration of independence. So what? No land could be transferred.


*(COMMENT)*

Land transfers are a civil real-estate matter.  It has nothing to do which sovereign integrity.  No land was ever transferred to Israel.  The Jewish Agency exercised the "right of self-determination" in accordance with the instructions and recommendation set forth by the General Assembly and implemented by the Security Council through the UN Palestine Commission; after completing the "Steps Preparatory to Independence."  

No land was transferred.  That is not how it was done for any of the Mandates.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hossfly (Apr 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You are lost.
> 
> ...


Better stay on your guard, Rocco, or Tinmore will slip one by you and get all that land back.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 26, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, this colonialism allegation.



P F Tinmore said:


> Like a settler colonial occupation.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, that needs to be litigated.


OSLO II established Areas "A" --- "B" --- and "C". 
OLSO II gave Israel total jurisdiction over Area "C"...
Settlements are in Area "C"

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this colonialism allegation.
> 
> ...


Oslo was just an attempt to legalize criminal activity. Few people still believe in it. It is not relevant to anything I post.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 26, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You are lost.
> 
> ...


Land transfers are a civil real-estate matter. It has nothing to do which sovereign integrity.​
You are just trying to confuse people. You know your comment is way off base.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...




So what about those arab muslims that were not Turkish subjects but illegal immigrants and not habitually resident but itinerant farm workers.

And what date do the arab muslims put down as the start of the Zionist invasion ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 The granting of the Jews a national home on 22% OF PALESTINE.

 And the arab muslims constantly show they don't have what it takes to stand alone.

 You keep saying that yet refuse to show any evidence of this being the case. The British could only work within the framework of the mandate, and could not make such decisions on their own

 Once again you mix Mandates to suit your POV, but this would mean that Palestine has no borders.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Squirm squirm little worm it will do you no good, you have been busted for what you are.
> ...







 Not what you claimed dildo, so try again.  This time go back to your original post and see that you stated the Germans blamed the Jews for all the problems in Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Unless it supports your POV and mood at the time.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...





 NOPE just that you cant understand it


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Nope it very clearly states that the nationality law was to give the inhabitants the citizenship of the mandatory power. It never at any time gave the basis for a nation or a nationality based on a nation


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...







 Because it does not say what you imply does it


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 27, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






And Israel will strike back at military, terrorist and militia targets. It is now up to hamas to get the civilians away from such targets


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Not what you claimed dildo, so try again.  This time go back to your original post and see that you stated the Germans blamed the Jews for all the problems in Palestine.


Troll boy keeps doing his troll Schick.

Now you're claiming the Nazis cared about what was happening in Palestine?

Can you get anymore irrational and stupid?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 27, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Not what you claimed dildo, so try again.  This time go back to your original post and see that you stated the Germans blamed the Jews for all the problems in Palestine.
> ...






 That was your claim dildo so produce the link..........................


 You are just too easy to prove to be a complete morn these days


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Link?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


*ART. 7.*
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.


 The administration, or mandatory power, not the nation of palestine


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Where does that say what you said?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law.


 So the British administration was responsible for enacting a British Palestine nationality law. It was not a Palestinian nationality law


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Everything, having to do with the governance of the territory, was defined relative to the application of the Mandate _(The "MANDATE" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922)_ .  Other than that defined by the Allied Powers, there was no other meaning given to "Palestine."

*√ * The Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922.
For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--






 (a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.





 (b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​*√ * The Palestine Order in Council, 1922
The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

WHEREAS the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;

11.--(1) The High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, by Proclamation divide Palestine into administrative divisions or districts in such manner and with such subdivisions as may be convenient for purposes of administration describing the boundaries thereof and assigning names thereto.​
Any attempt to suggest that the "Administration of Palestine" or the "Government of Palestine" was any entity other than Britain _(or that defined by the Allied Powers)_, is misinformation.  Any attempt to suggest that "Palestine" or "Palestinian Citizenship" inferred or implies any special meaning of sovereignty or territorial integrity _(other than explicitly cited by the Council)_, is misinformation.  Any attempt to suggest that the use of the short-title "Palestine" attaches any significants other that the meaning --- "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" --- is misinformation. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Mandate* for *Palestine.

Not

Mandate* is *Palestine.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



How is it that you are always wrong.  A broken clock is more accurate than you are.

*REPORT
BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT*​*TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF​**PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN
FOR THE YEAR
1925*​3._Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?_

_A._ The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, *provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects*, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence.

Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1925


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

When that distinction really plays an important role in the discussion, be sure to let me know.



P F Tinmore said:


> Mandate* for *Palestine.
> 
> Not
> 
> Mandate* is *Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

While it is true, to a degree, I think the distinction is lost on you.  Because _(between 1922 and 1948)_ everything that constitutes "Palestine," to include the geographic limits, was either specified in the Mandate, or defined by the application of the Mandate, or in relation to the Mandate.

I think I once heard you say (something to the effect) that when the Mandate was gone, Palestine remained.  That is a bit naive and certainly not very correct.  The very definition of the territory as defined by the Allied Powers is based on:


"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
If the Mandate terminated, while the physical ground would remain, it would not technically be defined as "Palestine."  Palestine, is defined by the Allied Powers.  It would be an undefined region of the Greater Levant.  The definition would be:

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the nothing applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​
In practical reality, we refer to this as a necessary dependency.  In legalese, changes in the text from "for" to "is" are extremely important, only to the extent that the difference is recognizable and can be articulate.  In your case --- much like your failure to understand the origin of the "civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" and where that languages was first coined _(HINT:  everything that has was based on the source, are deemed null and void by the Palestinians)_;  your understanding of who decided and when, the boundaries of Palestine needed to be defined:



			
				Agreement --- Between HRH Prince Faisal (Emir of the Hejaz) and Chaim Weizmann (Representative of the Zionist Organization) said:
			
		

> Article I
> 
> The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories.​
> Article II
> Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.   _*SOURCE:*_ *TEXT OF THE FAISAL-WEIZMANN AGREEMENT *​


​While some time ago, we had a deep discussion about all this.  Some things are stranger than fiction.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 27, 2015)

Just curious as to under whose authority was the Kingdom of Hejaz operating with respect to the Palestinians.  Was he speaking for the Palestinian Muslims or the Palestinian Christians, who made up 93% of the population of Palestine?  I don't recall that the Palestine Arab Congress ever agreed for this self appointed Bedouin King to negotiate on the Palestinian's behalf, in fact, the Palestinians were far more likely to give Syria that right, given the British refusal to recognize the representative body of 93% of the population.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Just curious as to under whose authority was the Kingdom of Hejaz operating with respect to the Palestinians.  Was he speaking for the Palestinian Muslims or the Palestinian Christians, who made up 93% of the population of Palestine?  I don't recall that the Palestine Arab Congress ever agreed for this self appointed Bedouin King to negotiate on the Palestinian's behalf, in fact, the Palestinians were far more likely to give Syria that right, given the British refusal to recognize the representative body of 93% of the population.


That is the root of the problem.

Palestinians have* always *had other people making decisions for them who did not have their best interest in mind.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 27, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Actually, that is a good  (very good) question.  The answer is related to *Post #544* (in particular the implications on the map) --- and --- montelatici's Post #529 --- the mistaken belief that all the Arabs were aligned with COL TE Lawrence and the allied Arab Revolt --- about which Arabs were allied with the EEF _(the British Army Egyptian Expeditionary Force commanded by General Sir Edmund Allenby)_.  Remember, COL Lawrence, as the military advisor from the Arab Bureau, organized the Arab Irregular Forces (AIF) under the command of Emir Faisal _(son of Sharif Hussein bin Ali, GCB, of Mecca and King of the Hejaz)_ into a Proxy Warfare Element and smaller asymmetric units that helped pin down a sizable Ottoman/Turk element of the 7th Army.

 ​


montelatici said:


> Just curious as to under whose authority was the Kingdom of Hejaz operating with respect to the Palestinians.  Was he speaking for the Palestinian Muslims or the Palestinian Christians, who made up 93% of the population of Palestine?  I don't recall that the Palestine Arab Congress ever agreed for this self appointed Bedouin King to negotiate on the Palestinian's behalf, in fact, the Palestinians were far more likely to give Syria that right, given the British refusal to recognize the representative body of 93% of the population.


*(COMMENT)
*
Prince Faisal and his forces, started in central Sinai moved the Arab Revolt from Yanbu - north along the central supply line and railway; in a hop'n'skip manner. Once it engage and won at Aqaba, the AIF hopped and skipped north to Damascus and toward Aleppo.  Except for very small and short sorties, the AIF stayed on the East Side of the Jordan River and Dead Sea.  Elements of the EEF (General Allenby's Forces) stayed almost exclusively on the West Bank engaging Ottoman Army Element including Arab units with the order of battle.  

"There were also Arab and Bedouin volunteers, regional forces who would be fighting against the occupying force, who supported the campaign against the British to capture the Suez Canal. It is classified as volunteerism for Army, however, did not provide a substantial support for the efforts of the Army. These volunteers were not trained well (not within the Ottoman system), it is true that they were defenders of their own land (comparable to Armenian fedayi), most of the Arab and Bedouin volunteers were motivated by financial gains."  *SOURCE:* Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate​


​The Arabs of the Arab Revolt and COL Lawrence fame, did not come from the from Gaza to Megiddo.  In fact, in the British EEF Movement to contact in Gaza, took three separate battles to secure area before the main body could proceed north.

In the hierarchy within the Arab Community on the side of the Allied Powers, Emir Faisal was the Senior Arab in protocol.  Prince Faisal had been a representative for the City of Jeddah in the Ottoman parliament.  The Joint British Army and Arab AIF assault --- successfully taking Damascus in October 1918, was a major huddle in the decision process that followed with the Ottoman Armistice of Mudros; and the surrender of all remaining garrisons in Hedjaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania and Cyrenaica.  When it came to post-Conflict Resolutions, negotiations and settlements, it seemed to the Allied Powers that the principle leader of the Arab community on the side of the Allies was Prince Faisal who concluded the Agreement for Arab-Jewish Cooperation, in which Faisal conditionally accepted the Balfour Declaration.  It seemed the logical choice since there did not appear to be any other reasonable alternative.   The Arabs to what the Allied Powers had defined as "Palestine;" did not appear to have contributed much to the liberation efforts in the region.  However, the Bedouins and other Tribal entities of the Hejaz did actively contribute to the liberations efforts.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 27, 2015)

With all of that Rocco, what does it mean?  That some self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions for the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine?  How many Palestinian (Arab) Jews participated in the battles against the Turks?


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 27, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> That was your claim dildo so produce the link..........................
> 
> 
> You are just too easy to prove to be a complete morn these days


Aw, the little troll, doing his little troll thing.

How sweet?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 27, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.

I tried to make two points here:


That Hussein bin Ali, GCB, Grand Sharif and Emir of Mecca (and ruler of Medina, capital of the al-Madinah Region); last of the Hashemite Sharifians, with Mecca being the birthplace of Muhammad (PBUH), and the site of the first revelation of the Quran _(and Medina - where the final surahs of the Quran were revealed to the Prophet, called Medinan surahs)_; the two holiest cities in the religion of Islam; and Mecca being the former capital city of the Hejaz _(now a capital of Makkah Province in Saudi Arabia)_; --- was not just any "self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert."

That Hussein bin Ali, was a highly regarded by Shiite Muslim, and his sons, made themselves useful to the British Empire and were instrumental in initiating the Arab Revolt in 1916 against the Ottoman Empire; helping to pin-down Ottoman Forces that would have otherwise been free to attack the British Egyptian Expeditionary Forces.



montelatici said:


> With all of that Rocco, what does it mean?  That some self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions for the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine?  How many Palestinian (Arab) Jews participated in the battles against the Turks?


*(COMMENT)*

Just like the House of Saud went to work --- and out of all the potential leaders in the Court of Sheikhs --- became the House that unified the many tribes in Arabia.  So it is that the House of Prince Ali, last King of Hejaz, attempted to expand the Hashemites by assisting in the liberation of the Middle Eastern Region from Ottoman sovereignty.

    Sons in the House of Prince Ali, last King of Hejaz:

Prince Abdullah, Emir (later King) of Transjordan
Prince Faisal, (later King) of Iraq and Syria
In the open period of the Mandate, the Jewish Organizations mustered resources to secure the establishment of a Jewish National Home in ancient region of Palestine. The indigenous Arab population of Palestine, with a territorial history in the land for two millennia disapproved of the 1919 agreement between Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann pertaining to the individual "national aspirations" of the Arab and the Jewish.  Additionally, the indigenous Arab Population --- which did not assist in the liberation effort, mistakenly felt that they should be awarded territorial concessions for nothing, and opposed the decision by the Allied Powers to start a resettlement project for the purpose of preserving and protecting the Jewish Culture from extinction.  In the late 1970's the Arab Palestinians would adopt the mantra that such a move violated their natural and inalienable rights; although these rights did not exist at the time the Allied Powers made the decisions. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war.  While it is a matter of record, that Prince Faisal did write (10 March 1921) to the Allied Powers through the British House of Commons on the issue of the Arabs entered the war on the side of the Allies with certain clear aims - unfulfilled by the Powers, it is NOT a case that the Arabs of Palestine had any legitimate claim.  The Faisal Memo was submitted by General Hoddad Pasha (Hejaz Army) and delegated by His Royal Highness Emir Faisal --- it was fair in saying the Army of the Hejaz had a claim; but their was no associated effort by an Arab Army west of the Jordan River; it was a false claim.  The outcome was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, and the resort to an ever gradually escalating level of violence against the Jewish community; including the Arab creation of Palestinian Black Hand by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam _(who would become the name sake martyr of the military wing and brigade of the same name in the Islamic Resistance Movement nearly 60 years later)_.

There is no question that there was a promise made to the Last King of the Hejaz concerning the Kingdoms owed the surviving sons.  But there was no such promise made to the Arab west of the Jordan, because they made NO significant contribution in the liberation.  And on the contrary, they actually created disturbances and disruption in public order for the Administration.

In April, 1920, five Jews were killed and over two hundred injured in the first outbreak of anti-Zionist Arab violence.
A year later, in May 1921, more serious attacks were make by Arabs on the Jews of Jaffa and of five rural settlements. On this occasion 47 Jews were killed and 146 wounded.
In separate reports, one by the Civil Administration and one by the Military Support Detachment, this commentary set the tone.

The demonstrators clashed with the police, and during the next few weeks other riots took place in Jaffa, Nablus, Haifa, and again in Jerusalem. In the course of these disorders, one policeman and 24 civilians were killed. The disturbances of 1933 differed from those of 1920, 1921 and 1929 in that they were directed not against the Jews but against the mandatory Government, which was accused of tilting the balance against the Arabs in its administration of the mandate.​Why did the "Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions?"  Because they were the most civilized --- I suspect.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> When that distinction really plays an important role in the discussion, be sure to let me know.
> 
> ...


When that distinction really plays an important role in the discussion, be sure to let me know.​
Actually it is very relevant. It is said that:

The Mandate was Palestine. There was no Palestine.
The map of Palestine is the map of the Mandate. There was no Palestine.
There are no borders for Palestine. Those are the borders of the Mandate.
The "Arabs" were citizens of the Mandate not Palestine.

The conclusion is that since there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians, that the territory was up for grabs.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.
> 
> ...


Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.​
That is correct. Israel is a foreign government imposed on Palestine by military force.


----------



## toastman (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...



How is it 'imposing military force' for Israel to legally declare independence on territory allotted to her by the partition plan, which is EXACTLY the same way the Palestinian declared independence


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is not even close to being correct.



P F Tinmore said:


> Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.​
> That is correct. Israel is a foreign government imposed on Palestine by military force.


*(COMMENT)*

A foreign government was not imposed by military force.
A new government was established by the right of self-determination.
It was defended by military force from direct foreign military (external) interference by aggressor hostile Arabs.
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


There was no partition.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is not even close to being correct.
> 
> ...


Pffft.
Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish agency consisting of foreigners and its "permanent population" was a bunch of recently imported foreign settlers.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

The only reason that it appears that there was "no partition" was because the Aggressor Arab Armies that invaded Israel on the same day independence was declared; trying to subvert the intent of the General Assembly and take territory by force.



P F Tinmore said:


> There was no partition.


*(COMMENT)*

The hostile military intervention failed to some degree.  Jordan captured and annexed the West Bank.  Egypt captured the Gaza Strip and placed it under it control.  And Lebanon and Syria failed.

In the end, it cost the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Israel was established under the direction and guidance established by the UN.

The Palestinians did not have any authority to interfere, not did the adjacent Arab countries.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The only reason that it appears that there was "no partition" was because the Aggressor Arab Armies that invaded Israel on the same day independence was declared; trying to subvert the intent of the General Assembly and take territory by force.
> 
> ...


Whatever reason, there was no partition.

The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Not true. The UN cut and ran without securing the territory in its trust.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Nonsense.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You will not find that in the Charter.  Nothing in the Charter prevents the UN General Assembly from providing advise and guidance on the proper execution of Self-determination.  You are merely attempting to read more into it then there is.

The Palestinians had absolutely NO authority to press a complaint.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> ...


If there was no partition then where did Israel get the land to park its fat ass on?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is just another variation of the perpetual victim stance.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There was no requirement to do anything about securing the territory.  The Mandate ended.  Israel declared independence.  The violation was the Arab Countries that exceed their authority and crossed their borders using military force to secure their own agenda and acquire territory for their own gain.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is just another variation of the perpetual victim stance.
> 
> ...


The Mandate ended.​
So?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are just quibbling now.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The right of self-determination as guided by the UN General Assembly and it agencies.

Whether you want to pretend that the Resolution was not adopted or not, is just burying your head in the sand.

But the fact of the matter is, Israel followed the recommendations and guidance and ultimately established a state.  The Arabs consistently argue, did everything to obstruct progress, used force and violence, and eventually invasion to suppress the establishment of Israel.  They lost.

It was created.  And the Arab that attempted to take by force what they could not achieve through hard work, has whined ever since.  They even tried to rewrite history.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Read the Charter.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Where does it say that anything needs to be protected to your standard.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You are just quibbling now.
> 
> ...


Nice song and dance but you did not answer the question.


----------



## toastman (Apr 27, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...



There was partition, as both parties agreed to the resolution. 

"The UN could not partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval without violating its own charter." 

This is such nonsense. Do you have a link for this? My guess is not. 

Either way, the Palestinians eventually (1988) declared independence using 181 which of course means they do agree to it.


*This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947*, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine

Prior thereto, from the perspective of the Palestinian people, the Partition Resolution had been deemed to be a criminal act that was perpetrated upon them by the United Nations. * Today, the acceptance of the Partition Resolution in their actual Declaration of Independence*
*
Palestine Independence Day 24 Years Ago November 15 1988 Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Read the Charter.
> 
> ...


The British Mandate left without setting up a state. The UNPC never showed up to set up a state.

Israel's declaration was unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 27, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Then Israel should have waited until 1988 to declare independence.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Now your just trying to pretend you have a reading comprehension problem.



P F Tinmore said:


> Nice song and dance but you did not answer the question.


*(COMMENT)*

When the Mandate ended, and Israel Declared Independence, it was up to Israel to defend itself _(which it successfully did)_.  The Arab Palestinians immediately lost all their territory to the advancing Arab Aggressor Armies _(shame on them)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now your just trying to pretend you have a reading comprehension problem.
> 
> ...


Still ducking the question?


----------



## foggedinn (Apr 28, 2015)

The question that started this thread is easy.
It depends entirely on the circumstances. 
We have been given the Law and we should use it.
Amazing how a simple question can start a political  debate just by using the word "palistinian".


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are inaccurate again.



P F Tinmore said:


> The British Mandate left without setting up a state. The UNPC never showed up to set up a state.
> 
> Israel's declaration was unilateral. The UN had nothing to do with it.


*(COMMENT)*

The UNPC had already arrange for the Israeli Declaration of Independence.  Israel directly coordinated with the UNPC on 14 May.  It was not unilateral.  It was in accordance with the instructions in A/RES/181 (II).

You will not find a single UN document, after 15 May 1948, that says anything different.  In fact you see the opposite.  By 1949, the Security Council is recommending approval and the General Assembly is adopting a membership measure.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


(COMMENT)

State your question plainly!

v/r
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are inaccurate again.
> 
> ...


It was a violation of its own charter to partition Palestine without the Palestinian's approval.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Since there was no partition, where did Israel acquire the land it sits on?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 28, 2015)

foggedinn,  et al,

I've cited Article 68, Forth Geneva Convention at least a half dozen times.



foggedinn said:


> The question that started this thread is easy.
> It depends entirely on the circumstances.
> We have been given the Law and we should use it.
> Amazing how a simple question can start a political  debate just by using the word "palistinian".


*(COMMENT)*

They still don't understand how to read it.

Under IHL if the Palestinians take action that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (Israel), then they can be prosecuted.  The theory behind it is the:   Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States  ---


The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,
Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence.
States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.
All States shall pursue in good faith negotiations for the early conclusion of a universal treaty on general and complete disarmament under effective international control and strive to adopt appropriate measures to reduce international tensions and strengthen confidence among States.
There it is.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> foggedinn,  et al,
> 
> I've cited Article 68, Forth Geneva Convention at least a half dozen times.
> 
> ...


...from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or...​
You always crack me up with that one.

What international border of Israel have the Palestinians violated?


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...



Wow...Just stop already Tinmore. Why don't you come back here when you are ready to accept the truth


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Who said their was no Partition?  That is just a fictitious defense by the Palestinians.



P F Tinmore said:


> Since there was no partition, where did Israel acquire the land it sits on?


*(COMMENT)*

The UN made a very public announcements and published documents.


The UNPC said the Resolution was implemented.
The Palestinians used the Resolution saying it was in part on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947 they declared independence.
The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II).
_Recalling_ its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, _Decides_ to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations.

For a Partition that never existed, it was used in 1948, 1988, 1999, and 2012. (Which is not all inclusive.)

But the Jewish Agency could have just exercised self-determination under Article I - Clause 2 of the UN Charter which states:   To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Oh really?

What was my question?

What was his answer?


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



There WAS partition ! Are you retarded or something ??? Oh my God it's like you read something and then forget it 2 seconds later !


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Who said their was no Partition?  That is just a fictitious defense by the Palestinians.
> 
> ...


So then, Israel and Palestine exist on the proposed borders and there is an international city of Jerusalem?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

If Israel doesn't have international borders and demarcations to rely upon, then the State of Palestine doesn't exist either.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > foggedinn,  et al,
> ...


(COMMENT)

But in fact, the State of Israel has protect demarcation lines with Lebanon and Syria by Armistice Agreements.  And relative to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel has two peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan:

*Article 3 - **International Boundary* Peace Treaty between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

1. The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.
2. The boundary, as set out in Annex I (a), is the permanent, secure and recognised international boundary between Israel and Jordan, without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967.

*Article II  *


Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel


The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip. The Parties recognize this boundary as inviolable. Each will respect the territorial integrity of the other, including their territorial waters and airspace.

There it is.  The question is, as an example  --- where are the Borders of the West Bank if the border between Israel and Jordan run down the River Jordan and the Dead Sea?

The demarcation lines for the State of Palestine are defined (currently) by the UN in this way:

"_Reaffirms_ the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;"​
I think that answers the question.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No --- not at all.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Because the Aggressor Arab Nations attempted to acquire territory through the use of force, a war was started by the Arab Nations.  This was the 1948-49 War of Independence.  The War, for the purposed of Israel 'v' Egypt and Israel 'v' Jordan have ended, and by treaty international borders established.  The War is still unresolved between Israel 'v' Lebanon and Israel 'v' Syria, dormant under their respective Armistice Arrangements.  The original Partition as stipulated in *Annex A to resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947*, was overtaken by the event of the Arab initiated conflict; thus changed. 

There is no arrangement, again, with the Arab Palestinians, because technically, they rejected the Partition arrangement and therefore was not a sovereign party to the conflict.  The were not a party to either Armistice Arrangements or Peace Treaties, as they were not competent under the Vienna Convention on the Law of  Treaties. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No --- not at all.
> 
> ...


So what did a war with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt have to do with Palestinian land?

BTW, the 1948 war was called by Security Council resolution. Nobody lost that war.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al

They don't declare a victory in order for the Arav Palestinian to save face.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The war and subsequent international boundaries establish the territory.

In the case of Jordan, the boundary runs down the Jordan River and through the Dead Sea.  Jordan on the East side and Israel on the West side.  (Where is the Palestinain West Bank?)  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Just as in the Laws for England as opposed to the Laws for Scotland.    Seems that you have a comprehension problem when it comes to 1920's legalise, just as the arab muslims had the same comprehension problems when it came to the meaning of UN res 242.

The MANDATE for PALESTINE set in stone the general rules and conditions of the limits of the mandatory power and also the limits of their actual physical extent of the land. This means that the LoN land ownership/sovereignty through the Mandate for Palestine was in any way granting Palestine nation status. But it did give the LoN the right under International Law to ignore the arab muslims complaints and threats and apportion part of Palestine as the Jewish National Home.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 So what it does not alter contemporary International law that had already given the arab muslims their share of Palestine called trans Jordan. Now where does it say nation of Palestine, and who signed for the various groups to allow for the setting up of this nation ?


 So what about this from your link

_A_. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

 The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al
> 
> They don't declare a victory in order for the Arav Palestinian to save face.
> 
> ...


Your ducking the question.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...





Because they wanted to invade and steal the land that they saw as Palestine.

 Depends on how you call it, as UN resolutions are not legally binding, which means the war is still in existence. Apart from Jordan and Egypt who have signed peace treaties with Israel.   No one won the war, but Israel was won every battle so far.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al
> ...






 No he has answered your loaded question and put the correct perspective on it. There was no nation of Palestine until 1988 so the land was Mandate for Palestine land because the arab muslims did not take up the offer when they could have.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Just curious as to under whose authority was the Kingdom of Hejaz operating with respect to the Palestinians.  Was he speaking for the Palestinian Muslims or the Palestinian Christians, who made up 93% of the population of Palestine?  I don't recall that the Palestine Arab Congress ever agreed for this self appointed Bedouin King to negotiate on the Palestinian's behalf, in fact, the Palestinians were far more likely to give Syria that right, given the British refusal to recognize the representative body of 93% of the population.






 BULLSHIT


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious as to under whose authority was the Kingdom of Hejaz operating with respect to the Palestinians.  Was he speaking for the Palestinian Muslims or the Palestinian Christians, who made up 93% of the population of Palestine?  I don't recall that the Palestine Arab Congress ever agreed for this self appointed Bedouin King to negotiate on the Palestinian's behalf, in fact, the Palestinians were far more likely to give Syria that right, given the British refusal to recognize the representative body of 93% of the population.
> ...






 And its always been other arab muslims hasn't it............................. So you cant blame the west for it or the Israelis. Even now the Syrian and Egyptian leaders of hamas and fatah are making decisions that impact on the lives of the Palestinian people.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Britain was Arab Muslim?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> With all of that Rocco, what does it mean?  That some self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions for the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine?  How many Palestinian (Arab) Jews participated in the battles against the Turks?






 Not self appointed as you well know but an Islamic leader of some renown. One who was seen as a leader by other arab muslims both spiritually and physically. So being a leader he would be best placed to deal with the British on such matters, and it was people of his standing that were given control of trans Jordan and Syria that also came from deep in the Arabian desert.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > That was your claim dildo so produce the link..........................
> ...





 Whats wrong been back and seen that I was right, so have decided to be a TROLL yourself.


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Whats wrong been back and seen that I was right, so have decided to be a TROLL yourself.


 _"What's wrong been back and seen..."?_

God-damn, your grammar is horrible!


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Try thinking for a change.

 The mandate was a double whammy, being the LoN mandate for Palestine that brought about the British mandate.
 So the Mandate set in stone Palestine as a Mandate, and not a nation
 The map of Palestine as drawn in 1923 and delineated in the Mandate for Palestine was the extent of the Mandate for Palestine and not the nation of Palestine.
 The borders are those of the mandate for Palestine and not the nation of Palestine
 The arabs, Christians and Jews were citizens of the mandatory of Palestine, or British Mandatory Palestine.

 The land was sectioned into trans Jordan and the Jewish National Home by the Mandate for Palestine to be taken up as and when the recipients felt they were able to show free determination and the ability to govern themselves. The arab muslims of the National home for the Jews section were not considered to be capable of any sign of free determination.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...






 Just as Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan are, or don't you see the arab muslims as invaders and land thieves ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 When did Britain make decisions for the arab muslims  then ?
 And you really need to look at what power Britain had in Palestine, they could not even take a shit without permission from the LoN.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Whats wrong been back and seen that I was right, so have decided to be a TROLL yourself.
> ...





 Only bad grammar to a typical trailer park trash red neck. Acceptable in the land of England.

 You do know a bonnet is a hat worn by women, and a trunk is something an elephant has.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 LINK ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 No by British Mandatory Palestinian citizens who were there at the direct request of the LoN and the Ottomans.

 The only attempt at a foreign government was the Palestinian council headed by Egypt, Syria and Iraq.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






 WRONG as the partition was deliberately worded as an Either Or outcome, and did not need any more than one party to accept it. If the Jews had refused then it would have died. The UN had no authority to partition Palestine because International law had already given the land to the Jews in 1923


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






 It is only you and the islamomorons that say there was no partition. And Israel got the land from the terms of the Mandate for Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is just another variation of the perpetual victim stance.
> 
> ...







 Only the British mandate ended, the Mandate for Palestine is still in existence while the arab muslims are failing to declare their intentions.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






 You mean he did not give the answer you wanted to see don't you.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 That was not their remit, the only people who could set up a state were the Jews, and to a lesser extent the arab muslims.

 Yes it was unilateral and that is why the arab muslims have lost for the last 68 years


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Why not the arab muslims should have declared in 1948 and then we might not have had all this trouble


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 No you are ducking the answers


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



They did.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Not really.

What was my question?

What was his answer?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


The Jews could set up a state Where?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


No by British Mandatory Palestinian citizens *who were there at the direct request of the LoN and the Ottomans.*​

Links?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






Nope the Egyptians tried to declare on the whole of Palestine illegally  after the time limit, they had the chance from 1947 to declare independence and refused. It took them until 1988 to make the first move because they were losing far too much land by their stupidity. They still have not declared which land and to what borders they are going to claim, other than that in their charter of the river to the sea.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 The many he has given that you don't like, and then accuse him of ducking.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






Here on the land allocated for their national home by the LoN under International law


*Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory*


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.​

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

_ North_. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

_ East_. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

_ South_. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

_ West_. – The Mediterranean Sea.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 To what, and why do you keep asking for the same links to the same things, do you forget that you got them yesterday.

 It is in the LoN MANDATE FOR PALESTINE that you are given every single day, and it is tied into the citizenship order.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" _(often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)_.



P F Tinmore said:


> No by British Mandatory Palestinian citizens *who were there at the direct request of the LoN and the Ottomans.*
> 
> Links?


*(COMMENT)*

Whatever perspective you may hold, a key factor in the evolution of the entire development of the Jewish National Home (JNH), is that the Allied Powers were to decide (at San Remo 1920) the future of the former territories of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, one of the defeated Central Powers in World War I.  And the Allied Powers did adopt a plan which included the establishment of a JNH.  

League of Nations Palestine Mandate ... "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage,"  *SOURCE: * Mandate for Palestine Article 6

Once upon a time, the Jews in the Ottoman Empire were useful. They were well-educated, knew several languages and had wide-ranging contacts, especially in business, with European countries – things which the Turks lacked. And unlike the Greeks and Armenians, they hadn’t ever gone to war against the Turks so, by default they had to be more trustable.  *SOURCE: * The Ottoman Files

Following Ottoman territorial losses in the Balkans owing to the Turco-Russian war and the ensuing Berlin Treaty, mass immigration of Turks and Jews starts towards Turkey. The Jews prepare festivities for the 400th anniversary of their arrival from Spain. SULTAN ABDULHAMID II is making plans for installing 200,000 Jewish immigrants from Russia in the south east, but this remains as a project.  *SOURCE:* Ottoman Sultans and Their Jewish Subjects​
The Treaty of Berlin was the last great action of the Congress of Berlin (mid-1878); and shortly thereafter, what is often referred to as the  *First Aliyah *--- gradually began*.* --- It was the first contemporary wave of Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine; with the Jewish constituency streaming mostly from Eastern Europe.  This mass emigration of an estimated 2.5 million Jews began at the end of the 19th and to tapper-off in the first decade of the 20th century (generally speaking 1882 to 1903), establishing about 25 to 30 Moshava's (rural settlements). 

I think this answers the question. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 28, 2015)

"Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" _(often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)_."

What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population?  European tourism?


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



If they has a legit declaration in 1948, they would not have had to do so again in 1988. So in other words, there was no DOI in 1948 by the 'Palestinians'


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> "Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" _(often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)_."
> 
> What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population?  European tourism?



Mass immigration , which is what it was.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > "Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" _(often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)_."
> ...



Mass immigration with the intent to evict the people living on the and taking the land from those same people living on the land and then creating a state not of the indigenous people is an invasion. Sorry, that is not mass immigration.  Thar's like calling the European invasion of the New World mass immigration. Why can't you see how ridiculous your position is?


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



An invasion is a military offensive . Their intention was not to evict anyone, it was to build a home for themselves.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



You've got to be kidding.  You are still on that ridiculous tack.  Of course the Zionists intended to evict the existing residents and they fully intended to establish a Jewish state, where 93% of the people were Christians and Muslims.  And it was an invasion.  An invasion need not be military.  Just stop your nonsense.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


That is true and Britain's military was in the service of the Zionists.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> "Yes, it is important to remember that there are opposing alternative perspectives; and just as clearly, many of the hardcore pro-Palestinians tend to think of the first --- five Aliyah as an "invasion" _(often including the Ben-Gurion One Million Plan as an invasion)_."
> 
> What would you have called it if you were a Christian or Muslim living in Palestine at the time, 93% or more of the population?  European tourism?






 The arab muslims I would call illegal immigrants of course as the UN reports show that two thirds of the illegal immigrants were arab muslims, isn't that right Abdul as Roudy showed you from your own links.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 BULLSHIT and stop posting RACIST LIES


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...





 LINK ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 BULLSHIT   Now stop your RACIST LYING


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


I realize that Israel supporters are not deep thinkers. Look at the highlights of the League of Nations Covenant as applied to mandates.

"...which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves..."

"...the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust..."

"...the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted..."

"...the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."​
If Britain followed the Covenant it could have accomplished its goal with a handful of civilians. Yet it kept its military presence and actually increased its troop strength in the '30s.

So what's up with all that military?


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



I already proved to you what the definition of an invasion is. If you want me to make a fool of you again then I have no problem with that.

So all the Jews who migrated to the region wanted to evict the locals? Can you prove that ?


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



That's bullshit. If you would do some research, you would see that they Britain helped the Jews during certain points in time while helping the Arabs during other points in time. It all depends on what time period you are looking into.


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



"I realize that Israel supporters are not deep thinkers"


     

That's hilarious coming from you !


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



FIrst off, nowhere in your link does it answer Phoenall's question.

Second, it's obvious why their military was there. All you have to do is go back to the time to when the British came to the region and how.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

I think that our friend "toastman" is correct.  The Implication of an invasion is a an "offensive military action" by an external influence --- in which an aggressor force exits their sovereign territory and enters --- "by force" --- the sovereign territory controlled by a completely different political entity.

Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan _*(collectively known as the Arab League)*_, violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.  

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs. *SOURCE:*  Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations . 

_*NOTE:*_
The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission. On 20 May, Count Folke Bernadotte, President of the Swedish Red Cross, was chosen as United Nations Mediator.​


montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The use of the term "invasion" (with the caveat: "An invasion need not be military.") is an intentional over sensationalization --- an appeal to emotion in an effort to overdramatize the immigration effort by the successive authorities _(first the Ottoman Empire and then the successor government by the Mandatory)_.  

The intent to remove or to evict the existing hostile indigenous population is an internal defense and development (IDAD) strategy, which seeks to end internal conflict (the potential for rear area disturbances or supply disruptions) by correcting the condition well before it becomes a problems.  The hostile indigenous population has within it an insurgency.   Insurgents are citizens of a country attempting by illegal means to change the way it is governed. They believe that the legal methods available cannot satisfy their demands. Thus, they violate the accepted legal processes of government and use illegal means, which are a combination of political, economic, psychological, and military methods.

· Insurgency. An attempt by an organized element to overthrow the legal government through subversion and armed co-threat. 
· Political subversion. Guerilla and terrorist activities and is frequently supported by external activities.​The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) had demonstrated the potential problem they represented going back to the 1930 and the establishment of the Palestinian Black Hand.  And while there was still no real conclusive intent to remove key populated areas of dense HoAP, the Arab Higher Committee made it absolutely crystal clear that the HoAP intentions:

The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.
The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.
The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.
This all but sealed the strategy that would need to be employed.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 28, 2015)

Rocco et al:

A colonial power invaded a land and transferred a foreign population to that land with the intent to evict the indigenous population and transfer the land to that foreign population at the expense of the indigenous population (colonialism).  It was an invasion.  

Since the partition recommendations were "extorted" according to your post, I don't see what your point is. 

And of course the indigenous population would resist their eviction and dispossession.  What is unusual about that?  The Native Americans resisted the European invasion and colonialism, despite the fact that the Pope allotted land to Spain and Portugal and despite the fact that in North America the Crown had issued very legal charters to the colonial leaders.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


The answer to my question is the answer to his question.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 28, 2015)

We are doctors and scientists, who spend our lives developing means to care and protect health and lives. We are also informed people; we teach the ethics of our professions, together with the knowledge and practice of it. We all have worked in and known the situation of Gaza for years.

On the basis of our ethics and practice, we are denouncing what we witness in the aggression of Gaza by Israel.

We ask our colleagues, old and young professionals, to denounce this Israeli aggression. We challenge the perversity of a propaganda that justifies the creation of an emergency to masquerade a massacre, a so-called “defensive aggression”. In reality it is a ruthless assault of unlimited duration, extent, and intensity. We wish to report the facts as we see them and their implications on the lives of the people.

We are appalled by the military onslaught on civilians in Gaza under the guise of punishing terrorists. This is the third large scale military assault on Gaza since 2008. Each time the death toll is borne mainly by innocent people in Gaza, especially women and children under the unacceptable pretext of Israel eradicating political parties and resistance to the occupation and siege they impose.

The blockade on Gaza has tightened further since last year and this has worsened the toll on Gaza's population. In Gaza, people suffer from hunger, thirst, pollution, shortage of medicines, electricity, and any means to get an income, not only by being bombed and shelled. Power crisis, gasoline shortage, water and food scarcity, sewage outflow and ever decreasing resources are disasters caused directly and indirectly by the siege.1

People in Gaza are resisting this aggression because they want a better and normal life and, even while crying in sorrow, pain, and terror, they reject a temporary truce that does not provide a real chance for a better future. A voice under the attacks in Gaza is that of Um Al Ramlawi who speaks for all in Gaza: “They are killing us all anyway—either a slow death by the siege, or a fast one by military attacks. We have nothing left to lose—we must fight for our rights, or die trying.”

Gaza has been blockaded by sea and land since 2006. Any individual of Gaza, including fishermen venturing beyond 3 nautical miles of the coast of Gaza, face being shot by the Israeli Navy. No one from Gaza can leave from the only two checkpoints, Erez or Rafah, without special permission from the Israelis and the Egyptians, which is hard to come by for many, if not impossible. People in Gaza are unable to go abroad to study, work, visit families, or do business. Wounded and sick people cannot leave easily to get specialised treatment outside Gaza. Entries of food and medicines into Gaza have been restricted and many essential items for survival are prohibited.3 Before the present assault, medical stock items in Gaza were already at an all time low because of the blockade.3 They have run out now. Likewise, Gaza is unable to export its produce. Agriculture has been severely impaired by the imposition of a buffer zone, and agricultural products cannot be exported due to the blockade. 80% of Gaza's population is dependent on food rations from the UN.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)61044-8/fulltext


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I think that our friend "toastman" is correct.  The Implication of an invasion is a an "offensive military action" by an external influence --- in which an aggressor force exits their sovereign territory and enters --- "by force" --- the sovereign territory controlled by a completely different political entity.
> 
> ...


...the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.​
You always crack me up when you shovel that horseshit.

The rest of your post does not get any better.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 28, 2015)

Rocco fails to mention that it is the "new European colonial state of Israel".  Somehow he believes that the Hostile Natives should not have been hostile to a European takeover.  I don't know where his morals come from.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 28, 2015)

"P F Tinmore,   et al,

Yes, I quite understand that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believes that:

Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit, and their homeland.
The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny.
The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal.
The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.
Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement, and geographical base for world imperialism.
Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world.
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. 

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > ...the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.​
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

While I know what the HoAP believe, I find it almost inconceivable that they cannot observe the reality that: Israel is real.  Israel completed the Steps Preparatory to Independence that were adopted by the General Assembly.  Israel declared independence pursuant to UN instructions.  Israel applied for UN Membership in the prescribed manner.  The Security Council recommended  approval and the motion was adopted by the General Assembly.  What follows after that is entirely the fault of the Arab League, the Arab Higher Committee, and the HoAP adopted the path of conflict because they did not get what they wanted.  And they have been refusing to negotiate in good faith ever since.

All that the Arab Palestinians are today, is what they deserve to be --- based on the choices they have made.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> "P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> Yes, I quite understand that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believes that:
> 
> ...



Rocco et al:

People from Europe went to Palestine to evict the people there and create their own state.  The Palestinians made the only rational choice, the choice that every people subjected to invasion and colonialism.  Why are you so hardheaded not to see it? Is it cognitive dissonance? 

The hostile pieces of shit were the Jews.  They went from Europe to Palestine to take the land away from the inhabitants of Palestine.  That's just a fact.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 28, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> "P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> Yes, I quite understand that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believes that:
> 
> ...


Same old shit, Rocco.

How about answering some of my questions that you have been ducking?


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...



In other words, you have no rebuttal for anything Rocco posts , as usual, as he refutes every single one of your lies.


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > "P F Tinmore,   et al,
> ...



No, the hostile pieces of shit were the Arabs, as they had massacred and killed Jews before any Arabs were killed. That's just a fact that you cannot handle.

And the European Jews went there not to evict anyone, but to create a Jewish home for themselves, as promised by the British. That's just a fact.
Where is your proof that all the Jews went there to evict the locals ?


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > "P F Tinmore,   et al,
> ...



Another great rebuttal   

You're on a role Tinmore.


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Translation: I have no answer to your question, so I came up with this tacky response.

As usual, all you have are lies. It's no wonder Monti and you agree with each other.

You should call each other the propaganda brothers


----------



## montelatici (Apr 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



But the Christians were living in Palestine and the Jews were living in Europe and went to Palestine and evicted them and took their land to create a Jewish state.  That's just a fact.  That is what happened.  What more proof do you need. There is now a Jewish State. I really can't understand your cognitive dissonance. Plus, what authority did the British have to expel the Christians to make room for the Jews.


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



That was not their intention. They left Europe for obvious reasons because the British, who captured the region from the Ottomans, not the Palestinians, promised them a Jewish Homeland. The local Arabs, during the Palestine Civil war of 1947 and during the 1948 war (with the help of FIVE other countries) tried to expel the local Jews and the European ones. The problem is, the Jews fought harder then them and instead they got expelled. Attacking people have consequences.


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



The British didn't have the authority to expel anyone , and they didn't. Where did you get that from ?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 28, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...




Of course it was the intention of the European Jews to expel the Christians.  Why else would have they gone to Palestine?

"Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment… Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” *Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.*“We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back.”
(Theodore Herzl, 12 June 1895) 

But there are Arabs in Palestine. I did not know.”
(Max Nordau, 1897)


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 28, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Only bad grammar to a typical trailer park trash red neck. Acceptable in the land of England.
> 
> You do know a bonnet is a hat worn by women, and a trunk is something an elephant has.


Oh, shut up!


----------



## toastman (Apr 28, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



What does any of this prove ? Where does it show that the European Jews went to the region with the intention of evicting the locals ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Beause the greedy arab muslims wanted everything and were prepared to mass murder to gat it. The LoN had already seen to the rights of the arab muslims when they gave them 78% of the original National Home for the Jews. That put those arab muslims into a nation that was already able to stand for itself and looked after the well being and development of the arab muslim migrants. The Mandate gave the arab muslim the tutelage required and the administrative advice and assistance when they were offered the chance to move to trans Jordan. So Britain did follow the Mandate it was the arab muslims that thumbed their noses at the covenant. The LoN should have stepped in and laid down the law in 1923 and told the arab muslims they had a one chance offer of being part of a nation, and to think very hard about what they wanted for the future


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Only bad grammar to a typical trailer park trash red neck. Acceptable in the land of England.
> ...






 Beaten again by simple intelligence


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Rocco et al:
> 
> A colonial power invaded a land and transferred a foreign population to that land with the intent to evict the indigenous population and transfer the land to that foreign population at the expense of the indigenous population (colonialism).  It was an invasion.
> 
> ...






 MORE RACIST LIES   as the so called indigenous were never there prior to 1917.

 The only colonial power to invade were the arab muslims who did so from 1880 and then in force bearing arms on may 15 1948.

 They did not resist the eviction and dispossession by the arab muslims when they invaded did they. In fact they joined in with the invasion of a sovereign nation and ended up being beaten back. And that was the cause of their disaster and loss of face.

You forget that INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1923 had given the land to the Jews at the same time it gave trans Jordan, Syria and Iraq to the arab muslims. The UN should have acted within the framework of that International Law and told the arab muslims ( the Christians were never involved as they were just Dhimmi's ) they had the same choice they had in 1923, and with the same monetary value attached.

 Why do you ALWAYS GO OFF TOPIC WHEN YOU ARE GETTING BEATEN IN THE ARGUMENT IT IS A SIGN OF BEING UNABLE TO ACCEPT DEFEAT


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 NO you received your answer and found it was not the one you wanted to see. So now you make stupid comments


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> We are doctors and scientists, who spend our lives developing means to care and protect health and lives. We are also informed people; we teach the ethics of our professions, together with the knowledge and practice of it. We all have worked in and known the situation of Gaza for years.
> 
> On the basis of our ethics and practice, we are denouncing what we witness in the aggression of Gaza by Israel.
> 
> ...






 Do you think these doctors felt the same way when they packed an SUV with explosives and nails to cause as much injuries and deaths as they possibly could.

Glasgow Airport attack Timeline of a terrorist act Glasgow West News


 Take note of their religion and see just how much doctors believe in the sanctity of life.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...






 Whats wrong cant you live with the truth and reality of Israel being able to show it could stand alone against the massed ranks of the arab armies and even beat them back


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Rocco fails to mention that it is the "new European colonial state of Israel".  Somehow he believes that the Hostile Natives should not have been hostile to a European takeover.  I don't know where his morals come from.







 MORE RACIST LIES   is this what your imam is telling you to say now.   A pity the reality shows that Israel is mostly indigenous from the M.E. forced out of their homes at gun point by the very violent and very aggressive islamonazi's.

 We all know you have no morality at all and just exist to spew out constant RACIST LIES


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > "P F Tinmore,   et al,
> ...






 RACIST LIES  and you know it, which is why you cant produce a non partisan link showing that it was an invasion never mind with the intent to take the land


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > "P F Tinmore,   et al,
> ...






 He has answered all of them, it is you that does not like the answers.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 RACIST LIES   the Christians and Jews were living in Palestine under Ottoman control. The Ottomans tried to seed Palestine with arab muslims and they ran back home after 6 months. Not once did they try this but 3 times, and each time the arab muslims ran away. They invited European Jews with European farming methods to migrate and turn the once lush land back into productive farms again. So who did the Europeans displace when there were no arab muslims living in the swamps to displace.
The proof we want is from a non partisan source saying just this, not some partial out of context speech by a Jewish leader but a completely unbiased report from an unbiased source.

 The British did not have the authority to do that until 1945 when the LoN was closed down, so they never did this so once again you LIE to prove your propaganda.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 So looking after the arab muslim itinerants is expelling the Christians is it.   You are grasping at straws and showing your true colours as a RACIST LIAR.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Rocco has been blowing a lot of smoke at my posts but he has not answered the questions.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 He has answered all of them, your problem is you have not seen the answers you want


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


A page of irrelevant verbosity does not an answer make.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al.

What question have I not answered?



P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco has been blowing a lot of smoke at my posts but he has not answered the questions.


*(COMMENT)*

It seems to me you either don't like the answers or don't understand the answers because you over simplify what you have already decided is the right answer.

And you seldom specify the question in a clear context.  This is especially true when you talk about the place "Palestine."  You don't seem to you the proper definition and nearly alway attempt to tie it to a "people" instead of the time-period which defines it.  You nearly always try to associate the Arab ownership with the Governmental authority.

Don't cry foul if you cannot state with clarity the question, and don't object to formal definitions that you don't agree with just because the outcome is not in your favor.

NOW!  If you have an outstanding question that you feel was not answered === state it plainly.  But don't allude to a question that you didn't clearly ask.  That does not contribute to the discussion or enrich the conversation or discussion.

What is "THE" question?  And please, don't ask about borders because I copied the text to the treaties for the two international borders and the armistice for the two protected demarcations.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al.
> 
> What question have I not answered?
> 
> ...


How about:

What international border of Israel have the Palestinians violated?

Since there was no partition, where did Israel acquire the land it sits on?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 29, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



Of 414K migrants to Palestine from 1920 to 1946, 376K were European Jews.  Just fact.  Stating fact is not lying.  Making things up as you do could be construed as lying.  Calling everyone that speaks the truth a racist and liar. does not improve your status as a clown on this forum.





 


and

*UNITED*
*NATIONS
A*






*General Assembly*













 A/364
3 September 1947
*OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF *
*THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY*

"b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000*, or an average of over 8,000 per year. The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

*16. The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.* Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration."

A 364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## montelatici (Apr 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al.
> 
> What question have I not answered?
> 
> ...



Rocco et al:

A place is defined by its people.  When the British received the "Mandate" the population was made up of about 95% Muslims and Christians.  Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied to this vast majority of the population.  The people of the former Ottoman Territories were the "owners" of the land, the Mandatory was simply "entrusted" with the duty of ensuring the "well-being and development" of the people, which included the 93% of the people of Palestine who were not European Jews.  Furthermore, these same people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the same article of the Covenant.

"*ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. 
*
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Depends on whether or not you are a supporter of Palestinian terrorism or not. If you want an answer that supports your POV ask the question of one of team palestine


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al.
> ...






The only International borders are those with Egypt and Jordan. The Palestinian nation has no borders at all

 The UN says there was a partition so Israel acquired the land designated in the partition. Remember it was an either/or option and not a both side must one.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 First point how could the Jews be illegal immigrants when they were granted the right to enter Palestine ? Then how could they be illegal immigrants when they were in Cyprus and not Palestine ?
 Lastly explain why of 1500 illegal immigrants 1,000 where arab muslims according to your link ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al.
> ...






 MORE OF YOUR RACIST LIES as the evidence show that Jews were in the majority in 1923.

 The LoN were the owners of the land, the arab muslims had not owned it since 1099.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Rocco has been exceedingly patient as always.       To tell the truth, I can't imagine how he remains so in dealing with you hateful vermin.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 29, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.



montelatici said:


> Rocco et al:
> 
> A place is defined by its people.  When the British received the "Mandate" the population was made up of about 95% Muslims and Christians.  Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applied to this vast majority of the population.  The people of the former Ottoman Territories were the "owners" of the land, the Mandatory was simply "entrusted" with the duty of ensuring the "well-being and development" of the people, which included the 93% of the people of Palestine who were not European Jews.  Furthermore, these same people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation under the same article of the Covenant.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

First, there are some - 9 Clauses to Article 22 of the Covenant.  Nowhere in those 9 Clauses is any specific territory of the Middle East singled out; nor were there any specific Arab inhabitance _(indigenous people or habitual inhabitants)_ offered or promised anything specific relative to self-government or territorial integrity.

Second, the Arab Palestinian declined to participate in the "tutelage" offered by the Mandatory throughout the entire period.  This demonstrated an unwillingness to participate in the Article 22 Process or to avail themselves to the gradual process _(as a demonstration of their "willing to accept it")_.

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

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”​In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​Third, there was nothing written in the Covenant to suggest that Palestine _(as territory so determined by the Allied Powers)_ was singled-out as a "certain community" --- formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire  ---  as having reached a stage of development either as an independent nation or suitable for "provisionally recognized."  That is even more true given that the Arab in that territory _(as determined by the Allied Powers)_ declined to participate in the Article 22 Process that would help bring it to meet the mandatory criteria to be able to stand alone.  In fact, it is probably more likely that the "certain community" may have been pertaining to the Hashemite participants in the Arab Revolt or the communities located in the French Mandate, to which Article 22 equally applied.

Fourth, the Arabs of Palestine _(the Palestine as defined by the Order in Council)_ have not yet, even after declaring independence and exercising self-determination more than once, was able to establish a central government that could actually - in a peacefully means - transition from one administration _(ruling party)_ to another in accordance with the:

2003 Amended Basic Law (current)
2005 Amendment to the Basic Law (current)
So, it really doesn't matter how you observe the State of Palestine, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1923, it was unable to meet the criteria in 1947, it has been unable to meet the criteria of a nation that can stand alone in contemporary times.

I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, in the last 45 years, has ever made a credible effort to assume the governmental roles of a nation "under the strenuous conditions of the modern world."  (Another Article 22 Criteria.)

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.
> 
> ...


22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.​
Indeed, the Palestinians refused to get involved in any of the colonial schemes.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.
> 
> ...


I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States,​
You keep saying that but you do not list the violations.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Is the State of Palestine a participatory type of government?

The establishment of the Palestinian Legislative Council, through free and direct general elections, made the adoption of a Basic Law suitable for the interim period a necessary foundation upon which to organize the mutual relationship between the government and the people. 



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > 22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.​
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You cannot complain about the political outcome --- if you don't participate in the process.  You make changes to government though the lawful participation from the inside.

Whether the Palestinian opposed the Mandate System --- and the Mandate to "secure the establishment of the Jewish national home" --- is unimportant.  You _(the Hostile Arab Palestinian)_ have no right to attempt to hard induce change though the use of force and violence when a peace process in a participatory government is offered; the "pursuit in good faith negotiations to adopt appropriate measures to reduce international tensions and strengthen confidence."    

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This was in regard to the Arab Invasion of 1948.  It was from the Paragraphs #2 & #3 of Posting #724.  



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States,​
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

At the outbreak of hostilities by the Initiation of the Arab Force Aggression.

Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan _*(collectively known as the Arab League)*_, violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel. 

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs. *SOURCE:* Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations .​


_*NOTE:  Same Source*_


The adoption of resolution 181 (II) was followed by outbreaks of violence in Palestine. As the situation deteriorated, the Security Council called for a special session of the General Assembly, which then met from 16 April to 14 May 1948. On 17 April, the Security Council called for the cessation of all military and paramilitary activities in Palestine, and on 23 April it established a Truce Commission to supervise and help bring about a ceasefire. For its part, the General Assembly relieved the Palestine Commission of its responsibilities and decided to appoint a mediator charged with promoting a peaceful settlement in cooperation with the Truce Commission. On 20 May, Count Folke Bernadotte, President of the Swedish Red Cross, was chosen as United Nations Mediator.​*(ANSWER)*

The Arab League Forces that - in an act of aggression - maneuvered outside their sovereign territory and engaged Israeli Forces specifically violated;

Article 1(2) of the UN Charter
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

It is generally understood that in the process of exercising the right of self-determination --- the political existence of Israel was independent of recognition by the Arab States. Even before the formal recognition of the State of Israel, Israel had "the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts."  This is something you are very familiar with, as you have cited it to me many times.  (*Convention on Rights and Duties of States*)

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 29, 2015)

Dogmaphobe said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



I don't see how Tinmore has the patience to deal you


RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.
> 
> ...



Rocco,

Firstly, your premise is incorrect.  Palestine was, in fact, included among the Class A Mandates, i.e., those territories whose people received provisional independence.  Only when the Mandatory realized the impossibility of protecting the rights of the majority did the British pull back and not promote the independence of Palestine.  Obviously, with a Christian and Muslim majority of 93%, independence would have halted the colonial project as envisioned by the Balfour Declaration.  The fact that the Royal Commission of 1936-37 recognized that the Palestinian Arabs, Christian and Muslim, were politically and administratively as developed as those in other Arab countries, makes your conclusion regarding the Palestinian's lack of readiness for independence incorrect.  As stated in para. 102 of A/364, which I believe, you are now acquainted with.

"102. The Royal Commission of 1936-37 was impressed by the fact that the Arab national movement.

". . . is now sustained by a far more efficient and comprehensive political machine than existed in earlier years. The centralization of control . . . has now been as fully effected as is possible in any Arab country. All the political parties present a 'common front' and their leaders sit together on the Arab Higher Committee. Christian as well as Moslem Arabs are represented on it."

The truth of the matter is that the British delayed the granting of independence to Palestine to facilitate the Balfour colonial project. 

To recapitulate.  The Christians and Muslims were ready for independence.  The Christians and Muslims rightly refused to accept the Balfour colonial project which was designed to flood Palestine with Europeans and evict the existing inhabitants.  I can't think of a more rationale response.  The "hostiles" were those from elsewhere planning to dispossess the Christians and Muslims.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> You are reading much to much into the Article 22 position.
> 
> ...


Indeed, the Palestinian government does suck. That is because that is the way the US/Israel wants it.

*American Sabotage of Palestinian Democracy *


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This was in regard to the Arab Invasion of 1948.  It was from the Paragraphs #2 & #3 of Posting #724.
> 
> ...


Relative to the Middle East, after WWI - the Ottoman Surrender - but prior to Israeli Independence, there was no "military invasion by an armed force" to takeover the territory ---until 15 May 1948, when the combined force of military contribution from Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan _*(collectively known as the Arab League)*_, violated Article 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter by the use of armed force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the new State of Israel.​
Load of crap, Rocco.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al

What is your claim here?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > ,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Are you suggesting that Egypt, Jordan, Syria Iraq , Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, --- supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen, Pakistan, and Sudan, --- DID NOT violated Articles 1(2) - and - 2(4) of the UN Charter?

That they DID NOT leave the jurisdiction of their sovereign territory?
That they DID NOT enter a jurisdiction of another territorial entity?
Are you claiming that the basic concepts outlined in the *Convention on Rights and Duties of States* do not really apply?  

That some political existence is dependent on external recognition?
That recognition is required before an entity has the right to defend its integrity and independence?
That  recognition must be implicitly expressed?
What are you saying?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al
> 
> What is your claim here?
> 
> ...


1) Not the point. I don't think so.

2) No.


----------



## toastman (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



How is it a load of crap if everything he said was 100% correct?


----------



## toastman (Apr 29, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



This is complete Jibberish ! This is just an excuse for the Palestinian NOT declaring independence when they should have. 

Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did. Why didn't they do so before Israel ? There was nothing stopping them. Like you said, they owned most of the land, right? Their declaration of 1948 was a bust and not recognized. After 40 years of thinking they could take away what was now Israel, they decided to declare independence in 1988 on the land allotted to them by the partition plan.


----------



## toastman (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al
> ...



Of course those 5 Arab states entered a jurisdiction of another territorial integrity. How can you deny such a thing ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...


Several months after Israel declared independence, the Palestinians tried to do so, but on the same territory that Israel did.​
Not true.


----------



## toastman (Apr 29, 2015)

"A combined *invasion* by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, *entered Palestine*"

"The *invading forces* took control of the Arab areas and immediately *attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements*"

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Then on what territory did the Palestinians try to declare independence on in 1948 ? Show me map if you can


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


No they didn't.

I have asked many times for someone to show me where any Arab country entered Israel.

Nobody has answered.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

toastman said:


> "A combined *invasion* by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, *entered Palestine*"
> 
> "The *invading forces* took control of the Arab areas and immediately *attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements*"
> 
> 1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


*entered Palestine*

*Indeed!*


----------



## toastman (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



They attacked Israel, but Israeli forces did not allow them to enter Israeli territory from what I have read.


----------



## toastman (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > "A combined *invasion* by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, *entered Palestine*"
> ...



Well they couldn't just enter Israel, the country they were fighting, although they tried to .


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.


----------



## toastman (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


d by 

Look at a map of the partition plan. Israel declared independence on the land allotted to her by the partition plan.
It was not Palestine that enroached on Israel, it was Arab forces joined by Palestinian militias.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


The partition plan was a non binding, General Assembly *recommendation *for the for the Security Council to partition Palestine.

The Security Council did not act on that recommendation.

There was no allotted land. It was a recommendation.


----------



## toastman (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Here is a map of the Arab offensive:


----------



## toastman (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



"captures 50% of area *allotted* to Arab state,"

1948 Arab Israeli War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


I don't see any Israeli borders. Where is it?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


There again, it was a recommendation that didn't happen.


----------



## toastman (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



What does that have to do with anything ?


----------



## toastman (Apr 29, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



The partition plan allotted, or allocated if you prefer,land for a Jewish state and an Arab one. 

Yes, the partition plan DID happen, as both countries used the resolution as a basis to declare independence. Israel agreed to it in 1948, the Palestinian in 1988. 

"This Palestinian Declaration of Independence explicitly *accepted the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947*, which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine, together with an international trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem.  The significance of the PNC’s *acceptance of partition* in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence itself cannot be overemphasized"

Palestine Independence Day 24 Years Ago November 15 1988 Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 29, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


The discussion was about the Arab armies attacking Israel. I don't see  anything on that map marked Israel.


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



It was called the Arab - Israeli war Tinmore. Why do you need  link to show who the Arabs attacked? What's wrong with you ??? Of course they attacked Israel.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Now it is time that you cut the crap.  You cannot post a Map that shows the Arab Countries did not violate the Charter.  The UN posted the following.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs. *SOURCE: *Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations . UN Document​


P F Tinmore said:


> Post a 1948 map of Israel so we can see where Palestine encroached on Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

You can deny, all you want, that Israel doesn't have borders and therefore, the Arab Forces are free to interfere all they can.  But in doing so, with each clash, the Arab Palestinian seems to lose control of more territory that was originally allotted for the Arab State.

On 15 July 1948, the Security Council decided in a resolution that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. It ordered a ceasefire and declared that failure to comply would be construed as a breach of the peace requiring immediate consideration of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with the resolution, a second truce came into force. By that time, Israel controlled much of the territory allotted to the Arab State by the partition resolution, including the western part of Jerusalem. Egypt and Jordan respectively controlled the remaining portions of the Gaza district and the West Bank of the Jordan River (which included East Jerusalem, with its walled Old City). More fighting took place in October 1948 and March 1949, during which Israel took over other areas, some of which had been allotted to the Arab State. In 1950, Jordan brought the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, formally under its jurisdiction pending a solution to the problem.  *SOURCE: *Page 10 - The first Arab-Israeli war, 1948-1949 - Chapter 2: The Partition Plan and the end of the British mandate - The Question of Palestine and the United Nations . UN Document​
It really doesn't matter at this point.  The Arab Palestinians will never have enough leverage now to negotiate with Israel --- and it is unlikely that the Arab League, now in danger from another Islamic Threat _(the Islamic State)_, not so dissimilar from the Islamic Resistance Movement.

*Hamas, PA could be next pawns in Saudi-Iranian proxy war ...*www.foxnews.com/world/2015/04/15/hamas-pa...in-saudi-iranian-proxy-warApr 15, 2015 · 
Top Palestinian Authority officials are appealing to Saudi Arabia to use an "iron hand" toward Iranian-backed rival Hamas, a development that underscores ...​
Additionally, Major General Qassem Suleimani, Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Qods Force (IRGC-QF), makes very plain the Persian Alliance with HAMAS (The Islamic Resistance Movement) and the amount of influence the IRGC-QF has with the Palestinian militants of a military wing (_Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades)_ of the Islamic Resistance Movement.  _(This further confuses the Sunni 'v' Shi'ite Rivalry in the reason.  The question is asked:   Is HAMAS Sunni?  Or is HAMAS Shi'ite?  Or is HAMAS for sale to the highest bidder?)_

*Iran 'is intensifying efforts to support Hamas in Gaza'*
By Con Coughlin, Defence Editor, 04 Apr 2015
Iran has transferred tens of millions of dollars to Hamas's military wing in Gaza to help it rebuild after last summer's conflict with Israel, intelligence sources state *Iran* has sent Hamas’s military wing tens of millions of dollars to help it rebuild the network of tunnels in Gaza destroyed by Israel’s invasion last summer, intelligence sources have told The Sunday Telegraph.
​In any event, the pro-Palestinian aspects and ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Quds Force seem to suggest that the Palestinians will string any story along to get support in their desperate bid for weapons to carry-on the Armed Struggle and terrorism which they prefer to a negotiated settlement.  However, the longer the Palestinians remain in a de facto "State of War" with the Israelis, the more enhanced the likelihood that Israeli settlements in  Area "C" will expand in order to meet the potential threat to Israel by Iranian Proxies.  

*NOTE: * The importance to the Iranian connection to HAMAS in Gaza, is that if allowed to breach containment and develop a solid abase, Saudi Arabia will have Iranians on two sides (the Palestinian Side and the Persian Gulf Side).​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now it is time that you cut the crap.  You cannot post a Map that shows the Arab Countries did not violate the Charter.  The UN posted the following.
> 
> ...



   

Well said Rocco, great post ....


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now it is time that you cut the crap.  You cannot post a Map that shows the Arab Countries did not violate the Charter.  The UN posted the following.
> 
> ...


I have to give you credit, Rocco, this is one of the most verbose ducks I have ever seen.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while.  You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response.  In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving.  Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel.  That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."  

Nonsense!  You just don;t have the ability to address the points made.



P F Tinmore said:


> [
> I have to give you credit, Rocco, this is one of the most verbose ducks I have ever seen.


*(COMMENT)*

Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries that conform to Palestinian Guidelines; as if the Palestinians had some pre-existing right to place restrictions on the Israeli right to self determination.

Then you consistently challenge each response, not by content --- but by suggesting it is "verbose"  _(using or expressed in more words than are needed)_, as if the 67 year conflict between on the matter of the Jewish National Home and the Arab Civil War to prevent it, can be address in short and simple sound bites.

I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues.  I am impressed in the way you take substantive points --- grounded in facts and logic --- and totally discard them as if the only perspective of realistic consequence is that held by would-be pro-Palestinians that have not made a contribution _(of any sort)_ to humanity in nearly a century.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while.  You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response.  In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving.  Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel.  That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."
> 
> ...


I am not impressed with your lack of an ability to address the issues.​
I don't see any question marks in your posts. What issues would you like me to address?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while.  You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response.  In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving.  Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel.  That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."
> 
> ...


Earlier, you denied that the Arab Countries attacked Israel --- trying to suggest that Israel does not exist because it does not have borders or boundaries...​
How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...



YOU claim it doesn't have any defined territory . But that' doesn't make it true. Remember, Tinmore rules don't apply to real life.

Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states have defined territory:

"In international law, a *sovereign state* is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, *defined territory*, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

Sovereign state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You really haven't provided anything of substance to the discussion in quite a while.  You prefer to ask questions --- in such a way as to preclude a simple answer --- and then criticize the complex nature of the response.  In this case you asked for a Map during a transitional period between the Mandate period and termination period --- that cascades into a period of armed conflict when territorial control is moving.  Clearly your point was to imply that if a border cannot be identified, then the Arab Armies that left their sovereign territory did not enter Israel.  That clearly violates the concepts of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, yet you don't challenge the convention or the way the Article are applied to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict --- but complain the explanation is to "verbose."
> 
> ...



Yup, that's  Tinmore for you ! You described his behaviour to a TEE !


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Indeed, and Israel has never had a defined territory.


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Yes she has, and yes she does. Israel is a sovereign state, and international law defines a sovereign state as having defined territory. I provided a link to back up my statement.
Where's your link ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Did your link define Israel's territory?


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Look at a map of Israel. What's so hard about that? 

Where are your links that say Israel has no defined territory??


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...






 Unless they were solely arab muslim, so now they are seen as complete idiots by the world at large. All that has happened to the arab muslim Palestinians has been through their own crass stupidity and pig headedness because they believe that they are the superior race ( sound familiar ). They had their chance and refused to take it up and now are suffering for their failures. What makes you think for one second that if all the Jews left Israel and went elsewhere that the arab muslims would be able to cope and build a government to look after the people.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...






 This does not make any sense what so ever

 I challenge your assertion that the contemporary Arab Palestinian, which has not been able to Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States,


----------



## montelatici (Apr 30, 2015)

Rocco et al.

There is much confusion about Israel's borders.  If one assumes that the creation of a European settler state in Palestine was legal under international law (I don't, by the way as the UN cannot, by its Charter create states), Israel's borders were defined by the provisional government of the Europeans prior to declaring independence.  The communications sent by the Europeans to foreign nations requesting recognition were similar to the one written to the U.S.

"DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic *within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its **Resolution of November 29, 1947**,* and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o'clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.

With full knowledge of the deep bond of sympathy which has existed and has been strengthened over the past thirty years between the Government of the United States and the Jewish people of Palestine, I have been authorized by the provisional government of the new state to tender this message and to express the hope that your government will recognize and will welcome Israel into the community of nations.

Very respectfully yours,

ELIAHU EPSTEIN

Agent, Provisional Government of Israel

* Avalon Project - A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 - Independence of Israel - Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States May 15 1948
*
So the only legal borders of Israel are the 1947 borders, as recognized by the U.S. and other countries.

Borders can be changed, but a state can only acquire territory by legal annexation, in agreement with, and with a referendum of the population. Obtaining territory by conquest violates the fundamental principle of the UN Charter.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course they do. Everybody does.
> 
> There were always indications within international law that grant an individual or a group the right to self-defense. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Right's preamble (adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of December 10, 1948), reads: "Whereas it is essential if man is not compelled as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."
> 
> ...


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 The Un Res 181 did as of may 14 midnight. Now because of the arab muslims stupidity the land is free for all after Jordan and Egypt relinquished control.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...







 He don't got none boss, he is jus' barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Rocco et al.
> 
> There is much confusion about Israel's borders.  If one assumes that the creation of a European settler state in Palestine was legal under international law (I don't, by the way as the UN cannot, by its Charter create states), Israel's borders were defined by the provisional government of the Europeans prior to declaring independence.  The communications sent by the Europeans to foreign nations requesting recognition were similar to the one written to the U.S.
> 
> ...







 You forget that the UN has created states since contrary to its charter and they have been islamonazi states, but that is by the by as the state was created in 1923 by a body that could enact International law.   So you lose that point

 The LoN defined the territory in 1923 and laid it down on the other mandates in existence at the time. If you don't agree then Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi are all illegal as well, because the LoN defined their borders for them.

 That was the case on may 14 1948 right up until the combined arab armies attacked and attempted to take Israel by force and murder all the Jews. They failed in this and as a consequence Israel gained control of more free land that had not been claimed by the end of the British mandate. The UN recognised this and so amended their status and borders. So the only borders are those that exist as of 1949 when the arab muslims lost land and many battles. It was not land won by conquest but land taken freely that had no sovereign owner


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





Only one problem with your propaganda Abdul, the arab muslim Palestinians were not part of the arab national movement or the arab higher committee.

 The British could not grant the Palestinians anything, it was not in their remit or authority. Only the Mandate could do that and while the arab muslims were agitating and warmongering they declined to place the Jews in any more danger.

 The muslims were never ready for independence as is shown by the UN's refusal to allow them anything more than observer status. The arab muslims could not refuse the Balfour project as they had no legal rights to do so, nor did they have the right to refuse the LoN Mandate for Palestine that declared the land to be for the Jewish National Home.  Not once have you come up with any evidence to support your RACIST LIES that there was a colonial project set up to invade Palestine and evict the arab muslim illegal Immigrants. The hostiles where from elsewhere and they were arab muslims and they have evicted 90% of the Christians in Palestine by brutal force so they can eradicate all but islam. Never forget the arab muslim mantra that has been slightly amended              First the Saturday people will be cleansed from arab lands then the Sunday people until it is all for islam.


 The arab muslim charters and actions are the only evidence any sane rational person needs to see just what muslims have planned for the Jews and Israel.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Instead of just posting islamomoron denials why don't you post links from a non partisan source showing where the did ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al
> ...






 It is the point as they were in breach of the UN charter by declaring all out war on the Jews. As such the UN should have shown its fangs then and invaded their nations and took over, ousting the leaders and removing the military.


 Is that NO the basic rights and duties of states does not apply, or NO that existence is not dependent on external recognition before an entity has the right to defend its integrity and that the recognition must be implicitly expressed


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Then what land did they try and declare independence on in 1948 after the deadline ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 You forget that Israel is not an island surrounded by water, it is a small nation surrounded by hostile nations. And the arab league armies invaded through the land of Palestine that was Israeli under international law. Is that clear enough for you the land delineated in the Mandate for Palestine that was granted to the Jews that the UN illegally took away from them and was invaded by hostiles out to grab the land.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > "A combined *invasion* by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, together with expeditionary forces from Iraq, *entered Palestine*"
> ...




Which under International law was Israeli land granted in 1923


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Will a map from 1922 do that shows the lands granted to the Jews for their National Home







Or how about one from 1937


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 But the LoN did allot land to the Jews for their National Home in 1923, this entered into international law and so Israel fulfilled the terms of the mandate on may 14 1948.     The truth sucks when you are a brainwashed islamomoron fed on propaganda and lies.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...






 Very clear that the arab armies invaded the north east of Israel, the east, the north west and the south west


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Shown by the dash dot line


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Only if you don't believe that the Jews have the right to live in Israel


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 I don't see anything marked Palestine , Egypt, Syria or Iraq either


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, this is the layman engineered question; but not politically very savvy.  There are TWO (2) theories that are near equally valid when it comes to the international law behind the recognition of a sovereign sate.

The first is called the  *“declaratory” view*.  The  “declaratory” view has been, for the last century, the more  accepted and generally understood view.  But at the dawn of the 21st Century, it has gradually become less favorable _(largely because of the implications and conflict is has generated)_ in the last half of the 20th Century.   Under the “declaratory” view, upon the declaration of independence, pursuant to the Articles 3 and 6 of the _Montevideo Convention _the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of a State --- the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states.  The declaratory theory looks to the new state’s assertion of its sovereignty within the territory it exclusively controls to determine it validity.  International Court of Justice (ICJ) is generally understood to hold and adheres to the "declaratory" view; consistent to the Montevideo Convention.

The  “declaratory” view has begun to give way to the more popular view known as the  *“constitutive” view*, which is better understood and much easier to understand; simply because it is less ambiguous.  The "constitutive theory" states that recognition of an entity as a state is not automatic.  Under this theory --- and contrary to the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of a State --- a state is only a state when it is recognized as such and other states; which is discretionary. Under the "constitutive theory" - in the legal sense, a new state is not a state unless it is recognized as a state _(this is the exact opposite of the Montevideo Convention the 1933 Convention on Rights and Duties of a State --- and the “declaratory” view)_.
Many pro-Palestinians, especial those that argue that on the termination of the Mandate, they hold  clearly in favors of the declaratory model, that is, that the entity exists as a state before recognition, flows in parallel with the inalienable rights theory.  The notion that international recognition of the entity as a new state is required before hand, rejects the view that a state existed before recognition.



P F Tinmore said:


> How can anyone attack Israel if it has no defined territory? Where is it?


*(REFERENCES)*


Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Law-Pedia.com  Definition of "High Contracting Parties _(representatives of states who have signed or ratified a treaty)_
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatie*s* (VCLT), signed at Vienna on 23 May1969
*(COMMENT)*

In the case of the pro-Palestinians, they want to use elements of both theories; simultaneously.  The want to say that Palestine existed before the Mandate (but was taken from them).  The Arab Palestinians wants to say that they do not consider Israel as a legal state, even though Israel had recognition well before the Arab Palestinian.

*(ANSWER)*

Under the "declarative view" Israel declares itself a free and independent state and under the right of self-defense, establishes that territory it controls pursuant to Articles 3 through 6 of the Montevideo Convention.

*ARTICLE 3*
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.​
*ARTICLE 4*
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.​
*ARTICLE 5*
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.​
*ARTICLE 6*
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.​
*ARTICLE 7*
The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.​
*ARTICLE 8*
No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



The LoN had no legal right to allot land.  Per article 22 of the Covenant of the LoN. the LoN merely recognized that the land belonged to its inhabitants and the land was put in trust with the Mandatory.   Since the inhabitants were 93% Christian and Muslims, 93% belonged to the non-Jewish inhabitants. Posting Hasbara cartoon maps doesn't change fact.

This is the "international law.  Don't see anything about non-resident Europeans having any special rights.

"*ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

More importantly, per Article 20. Britain, by joining the LoN should have abrogated all obligations and understandings that were inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of the LoN, which the Balfout Declaration was.

"*ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.*

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant,* it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations*


----------



## montelatici (Apr 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is the layman engineered question; but not politically very savvy.  There are TWO (2) theories that are near equally valid when it comes to the international law behind the recognition of a sovereign sate.
> 
> ...



Rocco et al,

You are mischaracterizing the Palestinian position.  The Palestinians have always, since the first Palestinian delegations went to London in the early 1920s to pursue their case for independence, asserted that the Balfour declaration, beyond its basic immorality, i.e. imposing the European settlement of Palestine, was inconsistent with  the Covenant of the League of Nations.  Moreover they rightfully asserted that Britain agreed, by signing the Covenant,  to abrogate any prior agreement inconsistent with the Covenant per article 20 and  the Balfour Declaration was certainly inconsistent with, at a minimum articles 22 and 23 of  the LoN Covenant.

"*ARTICLE 20.*
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

*In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."
*
ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them* and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves *under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.


ARTICLE 23.
Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon, the Members of the League:

(a) will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women, and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend, and for that purpose will establish and maintain the necessary international organisations;

*(b) undertake to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under their control;"*

In both Article 22 and 23, the inhabitants (93% of which were Muslims and Christians) were to be protected and nurtured.  The Balfour Declaration, was clearly in conflict when it asserted special rights for inhabitants of Europe at the expense of the rights of 93% of the inhabitants of Palestine.  

Anything else is, I'm afraid, just window dressing that does not change the "original sin" which was that of not safeguarding the welfare (as defined in the Covenant) of 93% of the  inhabitants of Palestine when the Mandate was accepted by Britain.


Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 In other words he has you beat again so you plead ignorance and claim he is ducking the subject. When what has really happened he as answered your arguments, picked them clean and shown that you are a complete idiot with no earthly idea of the situation in the M.E. You just parrot what you are told by your islamonazi handlers and dig that hole you are in ever deeper.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 YES THEY DID AS THEY GAINED SOVERIENGTY OVER THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.   Got that Abdul they owned the land and could do what they wanted with it. If you insist on saying stupid things then you will have to tell the arab muslims that their nations do not exist because the LoN did not have the right to grant them the land.
 In the case of Palestine the LoN granted the Jews the legal right under International law to take up the land granted to them and held in trusteeship by the LoN, at any time in future when they saw themselves fit.

 Yes and the LoN allotted trans Jordan as the arab muslim portion of Palestine, presided over by a foreign ruler. They gave the arab muslims 3 choices to fulfil their free determination
1)  Go to trans Jordan with a small bonus for relocation and travelling expenses
2)  stay and become full citizens of the new National home of the Jews
3)  stay and be eventually evicted as foreign belligerents, enemies and illegals

 We all know what the majority of the arab muslims decided and are now evicted from the National home of the Jews.

 Read article 22 again and then post where it mentions arab muslims by name having a say in any future nation.

 As for article 20 read that again in full and see where it says anything about giving all of the M.E. to the arab muslims


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






 Where is the defined territory of Palestine as detailed in the maps they provided in 1948 or 1988. Lets see what the arab muslims are claiming as Palestine, as I have shown in the maps showing the preliminary borders of Israel that are still to be mutually negotiated with Lebanon, Syria and arab muslim Palestine. Up until those borders are agreed Israel exists on the land it has full control over.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Rocco et al.
> ...



The UN created no state neither did the LoN.  The states you mention received provisional statehood via the Treaty of Versailles which provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.


Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Article 22, indicates the "inhabitants" would have the say.   Who were 93% of the inhabitants Phoney? It says nothing about transferring Europeans to Palestine, quite the opposite, since transferring Europeans to Palestine would be detrimental to the welfare of 93% of the inhabitants.

"*ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are *inhabited by peoples* not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

Article 20 merely states the previous agreements, such as the Balfour Declaration, which was inconsistent  with the Covenant, must have been abrogated.  The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the Covenant because it impinged on the rights of the inhabitants (the 93% non-Jews) .


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


That dash dot line is the *1949 armistice line.* It was not there in 1948. Somebody is trying to lie to you.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Has the nation of Palestine ?

 I can produce the defined territory allocated to the Jewish National Home by the LoN Mandate for Palestine a legal and binding document.

 Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory

PALESTINE



INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.​

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

_ North_. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

_ East_. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

_ South_. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

_ West_. – The Mediterranean Sea.



 So there is Israels defined territory


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Mine does


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory​
Then why didn't they call it the area of Israel?

The Mandate was to allow Jews to immigrate to Palestine. They would become Palestinian citizens. They would share the country and become part of the government with the Palestinians already living there. There was not to be a Jewish.

If anyone says different, they are lying.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 NOPE as it was the LoN that had the final say in whether or not the people would be allowed a state.

 Makes no difference as they were primarily wandering workers with no ties to the land, so they were deliberately left out of the Mandate. You see they did not hit the criteria of habitually resident so were not counted, leaving the Jews and Christians to create a nation. The LoN agreed that the Jews were long overdue for a National Home and so enacted their legal rights to ignore the covenant and grant the Jews their National Home on the 22% of Palestine left. In the case of Palestine no one state governed that land under Ottoman control and as such did not meet the remit of article 22. The portion that did was granted to the Hashemite prince to be trans Jordan ( so called because the LoN did not want to give it a name the future inhabitants would not like. ) The remaining 22% just so happened to be almost the land that Mcmahon has set aside for the Jews in his letters to the Sherriff of Mecca, that they reached agreement on. So the LoN fulfilled their article 22 obligations with the allocation of trans Jordan to the muslims and the remainder to the Jews  Which was the population split in 1923 when the LoN wrote the Mandate for Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


*Palestine* lies on the western edge...

So there is Israels defined territory


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






Look again as it is the 1947 partition plan borders, and it shows the invasion by the arab armies into Israel as defined.


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I don't remember reading anywhere that they were to become Palestinian citizens.


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Simple. Israel was created in 1948


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Palestine is defined as the West Bank and Gaza. The rest is Israel. Why is such a simple concept so complicated for you ? Even the Palestinians recognize the rest of the land being Israel. 
Every time anyone debates with you, it's like going around in circles You need to understand that just because YOU don't recognize Israel, that doesn't mean Israel is not there. Israel is a sovereign state. Sovereign states, as I showed you 10 times, have defined territory. 
Remember, Tinmore laws DO NOT apply to real life.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Makes no difference as they were primarily wandering workers, bla, bla, bla...​
So the Palestinians living in Jaffa, Haifa, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and hundreds upon hundreds of other cities, towns, and villages were wandering workers?

Where do you get this shit?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Israel refuses to recognize the armistice lines as its borders. Most Palestinians do not recognize those borders. The UN specifically said that they were not to be political or territorial borders.

Why do you consider them to be borders?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


The biggest year in Israel's history.

Did anyone make a map?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







Because it did not have a name in 1923, so was referred to as the Jewish National Home.

 Read it again it allowed for the Jews to have a National home that would be inhabited by not just Jews but arab muslims and Christians as full citizens. It was the arab muslims that decided they wanted to be rulers of all the M.E. and refused to have anything to do with the LoN plans

 If anyone says any different they are RACIST LIARS.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Try again only this time look at the full context


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.
This defines the area known as Palestine and not the Nation.  It includes the land that was given over to trans Jordan
  The header says it all but you ignore anything that disagrees with your islamonazi  POV


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



*​​*
*ART. 7.*​The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate​


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



What do Armistice lines have to do with anything ??? Israel is defined by internationally recognized boundaries with Jordan (East) and Egypt (West). The border with Lebanon is called the blue line (ceasefire line created in 2000) and the border with Syria is called the purple line (1967). The latter two are armistice lines, but not the ones from 1948.


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



This is talking about Jews who would want to become citizens in Palestine. But when the British spoke about a Jewish Homeland, they certainly were not talking about them becoming Palestinian citizens. 
Either way, all of this is pointless information.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...




I don't, but it seems that the arab muslims do as they want the UN to declare their borders to the 1967 lines.  The borders I rocognise are those laid down by the LoN in the Mandate.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Given you two, which is more that you have produced for the nation of Palestine.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


The armistice lines define the areas called Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


You are confusing Palestinians with a few oligarchs around Ramallah.


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Israel is not an 'area' , it's a sovereign state with internationally recognized boundaries AND cease - fire lines. These are facts. You can deny them until next generation, but it won;t change a thing.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Indeed, but that is a question that has not been answered.


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



What question?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


When did Israel legally acquire the land that is sits on?

Que song and dance
3
2
1


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



It didn't acquire the land because it never had to. Acquiring land is a Tinmore pre requisite for becoming a country, remember? 

Where does it say that in order to become a country, land must be *acquired* ? Where is it written that it is a pre requisite. 

Cue song and dance 3, 2, 1 ....


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


A state needs a defined territory.

Where did Israel get a defined territory?


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



International law dictates that Sovereign states have defined territory. Israel is a sovereign state. Therefore Israel has defined territory.

Now stop ducking my question. Where did you read that a country needs to ACQUIRE territory in order to declare independence ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Well if it does not have any it needs to get it from someplace. Usually it is an agreement or treaty with those who have the territory you want.

That is what I have been looking for.


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it. 
I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
> I have never heard of, and you have never provided any evidence that one must ACQUIRE territory through a treaty or agreement.


Acquiring land by force has been illegal since the end of WWII.  You've been told this several times, why do you still keep stating this nonsense?

You cannot declare sovereignty over land you have no clear title to.

BTW, you country is fucked!


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
> ...



You have no clue what we are even talking about you demented shmuck. Way to make a fool out of yourself, again. Go back to bed


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


I guess that whenever you create a state you need someplace to put it goes over your head.


----------



## Billo_Really (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> You have no clue what we are even talking about you demented shmuck. Way to make a fool out of yourself, again. Go back to bed


You said acquiring land and practicing sovereignty are two different issues.  I'm saying they are not.  One is dependent on the other.  You cannot have sovereignty over land you have no clear title to.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



Actually, they were Europeans that went to Palestine and took the land by force.  Illegal under international law.  That's just a fact.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Obviously, you missed this point several times.  I've tried to explain it several different ways.  And again, in *Posting 828,* I've tried yet another way.  And again --- you go back to this idea of land acquisition --- for civil real-estate and territorial captures.  Please go back to Posting #828 and re-read it.  If you are unwilling to take my word for it, then I have also given you three more references from three other independent sources on the "Constitutive" and "Declarative" Theory.  Neither of which even remotely requires your improper assumption of territorial acquisition _(by military conquest or discovery --- of by real-estate acquisition or land transfer)_.  Because, no matter how logical it sounds to you, in my forty years of experience, I've never seen it done that way.

*(REFERENCES*)

*Sovereign state*
Member states of the United Nations, all of which are sovereign states, though not all sovereign states are necessarily members
In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a state is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.[2]

The existence or disappearance of a state is a question of fact.[3] While according to the declarative theory of state recognition a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

*Contents*​

1 Emergence of states
2 Westphalian sovereignty
3 Recognition
*3.1 Constitutive theory*
*3.2 Declarative theory*
3.3 State practice
3.4 De facto and de jure states


4 Relationship between state and government
5 State extinction
6 Ontological status of the state
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links
*Emergence of states*
States came into existence as people "gradually transferred their allegiance from an individual sovereign (king, duke, prince) to an intangible but territorial political entity, of the state".[4] States are but one of several political orders that emerged from feudal Europe (others being city states, leagues, and empires with universalist claims to authority.[5]​
*Sovereign state*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A *sovereign state* is a state with borders where people live, and where a government makes laws and talks to other sovereign states. The people have to follow the laws that the government makes. Most sovereign states are _recognized_ which means other sovereign states agree that it's really a sovereign state. Being recognized makes it easier for a sovereign state to talk to and make agreements (treaties) with other sovereign states. There are hundreds of recognized sovereign states today - see List of sovereign states.

*Contents*​

1 What a sovereign state is
*2 Constitutive theory of statehood*
*3 Declarative theory of statehood*
4 _De facto_ and _de jure_ states
5 References

*What a sovereign state is.*
There is no rule to say what exactly makes a state. Usually, the things a state must have are mainly political, not legal.[1] The Czechs and the Poles were seen as separate states during World War I, even though they did not exist as states yet. L.C. Green explained this by saying that "recognition of statehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing state to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of territory or an established government."[2]

This means that it is up to any state that already exists to treat any other group as a state. This recognition can be direct or implied. When a state does this, it usually means that the group will also be treated as a state for things that happened in the past. It does not need to mean that the state wants to have a diplomaticrelationship with the other group.

*Constitutive theory *of statehood
Main page: Constitutive theory of statehood
In 1815 at the Congress of Vienna the Final Act only recognized 39 sovereign states in Europe. Because of this, they said that in future new states would have to be recognized by other states. In practice, this meant recognition by one or more of the most powerful countries.[6]

This constitutive theory was developed in the 19th century to describe what is and is not a state. With this theory, the need to follow international law depends on whether other sovereign governments recognize the group. Because of this, new states could not become part of the international community or be bound by international law immediately, so recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.[7]

One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion that happens when some states recognize a new group, but other states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the main people who supported the theory, suggested that it is a state's job to grant recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any set of rules when judging if they should give recognition. Many states may only recognize another state if it will help them.[7]

*Declarative theory* of statehood
Main page: Montevideo Convention
One of the criteria most commonly used by micronations is the Montevideo Convention. The Montevideo Convention was signed on December 26 1933.  The Montevideo Convention has four conditions that a group "should" meet to become a state:​

a population that lives there
a set piece of land
a government
the ability to enter into relations with other states

*Sovereignty: two Competing Theories of State Recognition – William Worster*
*Article by: William Worster, Universities of The Hague and Missouri-Kansas City (February 2010) *

International law is dominated by two competing theories of state recognition, with the *“declaratory”* view currently in prominence but possibly just beginning its decline in favor of the *“constitutive” *view.​


P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I believe that your mistake in understanding is in the layman's oversimplification of the means by which nations, states and empires are developed.  And while I've tried to explain it as simply as I can, it is clear to me that you have been infected by some theory which no support.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Apr 30, 2015)

Rocco et al:

Notwithstanding the fact that countries acquire territory by conquest, it is illegal.  The Europeans that conquered a large part of Palestine and the Russians that conquered Crimea both did so illegally.  That's just a fact.


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



False, Israel declared independence over land allotted to her in the partition plan. the SAME way the Palestinians did.

IF what Israel did was illegal, the U.N would not have recognized her. 

"This Palestinian Declaration of Independence *explicitly accepted *the UN General Assembly’s Partition Resolution 181(II) of 1947, *which called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the former Mandate for Palestine*, together with an international trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem.  The significance of the PNC’s *acceptance of partition* in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence itself cannot be overemphasized."


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > You have no clue what we are even talking about you demented shmuck. Way to make a fool out of yourself, again. Go back to bed
> ...


Yes, they ARE two different issues moron. Israel legally declared independence over land allotted to her in the partition plan. Read my response to Monti.


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Rocco et al:
> 
> Notwithstanding the fact that countries acquire territory by conquest, it is illegal.  The Europeans that conquered a large part of Palestine and the Russians that conquered Crimea both did so illegally.  That's just a fact.



Israel conquered the land it sits on? Where is your link for this bullshit ?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



Europeans conquered land in Palestine through force.  That is a fact.  And, conquering land through force is illegal.  What part of that do you not understand.  

The Pope gave the Americas to Portugal and Spain.  The English Crown chartered colonies in North America.  It does not make it legal or right.


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



When five Arab states attacked Israel, Israel was on the defensive. The land they captured during that war is now part of Israel. It's inside the green line and globally recognized. Israel is also a member of the U.N. Also, the Palestinians recognize that land as being Israel's.The land that Israel declared independence on however was not conquered through force. The Jews practised sovereignty over the land, the SAME WAY THE PALESTINIANS DID OVER THEIR LAND, as I have proved. Declaring independence over land is NOT conquering it. Why can't you understand that ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Obviously, you missed this point several times.  I've tried to explain it several different ways.  And again, in *Posting 828,* I've tried yet another way.  And again --- you go back to this idea of land acquisition --- for civil real-estate and territorial captures.  Please go back to Posting #828 and re-read it.  If you are unwilling to take my word for it, then I have also given you three more references from three other independent sources on the "Constitutive" and "Declarative" Theory.  Neither of which even remotely requires your improper assumption of territorial acquisition _(by military conquest or discovery --- of by real-estate acquisition or land transfer)_.  Because, no matter how logical it sounds to you, in my forty years of experience, I've never seen it done that way.
> 
> ...


Obviously, you missed this point several times.​
I am not missing the point. I am already familiar with what you post. It is that your posts are not related to me questions.

I thought my questions were simple enough. I don't understand why you have so much problem with them.


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



The question has been answered. The problem seems to be that you don\t like the answer.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 30, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


So because 5 neighboring countries attacked Israel (???) and lost (???) Israel won land from Palestine?

Do you have a link to that legal theory?


----------



## toastman (Apr 30, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Why are you putting question marks next to facts? 

What theory are you talking about ? Israel captured 50% of the land ALLOTTED to the Palestinians following the war. 

You have the tendency to ask the most bizarre/ridiculous questions.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 30, 2015)

I believe the only problem in the Middle East is a lack of States and statism; and ensuring the domestic Tranquillity and security of that free State.


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 NOPE they define nothing but the armistice lines. The only thing that defines Israel is the mutually agreed borders with Egypt and Jordan. Nothing defines gaza or the west bank as they have no mutually agreed borders with anyone.

If you believe the armistice lines define gaza and the west bank then you are a bigger fool than anyone thought.


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 And you are confusing the Mandate for Palestine with the non existent nation of palestine


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 What question ?


----------



## Judicial review (May 1, 2015)

Everybody has a right to defend themselves.  It's a Right from God.  Now fighting for a cause needs clarification.


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Depends on which parts you mean.  The bulk on may 14 1948, then a small part in 1949 when they beat the arab armies back. Then in 199/2000 at Oslo they acquired control of parts of the west bank.

 Now when did the arab muslims legally acquire the land that they sit on ?


 CUE  islamomoron propaganda


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 When it became a full member of the UN, which defined its territory. Since then it has acquired more land through custom and use that was unclaimed by anyone. It later defined its territory when it agreed mutual borders with Egypt and Jordan.

 Now when did Palestine define its territory that was not in another nations possession at the time.


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 And you have been given the answer many times.   The Mandate for Palestine granted the Jews the land as defined for their national home. In much the same way the LoN also granted Syria and trans Jordan the land for their national homes.
 So there is your answer and if you don't like it then that is tough because it entered into International Law in 1923.


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Acquiring land is a real estate issue. Practising sovereignty is a separate issue. That is how the land became Israel's. They declared sovereignty over the land, and were able to protect it.
> ...






 LoN mandate for Palestine 1923 clearly states that the land is granted to the Jews to build their National Home on. This entered into International law in 1923. So they are not acquiring land by force they are reclaiming stolen land by force, as they have clear title to the land under International law.


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 And that was taken are of in 1923 when the Mandate for Palestine was written. Why do you have so much trouble understanding that the same laws that apply to Syria and Jordan also apply to Israel


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > You have no clue what we are even talking about you demented shmuck. Way to make a fool out of yourself, again. Go back to bed
> ...






 So that destroys the Palestinians claims doesn't it as they have no clear title to any land and no soveriegnty


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 What International law was that and when was it enacted. Lets see if you are honest enough to give a proper answer and show that you are just posting RACIST LIES and islamomorn propaganda.


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Rocco et al:
> 
> Notwithstanding the fact that countries acquire territory by conquest, it is illegal.  The Europeans that conquered a large part of Palestine and the Russians that conquered Crimea both did so illegally.  That's just a fact.






 No it is a LIE and you know it, you claim International law and yet refuse to state which International law and when it was enacted.  What happened in 1870, 1917 and 1923 under International law is completely different to what happened after 1948 under International law. I note you never complain about Jordans acquisition of land by force in 1949 even though it was against International Law of 1945 that stated acquisition of land by force is illegal. You also forget that the Jews from around the world ( not all were Europeans as many came from Islamic nation in the M.E and Horn of Africa ) were invited to settle on THEIR land by the sovereign land owners who granted them the land under the LoN Mandate for Palestine which became international law in 1923.

 See Abdul if you claim International law then you have to cite that International law and the date it was enacted. Not just slip it in and hope that no one calls you on it.


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 Lets see if you understand what facts mean  then shall we Abdul

 When did Europeans conquer the land in Palestine through force ?

 When did it become illegal to acquire land through force

 What were the Laws at the time of the Pope giving the lands of the Americas to Portugal and Spain

 What were the laws at the time the English crown gave out chartered colonies in North America.

 So to summarise you are once again trying to impose 2015 laws onto a time when such laws did not exist, making your post RACIST LIES and islamomoron propaganda


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...






 Because the boiler room girls don't want to understand that and just want to keep plugging their racist lies and islamomoron propaganda


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 Yet everyone else see's that the answers are related to your questions but you. We don't know why you have so many problems accepting the evidence in the answers that destroy you arguments and point to you being a very mixed up hateful person


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Palestine has not been part of another nation since 1924.

They personally defined their territory in their DOI in 1948.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Where does it say that?

Quote the passage.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 1, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Because nobody has proven those so called facts to be true.


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 They won no land from the nation of Palestine because it does not yet exist, so the land outside of that allocated to Israel was free for the taking. Because the arab league invaded they altered the status of the land allowing Israel to lay claim to what they captured in 1949. This was inline with common practise at the time and did not constitute acquiring land by force. In 1967 it was a different set of rules in force and the land occupied belonged to Egypt and Jordan. So that land was not claimed as Israeli.

 Do you understand this ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Because they don't.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


You will have to argue that with Rocco. He said that the land was not up for grabs


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 WHY?    didn't you read it yesterday when I posted or the other many hundreds of times to this same demand. The words have not changed nor have the boundaries of the land granted.  Just go back a few pages and read them again.


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 So the LoN mandate 's that allowed for the creation of Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon also created Israel. And that the Mandate's did not sign of on the nations created until 1947 to 1949. You cant alter laws just because Israel or the Jews benefit from them


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


I didn't see anything about transferring land to Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Because the countries created were Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Palestine.


----------



## montelatici (May 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



The "Arab League" intervened in an attempt to stop the aggression of the hostile European colonists (HEC) who were planning to establish a separate European colony within Palestine.  None of the land was "free for the taking" by European colonists.  No matter how you dress it up, it was simply the dispossession of land from the local inhabitants by colonists from Europe.  

Are you unable to comprehend this simple fact?


----------



## Hossfly (May 1, 2015)

Referring to the OP, here's a video clip of a Palestinian Freedom Fighter defending himself from a couple of Israeli terrorists.


*This shocking, violent video just released shows a barbaric Palestinian terror attack that killed a young man and wounded a 20-year-old woman in Jerusalem.*

When Khaled Kutina, an Arab resident of Jerusalem, got into his car, it was with the intent to murder a Jew. Then he noticed Shalom Cherki and Shira Klein standing at a bus stop and raced his car directly into them. Shalom Cherki was killed and Shira is undergoing rehabilitation at a hospital.

This video shows the brutal attack in the *UPPER RIGHT CORNER*. It is quite violent and not suitablhttps://Footage of Car Terror Attack That Killed Shalom Sherki - YouTube for younger audiences.


----------



## toastman (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You mean 1988. There was no DOI in 1948.


----------



## toastman (May 1, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



They surrounded Israel from all sides and attacked them with threats of annihalation. The 'European colonist' thing is Palestinian propaganda.


----------



## toastman (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Yes we have . The problem is you are extremely immature and refuse to believe facts, because they conflict with your agenda.


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Because Israel did not exist then, so it was called the National Home for the Jews. And it was also referred to as the Balfour declaration


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Nope as there is no mention in any LoN mandate of a Palestinian nation, what was mentioned was the Mandate for Palestin It was made abundantly clear that this was to be truncated to Palestine  but meant the same thing.   Unless you can find a LoN treaty that says otherwise ?


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Wrong the arab league was formed to destroy Israel and wipe out the Jews. 

  What nation had legal sovereignty over the land left after Israel declared independence.

 Also  bear in mind that the arab muslims had received 78% of Palestine which was equivalent to the population split in 1923


----------



## montelatici (May 1, 2015)

First of all Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims.  And less than half of Palestine was assigned to the Christians and Muslims at time of partition in 1947.  Christians and Muslims represented more than two thirds of the population, notwithstanding the post war invasion/migration of the Europeans to Palestine.  Trying to confound Trans-Jordania, a separate territory, with Palestine doesn't make it clown.


----------



## Phoenall (May 1, 2015)

montelatici said:


> First of all Palestine was inhabited by Christians and Muslims.  And less than half of Palestine was assigned to the Christians and Muslims at time of partition in 1947.  Christians and Muslims represented more than two thirds of the population, notwithstanding the post war invasion/migration of the Europeans to Palestine.  Trying to confound Trans-Jordania, a separate territory, with Palestine doesn't make it clown.






 You are the clown as trans Jordan was part of the original land granted for the Jewish national home. It was then granted to some minor arab desert prince leaving just 22% of the original Palestine. But the LoN never removed trans Jordan from the Mandate for Palestine and the split in 1922 was along the lines of the population of that time. So the muslims received more than their 60% and still invaded the 22% left in the hopes of stealing the land. That is why the partition failed and it should never of happened, the Jews should have received it all and the arab muslims told they faced war with the UN id they did not accept the decision


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 1, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


The Balfour declaration was not a treaty. It was just a letter.


----------



## Hossfly (May 1, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> Referring to the OP, here's a video clip of a Palestinian Freedom Fighter defending himself from a couple of Israeli terrorists.
> 
> 
> *This shocking, violent video just released shows a barbaric Palestinian terror attack that killed a young man and wounded a 20-year-old woman in Jerusalem.*
> ...


Interesting video P F Tinmore


----------



## toastman (May 1, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Can you quote the document that states that land must be transferred in order to declare independence.


----------



## montelatici (May 1, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



They were European and colonized Palestine.  What don't you understand?


----------



## Phoenall (May 2, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 NOPE that was the McMahon.   But it does not alter the facts that the LoN granted the remaining 22% of Palestine to the Jews after giving 78% to the Palestinian arab muslims.  Who promptly evicted all the Jews from their land and property


----------



## Phoenall (May 2, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 That you an be so idiotic in making these claims when there is no evidence to support them.  Most of the Jewish migrants came from other areas well away from Europe, and they were invited by the lands legal owners to migrate.

 Now what don't you understand about the facts and reality, and stop posting RACIST LIES


----------



## toastman (May 2, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



No they didn't. But that has nothing to do with 5 Arab states surrounding Israel and attacking them with threats of annihalation.


----------



## montelatici (May 3, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



All the evidence supports the fact that the Zionists came from Europe.  The Zionists were not invited by the ";legal" owners.  The legal owners, were the existing inhabitants of the Ottoman territories, after WW1.  As per the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Mandate system.  The territories were placed in trust with the Mandatories.  You haven't figured that out yet?

"*ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations


----------



## Billo_Really (May 3, 2015)

toastman said:


> No they didn't. But that has nothing to do with 5 Arab states surrounding Israel and attacking them with threats of annihalation.


The arab states went in to restore order and preserve the rights of the indigenous, non-Jewish population that was being terrorized by Jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.


----------



## toastman (May 3, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > No they didn't. But that has nothing to do with 5 Arab states surrounding Israel and attacking them with threats of annihalation.
> ...



They attacked Israel from ALL sides while making threats of destroying the newly found state. Restore order my ass. 

“Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.”
- Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem
(Radio Berlin, March 1, 1944; quoted in Robert Wistrich, _Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger_[American Jewish Committee, 2002], p. 47)

“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League
(_Akhbar al-Yom_, Egypt, October 11, 1947; quoted in David Barnett and Efraim Karsh, “Azzam’s Genocidal Threat,” _Middle East Quarterly_, Fall 2011)

“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”
- Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder
(_New York Times_, August 2, 1948)

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict


----------



## Phoenall (May 3, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 So you should be able to pull a link out of your underwear showing that the arab muslims negotiated surrender terms with the Ottomans making them the legal land owners.   Have you figured that out yet the arab muslims were catered for with Syria, Iraq and trans Jordan.   Article 22 was complied with in full by splitting Palestine in to two parts along the demographic boundaries with 78% going to the arab muslims and 22% going to the Jews.

 But I note that once again you manipulate a legal document and omit those parts that show you are a RACIST LIAR and an islamomoron propagandist.
 Here it is in full with the parts destroying your POV highlighted for all to see


*ARTICLE 22.*
*To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.*

*The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.*

*The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances*.

*Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.*

*Other peoples*, especially those of Central Africa, *are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.*

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

*The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.*

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.


So you see Abdul the arab muslims are embodied in this * inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves *so they were offered the services of a Hashemite prince to set them on the proper path in the new arab muslim homeland of trans Jordan.


----------



## Phoenall (May 3, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > No they didn't. But that has nothing to do with 5 Arab states surrounding Israel and attacking them with threats of annihalation.
> ...






 The IRGUN were actually defending unarmed Jews from being not just terrorised but mass murdered by hordes of arab muslims. The initial start of the arab league attacks started in 1929 when the leader of the Palestinian arab muslim hordes commanded them to kill the Jews in Hebron.
Your history is skewed if you think that the arab muslims were being terrorised when it was the other way round


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 3, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Let me get this straight. European Jews went to Palestine to be terrorized by the locals?

Why would they want to do that?


----------



## Phoenall (May 4, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...






 No they went to Palestine from all over the world because they were promised their National Home. If by locals you mean Syrians, Iraqi's, Egyptians's and Saudi's then yes they terrorised the Jews and Christians because that is what they have done since 635 C.E. when mo'mad commanded them to " KILL THE JEWS "


----------



## Billo_Really (May 5, 2015)

toastman said:


> They attacked Israel from ALL sides while making threats of destroying the newly found state. Restore order my ass.
> 
> “Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion.”
> - Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem
> ...


And this is why they felt that way...



> _*"They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination."*_
> -  Ahad Ha'am


After years of seeing that shit going on, Arab states decided to act.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 5, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> The IRGUN were actually defending unarmed Jews from being not just terrorised but mass murdered by hordes of arab muslims. The initial start of the arab league attacks started in 1929 when the leader of the Palestinian arab muslim hordes commanded them to kill the Jews in Hebron.
> Your history is skewed if you think that the arab muslims were being terrorised when it was the other way round


Irgun was a terrorist organization no different than al Qaeda.

Today they're known as the Likud Party.


----------



## toastman (May 5, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > They attacked Israel from ALL sides while making threats of destroying the newly found state. Restore order my ass.
> ...



You have things twisted. After the Jews were attacked and massacred on several occasions, the Jews decided to fight back.


----------



## Phoenall (May 6, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > They attacked Israel from ALL sides while making threats of destroying the newly found state. Restore order my ass.
> ...







 So says an arab muslim who as we all know are taught to spout this islamonazi propaganda as soon as they can talk. Yet the historical evidence shows that it was the Jews and Christians that where being treated with hostility and cruelty, deprived of their rights, offended constantly and raped, beaten and murdered on a whim by the muslims.  The Jews being predominantly elderly couples and children did not have the strength in numbers to do any of this to the arab muslims.


----------



## Phoenall (May 6, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > The IRGUN were actually defending unarmed Jews from being not just terrorised but mass murdered by hordes of arab muslims. The initial start of the arab league attacks started in 1929 when the leader of the Palestinian arab muslim hordes commanded them to kill the Jews in Hebron.
> ...






 Read the history books again dildo  as Irgun were a defence force that went around Palestine protecting Jewish communities from arab muslim attacks. Because they were so good at this the arab muslims made up fantasy stories about the various groups set up to protect innocent Jews from attak by extremist muslims.


----------



## montelatici (May 6, 2015)

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



The Europeans went to Palestine to take the land from the local inhabitants and establish a state for themselves.  The European colonists were the first to massacre the locals.  If the Europeans had not gone to Palestine to establish a colony, the locals would not have had to defend themselves from the colonists.  That's just a fact, no matter how you try to twist the truth.


----------



## toastman (May 6, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...



Actually I already proved countless times that it was the Arabs who initiated the violence. They were the first to start the massacring. 
There were no European colonists, that is a Palestinian propaganda term..

Why does the truth bother you so much, I just don't get it ?

"If the Europeans had not gone to Palestine to establish a colony"

They established a sovereign state. Who were the Palestinians to say if European Jews can or can't come? The region was NOT ARAB CONTROLLED. They had NO SOVEREIGNTY over the land. 

The Jews declared independence, and were able to hold on to it after 5 Arab states attacked from all sides.


----------



## montelatici (May 6, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



People being colonized cannot, logically, be the aggressors.  That is just logic.  Get it through your thick head.


----------



## toastman (May 6, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Except there was no colonization when Jews were being massacred. Actually, there never was colonization. Israel declared independence the SAME WAY the 'Palestinians' did so in 1988. 
Get that through your think skull.


----------



## Phoenall (May 7, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...






 RACIST LIAR   when are you going to prove your RACIST LIES. The land was never arab muslim and as your links show they were the illegal immigrant invaders to Palestine to take the land bought by the Jews and Christians. The arab muslims were the colonisers and land thieves and massacred the Jews and Christians living there before the legal migrations from the worlds Jewish people. If the arab muslims had not illegally migrated to Palestine as your UN link proved then the Jews would not need to defend themselves from mass murder and terrorism.   THAT IS THE REAL FACT THAT YOU IGNORE BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST YOUR ISLAMOMORON BRAINWASHING


----------



## Phoenall (May 7, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






 How could they be colonised when they were colonisers themselves as your own UN link showed. You know the one that showed 60% of all illegal immigrants to Palestine during the British Mandate were arab muslims. The arab league invasion was a futile attempt at arab muslim colonisation of Jewish sovereign land, and ended in the biggest loss of face the arab's have ever had. So how were the Jews the colonisers when the arab muslims came from Saudi to colonise Palestine after the Jews were invited by the Ottomans to settle and make the land fertile. Only a twisted islamomoron could come up with that excuse for islamonazi terrorism and violence.    THAT IS THE REAL LOGIC not your twisted brainwashing and indoctrination into islam


----------



## theliq (May 7, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Are you for real %$#@(*&


----------



## montelatici (May 7, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



My link, which is the UN report to the General Assembly supporting the Partition Resolution shows that the immigrants (invaders) legal or illegal were nearly all European Jews.  

All your rabid blathering and denunciation of the Muslims and Christian indigenous people of Palestine can't change fact.  Get it through your thick skull, lying over and over again does not make your ridiculous position any stronger. *MY UN LINK PROVES THAT THE EUROPEANS WERE THE INVADERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! QUIT LYING.*


As per below:

"(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year.* The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.* Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration.

A 364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 7, 2015)




----------



## Phoenall (May 7, 2015)

theliq said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Whats wrong suddenly realised that the arab muslims did not appear in Palestine until 635C.E. and were invading colonisers back then. What has changed in those 1400 years apart from increasing violence and terrorism.

 Don't forget the immortal words of your prophet    " KILL THE JEWS "


----------



## Phoenall (May 7, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 And as roudy showed a little further on the illegal immigrants were brought up and they showed that 60% were arab muslims. Something that you turned round and said was Zionist propaganda.   Showing just how stupid you are


----------



## fanger (May 7, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Don't forget the immortal words of your prophet    " KILL THE JEWS "


Link to your Racist Lie


----------



## Phoenall (May 7, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


>






 Makes a change after the decades of biased reporting in favour of the arab muslims. It could have been the fact that the British people threatened to stop paying the BBC's funding until they stopped being biased


----------



## Phoenall (May 7, 2015)

fanger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget the immortal words of your prophet    " KILL THE JEWS "
> ...






 Like this

 Sahih Bukhari Hadith  Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:  Narrated by 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'" Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:Narrated by Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement

Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement

Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement

Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement


----------



## montelatici (May 7, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Ruddy showed nothing, the facts are on the record below  The Europeans invaded and colonized Palestine.  That is just a fact.



"(b)IMMIGRATION AND NATURAL INCREASE

15. These changes in the population have been brought about by two forces: natural increase and immigration. *The great increase in the Jewish population is due in the main to immigration. From 1920 to 1946, the total number of recorded Jewish immigrants into Palestine was about 376,000, or an average of over 8,000 per year.* The flow has not been regular, however, being fairly high in 1924 to 1926, falling in the next few years (there was a net emigration in 1927) and rising to even higher levels between 1933 and 1936 as a result of the Nazi persecution in Europe. Between the census year of 1931 and the year 1936, the proportion of Jews to the total population rose from 18 per cent to nearly 30 per cent.

16. *The Arab population has increased almost entirely as a result of an excess of births over deaths.* Indeed, the natural rate of increase of Moslem Arabs in Palestine is the highest in recorded statistics,1 a phenomenon explained by very high fertility rates coupled with a marked decline in death rates as a result of improved conditions of life and public health, The natural rate of increase of Jews is also relatively high, but is conditioned by a favorable age distribution of the population due to the high rate of immigration.

UN Report A 364 of 3 September 1947


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 13, 2015)




----------



## toastman (May 13, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



No, it is not a fact. An invasion is a military offensive you compulsive liar. Jews created a sovereign state, not a colony. Your propaganda knows no bounds!


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 13, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


The creation of Israel was a military offensive.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 13, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Don't forget the immortal words of your prophet    " KILL THE JEWS "






_Quid pro quo, mother-fucker!_


----------



## toastman (May 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Load of crap. Israel declared independence the same way the Palestinians did in 1988. The day after Israel was created, 5 Arab armies and several Palestinian militias surrounded the newly founded state and attacked them with clear intention of destroying Israel. 
Yes, there was a military offensive , and it was against Israel.


----------



## Phoenall (May 14, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Looking at the facts it means that girls of 10 years and older were being made pregnant with triplets or quads and delivering every one alive. This must have been happening every 9 to 10 months without a single fatality, making the procreation rate 350%. During the Mandate period the average live birth rate in the area was less than 20%, and even in the Mandatory nation it was only 25% due to lack of medical knowledge. So just where the sudden miraculous 100% live birth rate sprang from is a complete mystery.  That is until you read the Mandatory reports to the LoN that show a massive increase in illegal arab muslim migration to Palestine, Why even the Foreign Secretary Winston Churchill stood up in Parliament and stated that hordes of arab muslims were migrating to Palestine looking for work.


----------



## Phoenall (May 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


>






 Then neither do the arab muslims, or don't you see that as being fair.


----------



## Phoenall (May 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 WRONG it was a political expedience by the LoN who placed the forming of the Jewish National home into International law in 1923.    The only military offensive was that of the combined arab armies that invaded Palestine to wipe out the Jews and destroy their National home


----------



## Phoenall (May 14, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget the immortal words of your prophet    " KILL THE JEWS "
> ...







 One instance does not make for a national cause, if it did then every muslim in the west would now be looking at starting all over in Islamic lands. But when you look at the numbers of separate instances of muslims from all over the world calling for the death of the Jews, the death of Americans, the death of the Pope and all Catholics and the death of all left wingers. So when you can find Jews the world over, just ordinary Jews as well, that demand the death of all arabs then you might have a case.  Until then you are just showing your Jew Hatred again.


----------



## montelatici (May 14, 2015)

toastman said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Of course it was a European invasion and colonization to create a state for themselves.  Just as the Spanish did in Latin America, the English in North America etc.  What else can you call it?


----------



## montelatici (May 14, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Palestinians are Christians too.  What are you talking about, they were dispossessed by the Europeans like all Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 14, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...



Deflection.

What does that have to do with my post?


----------



## toastman (May 14, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Go look up the word for yourself. An invasion is a military offensive. 

European Jews immigrated to the region. That's not an invasion. You cannot change definitions of word's to fir your agenda you compulsive liar.


----------



## toastman (May 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I explained how your comment was extremely idiotic. There was no deflection.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 14, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


You don't make any sense.

Europeans went to Palestine and drove 750,000 Palestinians out of their homes at the point of a gun and you say that is not a military invasion.


----------



## toastman (May 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



The people who immigrated to the region were not combatants you idiot. The immigration itself was not a military invasion. Really Tinmore. how stupid can you possible be?
These are military invasions:

List of invasions - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

After being attacked by Palestinian militias, many Palestinian fled or were kicked out. But the biggest Palestinian exodus occurred when 5 Arab states and Palestinian militias surrounded the region and attacked the newly founded state trying to expel the residents. The Jews fought back and returned the favour.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 14, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Israeli horsecrap.

Almost half of the Palestinians were expelled before any Arab army came to their assistance.


----------



## toastman (May 14, 2015)

This is from an award winning documentary

:Watch 14:35 - 15:50


----------



## toastman (May 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Read my post again. Before the Arab Israeli war BTW, many Palestinians FLED, not all were expelled.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 14, 2015)

toastman said:


> The people who immigrated to the region were not combatants you idiot.


That's bullshit!  Maybe some of them weren't. But the fact remains, the violence didn't start, until they showed up.




toastman said:


> The immigration itself was not a military invasion.


It doesn't matter what you call it.  But if you have to give it a name, call it a...

_*weaponized vacation
armed picnic
the boys next door*_​
...whatever floats your boat, _*Nucky*_.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 14, 2015)

toastman said:


> Read my post again. Before the Arab Israeli war BTW, many Palestinians FLED, not all were expelled.


Nobody leaves a home they've been  living in for generations, just because someone asked them to.

It just doesn't happen!


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 14, 2015)

toastman said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


Fled why?

Because the invaders asked please leave so we can take your country?


----------



## toastman (May 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



There were no invaders, except the Arab countries who invaded the region.

Did you watch the part of the video I showed you?


----------



## toastman (May 14, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Read my post again. Before the Arab Israeli war BTW, many Palestinians FLED, not all were expelled.
> ...



Watch the fuckin video in my previous post. Yes, many Palestinian fled on their own.


----------



## toastman (May 14, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > The people who immigrated to the region were not combatants you idiot.
> ...


What's bullshit ? The people who immigrated were not combatants. They did;t come to the region as part of a military offensive. 

BTW, the Arabs instigated the violence, as I have proved many times.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 14, 2015)

toastman said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


The so called immigrants do not match the definition of immigrants.

They were imported by the Zionists not to be a part of Palestine but to populate a foreign "state" to be established in Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 Then you will be able to produce a link from the UN archives stating this to be a fact then wont you. It has to state that the UN views the migration of Jews to Palestine after being invited to be a European invasion and colonization to create a state for the Jews. Failure to do so will prove conclusively that you are a RABID RACIST JEW HATER


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...






 Don't you mean Christians are Palestinians too.  And strangely the numbers only started to drop after hamas came to power and have managed to ethnically cleanse 90% of Christians from palestine


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 No deflection is there as  the evidence shows the only military offensive was that by the arab muslims , and that started way back in 1929


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 And the Palestinians didn't try to drive 1 million Jews into the sea starting in 1929 under the leadership of the islamonazi Grand Mufti ?

If the arab muslim armies had not invaded then the Israelis would not have been forced into defending themselves. Nor would they have needed to evict violent enemies from Israel at the point of a gun


----------



## Billo_Really (May 15, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> And the Palestinians didn't try to drive 1 million Jews into the sea starting in 1929 under the leadership of the islamonazi Grand Mufti ?
> 
> If the arab muslim armies had not invaded then the Israelis would not have been forced into defending themselves. Nor would they have needed to evict violent enemies from Israel at the point of a gun



_"... *the [Zionist] settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the [Palestinian] natives* ... 'Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite!* [Phone-boy]*"

" Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. * They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds*; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ...'"_
- *Ahad Ha'am*


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 And all they had to do was not start the terrorism and violence and they would still be living there. But in 1929 they followed the command of the islamonazi Grand Mufti to kill the Jews and drive them out of arab muslim lands. So the Jews did what they could and formed defence groups to fight back, this caused the migrant arab muslims to move away from the Jewish defence forces. The arab armies, not plural as 5 arab nations were involved, started their attacks in 1947 not 1948


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 15, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > toastman said:
> ...


After the fact tit for tat. Meaningless.


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...







 Then you will be able to produce a link from an unbiased source saying just that. You forget that the LoN invited the Jews of the world to migrate to Palestine. The majority of these immigrant Jews came from the surrounding countries because of islamonazi barbarism and violence, so it is only to be expected that once they could fight back that they would. So hardly "foreign" are they, as many were closer to Palestine than the arab muslim illegal immigrants.


----------



## Billo_Really (May 15, 2015)

_"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. *We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country.* The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and *the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly *..."_
- *Theodor Herzl

*
...mmmmm_......"removal of the poor"

_
Looks to me like Zionists came into the area with every intention of physically removing the indigenous, non-Jewish inhabitants, by any means necessary.

_*THAT, STARTED THE WAR!*_


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > And the Palestinians didn't try to drive 1 million Jews into the sea starting in 1929 under the leadership of the islamonazi Grand Mufti ?
> ...







Hardly an unbiased source is it being from an islamonazi source and started on Lies and ends on Lies with Lies in the middle.

 As your cut and paste says  the arab muslims viewed the Jews as chattels and not human beings. After 1400 years of facing  *hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds *is it any wonder they rejoice in their freedom and give back a very small percentage of what they received. And guess what dildo boy the majority of the immigrant Jews came from the surrounding nations, and not from Europe or America. The fact that prior to the capitulation of the Ottomans the arab muslims agreed to receiving 99% of the Ottoman lands for their National Homes and the Jews to receiving 1% for theirs. When push came to shove the arab muslims did their usual trick and tried to renege on the deals struck. But they did not have the military might to take on the LoN so turned on the Jews throughout the Islamic world. This is why from 1920 till 1949 the numbers of Jews in Islamic lands dropped to less than 1% of the population when it was 15% to 20%. Many were never to be seen ever again as the mass murders took place away from western eyes.

 THOSE ARE THE FACTS NOT SOME ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS VIEWS


----------



## Billo_Really (May 15, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Hardly an unbiased source is it being from an islamonazi source and started on Lies and ends on Lies with Lies in the middle.
> 
> As your cut and paste says  the arab muslims viewed the Jews as chattels and not human beings. After 1400 years of facing  *hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds *is it any wonder they rejoice in their freedom and give back a very small percentage of what they received. And guess what dildo boy the majority of the immigrant Jews came from the surrounding nations, and not from Europe or America. The fact that prior to the capitulation of the Ottomans the arab muslims agreed to receiving 99% of the Ottoman lands for their National Homes and the Jews to receiving 1% for theirs. When push came to shove the arab muslims did their usual trick and tried to renege on the deals struck. But they did not have the military might to take on the LoN so turned on the Jews throughout the Islamic world. This is why from 1920 till 1949 the numbers of Jews in Islamic lands dropped to less than 1% of the population when it was 15% to 20%. Many were never to be seen ever again as the mass murders took place away from western eyes.
> 
> THOSE ARE THE FACTS NOT SOME ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS VIEWS


Little bitchy troll, spewing his little bitchy troll shit, that he's probably being paid to spew.

The only thing you know about "facts", is that you don't have any.

I posted a direct quote from a famous Zionist humanist, who stated the Zionists that migrated into the area, treated the Arabs like garbage, bragged about this treatment and did it without being provoked.

If someone moved into your neighborhood and started treating you that way, you would do the same thing the Arabs did.


BTW, I got the quote from the official UN website, so shove that up your extremely biased ass, you worthless piece of shit!


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 NO before the creation of Israel as far back as 1929. That is when the muslims started the attacks on the Jews to drive them into the sea, and many arab muslims from other nations joined in the attacks. This led to mass murders of Jews and expulsions by the arab muslim nations that attacked Israel starting in 1947.    So yes tit for tat against islamonazi genocides and ethnic cleansings of Jews.    Look at the demographica of the Jews in the arab muslim armies nations from 1920 to the present day for the proof


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Hardly an unbiased source is it being from an islamonazi source and started on Lies and ends on Lies with Lies in the middle.
> ...






 I have more facts about Palestine in my nail clippings than you have in your entire body.

 Does not alter the fact that it is based on LIES and islamonazi PROPAGANDA does it

 Did you indeed and so he out of 12 million Jews is the only one that is right, and all the others are wrong

 Depends on if I was treating them that way before they got balls, or don't you see the prior 1400 years of islamonazi abuse, violence and barbarity to be of influence ?

 Rattled your cage again dildo as you resort to foul mouthed abuse and infantile name calling


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> _"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. *We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country.* The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and *the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly *..."_
> - *Theodor Herzl
> 
> *
> ...






 No by legal means that left them no worse of than when they migrated illegally into Palestine. What would you do if Mexican illegal immigrants took your job from you and undercut you on wages. Then turned round and said they were going to take your lands and property. I would do exactly what the British workers are doing now over foreign workers taking the Jobs in the UK, fight back legally


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > The people who immigrated to the region were not combatants you idiot.
> ...







 The violence started the day mohammed invented islam and continued to today.   And that is another proven fact.

 Look up the Pact of Omar  and Dhimmi laws to see just how non muslims were treated in Islamic lands. Special note should be taken of the way non muslims were beaten and abused even when they were paying the protection money


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Read my post again. Before the Arab Israeli war BTW, many Palestinians FLED, not all were expelled.
> ...







 Then explain the 6 million Jews in Europe forcibly moved to the death camps by the likes of you. Threaten a person with violence and they do as they are told, rape the females first and they become like sheep. If the US military started to cleanse certain areas of certain people and used brutal means the message would be sent out to give it to their demands and move


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...





 Yes the arab muslim invaders said they could not protect them against the arab armies and it would be best if they left for a couple of weeks till they had wiped out the Jews. 67 years later they are still in the refugee camps, now why is that when every war since has seen the refugees absorbed into other countries ?


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > Billo_Really said:
> ...







 In what way didn't they match the definition of immigrants then ?


----------



## Daniyel (May 15, 2015)

I'm getting sick of this thread so let's head back to the subject shall we?
The Question: Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves? 
The Answer: Yes.
It does imply a constructive question - Did anyone revoked or questioned the Palestinians right to defend themselves?
The Answer: No.


----------



## toastman (May 15, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> _"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. *We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country.* The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and *the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly *..."_
> - *Theodor Herzl
> 
> *
> ...




Only in your demented mind. What started the war was massacres of Jews. They started BEFORE any violence took place.


----------



## montelatici (May 15, 2015)

The conflict started when Europeans traveled to Palestine with the intention of settling there, evicting the local populace and creating a state of their own, at the expense of the local populace.  The Europeans initiated the violence by killing local people as recorded in Ottoman legal archives.  

"As in so many incidents that enfolded in the early years of Zionism, often researchers have only had access to the version of events written by the Jewish side. At times, one could find another narrative – the official account of events as recorded by the local Ottoman administration. Still, a new document referring to the Zarnuka incident was discovered recently by researcher Yuval Ben Bassat, in the Istanbul Archives, a petition written to Sultan Mehmet V by heads of families in the area.

The petitioners present themselves as, "We, the residents of villages neighboring with the Jewish colonies of Daran [Rehovot] and Lun Kara (Rishon Leztion)," and complain that the Jews "wanted to strip the camel owner of their clothes, money and camels, but these men refused to give their camels and escaped from Lun Kara with their camels, protecting each other [to seek refuge with] men of the law… *The above mentioned Jews attacked our villages, robbed and looted our property, killed* and even damaged the family honor, all this in a manner we find hard to put in words."

The villagers continue to voice their grievances about the Jewish attitude, the amassing of forbidden arms in the Jewish colonies, and even of bribery:* "By payments they do whatever they want, as if they have a small government of their own in the country*."

New documents reveal early Palestinian attitudes toward Zionist settlements - Israel News Haaretz


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The conflict started when Europeans traveled to Palestine with the intention of settling there, evicting the local populace and creating a state of their own, at the expense of the local populace.  The Europeans initiated the violence by killing local people as recorded in Ottoman legal archives.
> 
> "As in so many incidents that enfolded in the early years of Zionism, often researchers have only had access to the version of events written by the Jewish side. At times, one could find another narrative – the official account of events as recorded by the local Ottoman administration. Still, a new document referring to the Zarnuka incident was discovered recently by researcher Yuval Ben Bassat, in the Istanbul Archives, a petition written to Sultan Mehmet V by heads of families in the area.
> 
> ...








 What is the source for this link then fred, lets see if you can be honest at least once


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 15, 2015)

montelatici said:


> The conflict started when Europeans traveled to Palestine with the intention of settling there, evicting the local populace and creating a state of their own, at the expense of the local populace.  The Europeans initiated the violence by killing local people as recorded in Ottoman legal archives.
> 
> "As in so many incidents that enfolded in the early years of Zionism, often researchers have only had access to the version of events written by the Jewish side. At times, one could find another narrative – the official account of events as recorded by the local Ottoman administration. Still, a new document referring to the Zarnuka incident was discovered recently by researcher Yuval Ben Bassat, in the Istanbul Archives, a petition written to Sultan Mehmet V by heads of families in the area.
> 
> ...


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > The conflict started when Europeans traveled to Palestine with the intention of settling there, evicting the local populace and creating a state of their own, at the expense of the local populace.  The Europeans initiated the violence by killing local people as recorded in Ottoman legal archives.
> ...







 A pity that Britain had no policies due to the mandate for Palestine telling them what to do. I have lost count of the number of times you have had this explained to you and still you post crap about what Britain did to the arab muslims.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 15, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


You assume that I am unaware of the facts.

The fact is that it was a big British clusterfuck.


----------



## montelatici (May 15, 2015)

Phoney is delusional UKIP voter.  He has never presented one single fact, he is a parrot that repeats propaganda.


----------



## Phoenall (May 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 How so when it was out of Britains hands and control from 1923, and in the hands and control of the LoN.


----------



## Phoenall (May 16, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoney is delusional UKIP voter.  He has never presented one single fact, he is a parrot that repeats propaganda.








 Wrong again fred the squealer as I keep presenting facts from your very own links that destroy your POV. You just spam the board with the same old dozen links that prove you wrong in the end


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Britain still supports the Zionist project and there is  no requirement to do so.


----------



## Phoenall (May 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 What Zionist project, and a link from a non partisan source to prove it.


----------



## montelatici (May 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoney is delusional UKIP voter.  He has never presented one single fact, he is a parrot that repeats propaganda.
> ...



You never present facts.  You are the forum's trolling clown.


----------



## boedicca (May 16, 2015)

It's a pretty safe bet that most of the Progs who argue for Palestinians' rights to defend themselves are against the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## montelatici (May 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



The one Herzl talked about at the first Zionist convention.

*“Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word…it would be this: ‘At Basel, I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today[1897] I would be answered by universal laughter. If not in 5 years, then certainly in 50. Everyone will know it’ “.*Theodor Herzl Diaries 1897.


----------



## Phoenall (May 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...






So when I use your own links that contain facts to show you manipulate and cherry pick it is trolling.   I have seen some barrel scraping but this is the best ever.


----------



## Phoenall (May 17, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 And I wonder who will claim to have created the states of Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon ?

 Now where is the Zionist project that you spout all the time


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Do you mean those other countries where the natives were not expelled?


----------



## Phoenall (May 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...





 Not that long ago the natives were expelled or mass murdered by the arab muslims on their quest of world domination. So NO those other nations that were created out of the same mandates as Israel was, so why is it only Israel that draws so much hatred when they have a lot better human rights system than the islamonazi nations.


----------



## montelatici (May 18, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



You never present facts.


----------



## Phoenall (May 19, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...








 Only in your fantasy world fred, but the truth is your links are read and then used to show you are cherry picking only the parts that meet with your POV.

 NOW THAT IS A FACT THAT YOU CANT DENY


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

Jew hatred is large here in the USMB


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 20, 2015)

"The Zionists were conducting an aggressive campaign with the object of securing by force a country which was not theirs by birthright. Thus there was self-defence on one side and, on the other, aggression. The raison d'être of the United Nations was to assist self-defence against aggression ...

 "The struggle of the Arabs of Palestine against Zionism had nothing in common with anti-Semitism. The Arab world had been one of the rare havens of refuge for the Jews until the atmosphere of neighbourliness had been poisoned by the Balfour Declaration and by the aggressive spirit which the latter had engendered in the Jewish community ...

 "The solution lay in the Charter of the United Nations, in accordance with which the Arabs of Palestine, who constituted the majority were entitled to a free and independent State ... - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part II 1947-1977 30 June 1979


----------



## thanatos144 (May 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> "The Zionists were conducting an aggressive campaign with the object of securing by force a country which was not theirs by birthright. Thus there was self-defence on one side and, on the other, aggression. The raison d'être of the United Nations was to assist self-defence against aggression ...
> 
> "The struggle of the Arabs of Palestine against Zionism had nothing in common with anti-Semitism. The Arab world had been one of the rare havens of refuge for the Jews until the atmosphere of neighbourliness had been poisoned by the Balfour Declaration and by the aggressive spirit which the latter had engendered in the Jewish community ...
> 
> "The solution lay in the Charter of the United Nations, in accordance with which the Arabs of Palestine, who constituted the majority were entitled to a free and independent State ... - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part II 1947-1977 30 June 1979


Bla Bla Bla hate Jews bla bla bla Evil Jews bla bla bla Poor terroists who kill babies in thier cribs bla bla bla bla dirty Jews bla bla bla 

That is all we ever hear from haters like you.


----------



## Humanity (May 20, 2015)

thanatos144 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > "The Zionists were conducting an aggressive campaign with the object of securing by force a country which was not theirs by birthright. Thus there was self-defence on one side and, on the other, aggression. The raison d'être of the United Nations was to assist self-defence against aggression ...
> ...



The truth is a bitch ain't it!


----------



## Humanity (May 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



You are the biggest troll here Phoney... Know why?

You NEVER present any links to substantiate your insane rambling!

That amigo, is Trolling!


----------



## Phoenall (May 20, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> "The Zionists were conducting an aggressive campaign with the object of securing by force a country which was not theirs by birthright. Thus there was self-defence on one side and, on the other, aggression. The raison d'être of the United Nations was to assist self-defence against aggression ...
> 
> "The struggle of the Arabs of Palestine against Zionism had nothing in common with anti-Semitism. The Arab world had been one of the rare havens of refuge for the Jews until the atmosphere of neighbourliness had been poisoned by the Balfour Declaration and by the aggressive spirit which the latter had engendered in the Jewish community ...
> 
> "The solution lay in the Charter of the United Nations, in accordance with which the Arabs of Palestine, who constituted the majority were entitled to a free and independent State ... - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part II 1947-1977 30 June 1979







 A very biased source that has been slated by Human Rights lawyers because it promotes ANTI -ISRAELI propaganda

United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Phoenall (May 20, 2015)

Humanity said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 The truth is you are defending islamonazi terrorism in the hope it finishes what you started all those years ago.


----------



## Phoenall (May 20, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







 That is just your opinion that is worth the same as a muslims word and bond.   I gave links and you ignored or denied them, now you no longer get any links because you are not worth my time.


----------



## Humanity (May 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


The truth is you are defending zionazi terrorism in the hope it finishes what you started all those years ago.


----------



## Humanity (May 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


----------



## Phoenall (May 20, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...







 And again with the oxymoron, meaning you must be an islamomoron for trying to combine Zionist and Nazi which are polar opposites. All that Zionism started was the birth of the Jewish national home in Palestine the historic birthplace of Judaism. Then the right to defend their national home from attack by what ever means is required.  What is your problem with that, or do you see Zionism through islamonazi  eyes and place the islamonazi violence on the heads of the Jews


----------



## montelatici (May 20, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


----------



## Humanity (May 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


 What is it that I started Phoney?


----------



## Phoenall (May 21, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...






 Why the genocide of the Jews, that you still support and defend today


----------



## Humanity (May 21, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Humanity said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Want to show me ONE single post where I support the "genocide of the Jews"...


----------



## thanatos144 (May 21, 2015)

Humanity said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Why would it be a bitch that you are a Jew hating scumbag?


----------



## thanatos144 (May 21, 2015)

Humanity said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Humanity said:
> ...


Nazi kill Jews you fucking retard.


----------



## Coyote (May 21, 2015)

*Back on topic please.*


----------

